Hillary Rodham Clinton

Temps for the vast right-wing conspiracy

Richard Mellon Scaife and other leaders in the effort to bring down President Clinton were driven by ideology. Meet Larry Nichols and Larry Case, who were in it for the money.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Temps for the vast right-wing conspiracy

Although the campaign to scandalize and destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton involved politicians at the highest levels of the Republican Party, it also attracted freelance operatives whose motives were more pecuniary than ideological. During the 1992 election campaign, two of the most energetic of those in pursuit of scandalous allegations was a pair of raffish Arkansans named Larry Nichols and Larry Case.

A disgruntled former state employee fired at then-Governor Clinton’s behest after he got caught using a toll-free state phone to solicit funds for the Nicaraguan Contras, Nichols played a key role in bringing Gennifer Flowers’ allegations of her alleged 12-year affair with Clinton to The Star tabloid newspaper. (A musician and composer of ad jingles, Nichols shared the same talent agent with Flowers.) He later went on to national fame as the narrator and star of “The Clinton Chronicles,” a Jerry Falwell-sponsored videotape which alleged that the president was involved in drug-smuggling, money-laundering and murder.

Case was a colorful Little Rock private eye with a flair for searching out the sexual secrets of public figures.

Forming a sometimes uneasy partnership during the summer of 1992, Case and Nichols hooked up with several tabloid newspapers and television programs that promised to pay them top dollar for scandalous revelations about the Clintons. The team also formed mutually beneficial friendships with several reporters from the establishment press who were camped out in Arkansas that summer seeking information about the Clinton’s sex lives.

As was his custom, Larry Case tape-recorded virtually all of his telephone conversations with Nichols and his newfound media friends, which is perfectly legal in Arkansas. For reasons best known to himself, he turned those tapes over to the authors.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
-

Not long after Larry Nichols told reporters about the enormous sums the tabloids were prepared to pay for smut about Bill Clinton, he took on an informal partner to help him earn his share. Nichols’s new associate was Larry Case, the Little Rock private detective with a reputation for digging dirt on local public figures. The big, bearded Case was an inveterate gossip with a gleefully dim view of human nature; he operated on the assumption that everybody was guilty until proven innocent. He liked heavy-caliber handguns and microcassette tape recorders.

Between them, Nichols and Case quickly established ongoing relationships with the Star, the National Enquirer, and the TV programs “Hard Copy” and “A Current Affair.” Through Nichols’s extensive connections with Sheffield Nelson and the Arkansas Republican Party, the pair also formed jolly, mutually beneficial ties with reporters and producers from the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Cable News Network, and other mainstream outlets. What few of his sophisticated new friends ever surmised was that Case habitually recorded his telephone calls, and often went around wearing a wire. This is perfectly legal in Arkansas. At times, he can be heard on tape assuring people he’s not taping them, when in fact he is. (Following a later dispute with Nichols, whom he derided as a liar, a fraud, and a cheat, Case decided to share his tapes with the authors.)

Case and Nichols hoped to get rich by derailing the Clinton campaign, a quest they began in early 1992 with great confidence. In Arkansas, private detectives are licensed and regulated by a division of the state police. Case had cultivated a few friendly troopers who slipped him copies of investigative materials, including surveillance videos from the 1985 drug case against Roger Clinton, the governor’s younger brother. Those tapes became a featured part of his inventory. Typically, Case’s potential customers from Washington and New York didn’t know that portions of those tapes had been broadcast on local television years earlier. For the right price, he bragged, he could produce videotapes that showed Bill Clinton himself sitting next to a bowl of cocaine at a party thrown by a flamboyant Little Rock financier named Dan Lasater. Due partly to evidence provided by Roger Clinton, Lasater had also gone to prison for possessing cocaine and giving the drug away to his friends. Case’s idea of this tape’s market value was more than a million dollars.

He and Nichols soon found themselves occupied full-time, frantically interviewing women of all ages and descriptions who were willing to accuse Clinton of sexual impropriety. With Case’s tape recorder silently running, the pair regaled each other with bawdy imaginings about everything from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s alleged frigidity to what would later be called the “distinguishing characteristics” of her husband’s genitalia. When Betsey Wright talked to the Washington Post about suppressing “bimbo eruptions,” she was thinking primarily of Case and Nichols.

