Bill Clinton’s Image Takes A Triple Hit in New Book Game Change
Jan 10th, 2010 | 25 responses
The upcoming book Game Change reportedly contains three revelations that will further soil the reputation of former President Bill Clinton, whose reputation took a big hit during his wife Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign against Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.
Since Obama’s election, the unsinkable Bill Clinton has regained much of his former stature among Democrats in general and is still highly popular in public and corporate appearances here and around the globe. But as further proof that what is once secret will come out eventually, three new revelations will be tidbits likely sited by future historians:
1. The book contends Clinton had a long-term affair and that Hillary Clinton’s campaign worked to keep a lid on it.
Bill Clinton was involved in a long-term affair, and Hillary’s campaign set up a “war room within a war room” to deal with the feared disclosure and all problems related to Bill’s “libido.” The book doesn’t identify the woman.
2. The book reportedly answers a long-standing mystery: why did the late Sen. Teddy Kennedy turn so totally on Bill Clinton? The answer: because Clinton made a comment less PC than Harry Reid’s about Obama:
Why Sen. Kennedy was offended about his conversation with Bill Clinton (page 218):
“Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
3. Hillary Clinton almost declined accepting the Secretary of State post due to her husband and his ire towards Obama:
When Barack Obama asked Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his secretary of state, the former first lady reluctantly confessed she had a big problem taking the job — her headline-grabbing hubby, the authors of a new book on the 2008 presidential campaign claim.
Clinton at first rejected Obama’s offer flat-out without explanation, but when the then-president-elect called a second time, she admitted her dilemma, one of the book’s authors tells “60 Minutes” tomorrow night.
“At that point she says, ‘There’s one last thing that’s a problem, which is my husband. You’ve seen what this is like. It will be a circus if I take this job,’ ” John Heilemann,who co-wrote “Game Change” (HarperCollins) with Mark Halperin, tells the CBS show.
Obama — who reportedly nixed offering Sen. Clinton the vice presidency because he, too, had reservations about Bill Clinton — insisted he needed her on his team. “Obama comes back and shows vulnerability to her. He says to her, ‘Given the economic crisis, given all I have to deal with, I need your help,’ ” Halerpin, who writes for Time magazine, tells “60 Minutes.”
The book has other revelations which will make it a must read (yours truly will order it from Amazon as soon as this is posted): reportedly about the warring John and Elizabeth Edwards’, tensions between Obama and his Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, more info on Sarah Palin’s uneasy relationship with the McCain campaign…and more.
Marc Ambinder has an advance copy and has read it and his comment makes it almost required reading:
Political scientists aren’t going to like this book, because it portrays politics as it is actually lived by the candidates, their staff and the press, which is to say — a messy, sweaty, ugly, arduous competition between flawed human beings — a universe away from numbers and probabilities and theories.
25 Responses to “Bill Clinton’s Image Takes A Triple Hit in New Book Game Change”
Oh so it's the old make hay out of the Clintons again eh? Why not beat up on Jimmy Carter too? Too far back?
OK, if we were playing chess and this is the whisper of the 2010 GOP strategy, then a counter-move for the Dems would be to try Cheney and co for war crimes.
Your move…[sets timer]
Let me first say that I never voted for Clinton…that being said
Bill Clinton had a long term affair?? nnnooooo…what a shocker. I would have never thought.
” Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
Hmm…I know how much we want to think he meant that because Obama is black…he would be getting them tea., but that isn't what I read. Obama was no one…couldn't even win a congressional seat. He was new to Washington. He was basically a no one a few years before Clinton said what he said.
Hmm…Clinton was mad at Obama after Hillary's campaign loss…not a shocker. Clinton had a gruge still…not a shocker.
I don't find any of this surprising…but hey, you got me to read it
This isn't a case of a blog or blogpost. This is a case of journalists reporting behind the scenes happenings during campaign 2008. Journalists don't rub their hands with glee that they're going to beat up on someone. They look for things to report that will get them on the front page, at the top of a newscast or if they're doing a book fresh reporting that will get noticed so they can sell the books. If this happened — and these are not fly by night writers — then it gives us a better picture of what was behind the facades of the campaign. During campaigns handlers of all candidates or politicos work hard to let the public see what they want them to see. This pulls back the curtain. Also, the book isn't being published by some liberal or conservative ideological book publishing company. So I think particularly in these days with a highly politicized blogosphere it is useful to separate reportage from typical blog posts.
Why not beat up on Jimmy Carter too? Too far back?”
I believe they are. Comparing O to C in a negative way.
Next up, TR?
I don't need to know the specifics of why one campaign tells this lie and the other tells a different lie. They all lie. What i find important are the people that catch the lies before the public calls it truth. I love nonfiction. Love books about recent history, but I find the whole campaign process filthy.
I'll look forward to the hbo special.
I'm still wondering what the future is for Hillary Clinton. Not so much, her husband any longer.
I'm also wondering about Obama's future. As I wrote elsewhere, I've wondered if he might want to go from the Presidency in 2012 to the Dem Party leadership. It's not elected office, but very powerful. Where would he go after the Presidency (aside from seeking re-election in 2012 or in 2016 or 2020)?
I believe the Clintons' marriage has been a farce for years. By now, it's probably a dead issue. In the end, only they will decide if and when to end it formally and publicly (the key).
Doesn't Clinton's coffee wisecrack refer to Obama only having been in the Senate for a few years?
yup.