The Case-Nichols conversations are reminiscent of “the Duke and the Dauphin,” those itinerant hucksters in Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” who flimflam Arkansas yokels with vulgar tent shows. In 1992, however, it was the Arkansas yokels who tried to con the big-city sophisticates. As the campaign heated up, several reporters cultivated Nichols and Case for leads, but their most oddly symbiotic relationship was with William Rempel of the Los Angeles Times. Betsey Wright sensed that the California reporter “had an obsession and a mission to destroy Bill Clinton, and had the resources of a big organization behind him. I had never known that there were reporters whose full-time mission in life was destroying people.”

As he told Case and others, Rempel felt he was merely doing his job, that the public had a right to know whether a presidential candidate had a secret life. In that pursuit he seemed perfectly comfortable exchanging tips with a private detective trying to dig up scurrilous information for personal profit. (A regretful Rempel later said Case had dishonestly “duped” him into sharing information about allegations against Clinton. “I can say absolutely that nothing he told me in the weeks and months leading up to the 1992 election, nor in the months and years since, has ever influenced, informed or otherwise contributed to a single syllable of type in the Los Angeles Times,” he added. “I must confess to wasting a fair amount of valuable time [talking to the Little Rock detective].”) Acting on tips from Rempel, with whom he recorded scores of long, rambling conversations, Case spent a great deal of time and energy trying to persuade a thirty-eight-year-old Oklahoma woman to go public with her tale of an extended affair with Bill Clinton in the mid-1980s. As narrated to Case on the telephone, the story was improbable: Over a two-year period, the governor and his entourage of troopers slipped out of Little Rock forty to fifty times to meet her in a downtown Oklahoma City motel roughly four hundred miles from Little Rock, then nipped back without arousing undue curiosity. (State law requires the governor to notify the lieutenant governor whenever he leaves Arkansas.) How Clinton managed all this, Case never thought to wonder, possibly because the woman did mention a name familiar to him: Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson.

According to the woman, who identified herself to Case as Michelle Purdom, Clinton used the alias “Bill Wilcox”; she’d thought her secretive lover might be in the Mob. Lately, she said, both the National Enquirer and the Los Angeles Times had been pestering her to go public with her charges. Both newspapers had been tipped off by a disgruntled former employee of a certain Louwanda Faye Mason, who was some relation to Michelle. Louwanda had since moved to Southern California.

But the disgruntled former employee-whose identity Case failed to weasel out of Rempel-identified not Michelle but Louwanda herself as Clinton’s Oklahoma paramour. He was also said to have described a photograph of the nude or partially nude candidate, sufficiently revealing to give a clear view of those “distinguishing characteristics.” Case desperately wanted to put his hands on this valuable item. But first he needed to get the cast of characters straight. Posing as a journalist, he phoned Michelle in April 1992, pretending to have seen a copy of the infamous photo.

“There’s a lot of question about who the hell everybody is,” Case told her. “Everybody thinks that Louwanda is you. Everybody thinks Louwanda is the one that was involved with Bill Clinton.”

“That’s not true. I’m not Louwanda, Louwanda’s not me. She’s a separate person,” Michelle insisted. “As far as I know, she never saw him. I don’t know how she ever could have. Him and I had a personal relationship. I didn’t just have sex with him just for nothing. I cared about him. He cared about me. We had a personal relationship. I wasn’t just a sex bunny to him…. I think he makes personal relationships with the people he sleeps with.”

“Everybody thinks that everybody’s somebody else.” Case was becoming frustrated.

“That’s just not true. Louwanda had nothing to do with this. Believe me. I don’t like Louwanda,” she said. “I wouldn’t do anything to cover for her.”

“Then why did she call you when I contacted her?” he asked.

Michelle launched into a complicated explanation, which boiled down to gossip from a third relative. When a Los Angeles Times reporter had presented himself at Louwanda’s door, “she knew it was me,” Michelle insisted. “Louwanda shut the door in the L.A. Times guy’s face. But he came back again. And she told me, ‘This is not gonna work, you’re gonna have to talk with this guy.’ Then he called me, and it’s gone on from there.”

Meanwhile the Enquirer, she told Case, had offered her $75,000 for her tale, and twice that if she could somehow corroborate her claims. “He’s not gonna give me $150,000,” she said, “if I can’t prove it was me…. But see, if there is no proof, I don’t want to talk for $500,000. Because one, I don’t want to get on TV and be called a liar and be shredded apart. But if somebody has proof….”

“I have seen it,” Case fibbed. “But nobody seems to know who anybody is. Everybody’s talked to a different Louwanda.”