Who cares! I still like Bill. Anything to make a buck I guess.
I’m not going to read this gossip crap.
The republicans cannot dispute Bill Clinton’s outstanding performance, so the republicans resort to character attacks. They do the same with Presidents John F Kennedy, Harry S Truman, and, Franklin D Roosevelt. Nothing could be more irrelevant now. The republicans have no accomplishments to brag about so they attack with desperate irrelevance.
“The republicans cannot dispute Bill Clinton’s outstanding performance, so the republicans resort to character attacks.”
Why are you always so partisan, FT?
The DNC did more to make Clinton look bad (during the Obama campaign) than the GOP ever dreamed of doing. Yes, Clinton had some salad days during his administration. Of course, having a defense budget that was nearly half of his predecessor's helped that a bit, but set us up for shortages later on during this present war. That all started with GW Bush, so there's plenty of blame to go around.
The simple truth is that neither party is trustworthy. The better of two evils ain't going to be good enough much longer. The dems and repubs share equally in their deceit and corruption.
And then there's that best budget in American history thing too under Clinton.
Not like we could use expertise like that now or anything..
We tend to over worship celebrities, politicians and athletes in this country. It gives us role models to emulate. In reality, they are all just humans– messy and flawed. Bill Clinton is a perfect example of a good president who was/is a very flawed human being. Just like Ted Kennedy was.
I'd rather have competence in the WH over moral superiority any day. Clinton was competent and smart and chose smart people to serve under him. We had 8 years of peace and prosperity and he left us with a balanced budget, reduced welfare rolls and a comfortable surplus. What do I care about who he had a long-term affair with?
Ass usual, you are absolutely full of crap.
The REASON why I am partisan is because the republican party IS partisan, (the meaning of “is“ being paramount here). In fact, they have become the MOST OBSTRUCTIVE and non-cooperative political party in American history. Elected by our people to do something, they do nothing. The “do nothing” party should be their official credo. Fits well with the “Mugwump and Know Nothing” parties they were derived from. They never should have existed to begin with.
The republican party is a detriment to the United states and will most probably become the destruction of the United States.
“And then there's that best budget in American history thing too under Clinton.
Not like we could use expertise like that now or anything..”
Now THAT is a good Clinton statement. He did do better within the budgeting that either President after him. But you have to give a good measure of credit to the Congress for that as well. The deficit was reduced to a great extent with a Republican Congress.
As I've always said. The nation does better with GOP congress and Democratic President historically. At least in the economy.
“The REASON why I am partisan is because the republican party IS partisan, (the meaning of “is“ being paramount here). In fact, they have become the MOST OBSTRUCTIVE and non-cooperative political party in American history.”
That may be true, FT. I'm making no excuses for them. I agree that they SUCK.
My point is that the DNC is just as corrupt. They USED to be the party of the common man, where the GOP was the party of the corporation. NOW, the DNC is the party of the left wing nut, and corporatism that benefits left-thinking policy.
Neither party works for the common man. That's why a shake-up is in order.
The night Clinton won the Presidency for the first time (Never have I referred to him as President.) I remember having a martini glass in my hand and not having any idea what I was doing, I snapped the stem from the glass. Then I barked at my wife that this was going to be long 4——- years! The best way I can describe Clinton is that he is nothing but a fool. His wife is deserving of the respect she has earned and I probably would have voted for her if she had become the democratic candidate. As for the fool I just wish he would shut his mouth and his zipper and show a little respect to his wife, family and country for once is his pathetic life. I can't stand the ASSHOLE!
yes i think it does. it doesnt sound racist to me at all.
i couldnt have said it better myself. i still love bill.
i accidentally clicked i liked this, I DONT. tell me whats worse, bill Clinton scr*wing an intern, or Bush screwing the country?
no wonder your name is morenutty. those were the best 8 years this country had in a very long time. you need to show him some respect and call him president, because thats what your fellow americans voted for. im just glad we had 8 great years under him. no one ive seen comes close to his leadership.
Did I say something against Bill Clinton? I said he did a good job economically. His screwing an intern ( a concrete abuse of power ) was wrong, and he should have admitted it, instead of lying under oath. I was told that purgery was a felony. Bush “screwing the country” is an abstract statement.
It's easy to make a statement like that with no concrete items – it's called hit-n-run political statements.
You didn't like GW Bush. I get it. I'm not a fan either. But the man was not completely evil like you and others suggest. He did many good things for this nation and kept us pretty safe after 9/11. Bill Clinton did many good things as well. As will Barack Obama. Being a conservative democrat, I try to find good points in all of them. My point above was that the parties are both corrupt as institutions.
Just for the record, I would have been happier if they had done nothing while they were in power.
First of all I would like to apologize for “ass usual” the extra “s” was not intended, it was a mistake that I just noticed.
However, I do not believe that the DNC is “just as corrupt“. This is just another tactic of informal fallacies used to shift debates away from truth. That is why I believe that you are full of crap as usual. Unfortunately for you, YOU are just not that good of a propagandist to convince anybody.
If I believed that the DNC was “just as corrupt” I wouldn’t promote them and indeed wouldn’t be one of them. Unlike the dishonest position you take that, “you are a Democrat”, while arguing every republican point that you can. What….you think these people here on this blog are dummies?? I admit some are sandbagging back their smarts but you better not believe that you can get away subtle little dishonesties with these folks.