“But see, her and I kind of look alike,” Michelle insisted. “We both have an oval kind of face. We both have large lips. We both have a small, puggy-type nose. We both have blondish-colored hair. We’re both a little chesty. We’re both short, about five-two, five-three.”

“Is there anybody who remembers you?”

“Larry Patterson would. Does he still work for him? But he wouldn’t say nothing.”

“What name would he remember?” Case asked.

“I don’t know,” she admitted. “It wouldn’t have been Michelle Purdom. It could have been Suzanne James. It could have been Michelle James…. See, I have some blockages in my mind. Some things I just don’t remember real clear. It could have been that name, I don’t know.”

Michelle not only couldn’t remember her own name, but at some points she said ledgers could exist that show a “Bill C.” paying $30,000 for her services; at other times she insisted that theirs was an affair of the heart, and that while her famous paramour bought her little presents, money never changed hands. She did affirm, however, that as Gennifer Flowers had already told the world, the candidate was very good in bed. Although she claimed that Clinton had eventually revealed his identity, she hadn’t realized he was married until she saw Hillary on TV. That upset her greatly, as she had a firm policy against dating married men. She wanted to know more about the mythical snapshot. “Was it a small woman or a large woman?”

“It was a busty woman,” Case chortled.

“I’d like to see if it was me,” she said. “Couldn’t you get a driver’s license picture flashed up on the screen? I’m very unphotogenic. I kind of look like a Barbra Streisand and a Goldie Hawn and a Suzanne Somers. I don’t have Barbra’s nose, but I do have her mouth, I have Suzanne Somers’ facial shape, and Goldie Hawn’s nose. You think of her when you look at me sometimes.”

That was as close as Case ever got to the elusive photo. When Case tracked Louwanda down in California, she insisted that she’d never met Bill Clinton, never met anybody who said he or she knew Bill Clinton; indeed, she had never heard of the candidate until she’d seen him on TV. Louwanda also hinted that Michelle had what she called “problems” that might account for the inconsistencies in her story.

Several months later, Case and his fellow investigators learned the nature of Michelle’s “problems.” On July 25, 1992, Michael Isikoff wrote an article for the Washington Post detailing the Clinton campaign’s success in quelling “bimbo eruptions.” In it, he quoted Case saying he had been paid $500,000 — a huge exaggeration — by “three separate news organizations” to investigate Clinton’s sexual behavior. Isikoff also chronicled the work of San Francisco private investigator Jack Palladino on behalf of the Clinton campaign. According to Betsey Wright there had been nineteen new allegations from women purporting to be Clinton’s ex-lovers, in addition to seven earlier ones, since the Democratic convention two weeks earlier. “Since the convention, the gold-digger growth is enormous,” Wright told the Post.

She drew a distinction between rival candidate H. Ross Perot’s reported use of private detectives to investigate business and political rivals, and the Clinton campaign’s counterintelligence operation against tabloid journalists and Republican operatives. “I don’t think I’ve used [Palladino] on anything except bimbo eruptions,” Wright claimed, in a phrase that to her chagrin passed instantly into the political lexicon. “We’re trying to do a self-defense thing.” She described the $28,000 paid to Palladino as “legal expenses.”

Isikoff cited as Palladino’s greatest triumph his debunking of Larry Case’s taped interview with “a 38-year-old Oklahoma City woman” who claimed to have had an affair with Clinton. “Shortly after the interview,” he wrote, “Palladino flew to Oklahoma City and took a three-page affidavit from the woman flatly denying the account. The woman said in a recent interview that she told Palladino she had never met Clinton and that she had been ‘tricked’ by Case after she had had surgery to remove a brain tumor. The tumor had caused her to suffer from ‘amnesia’ and a ‘multiple personality disorder,’ accounting for her willingness to agree to Case’s suggestions that she had had an affair with Clinton, the woman said.”

Of all the bad things that had been written and said about Case, nothing irritated him like the notion that he’d badgered a woman into making up a phony story over the telephone. Clearly, he hadn’t. The woman had eagerly volunteered her tale. “They make her look better than me,” he moaned to Rempel, “and hell, she’s the damn nut.” Despite the fact that Isikoff had been spending a good deal of time with Larry Nichols, Case assured Rempel that the Post reporter was “a wiseass, and a big-time Clinton buddy.”

More consequential than detectives or brain surgery in persuading Michelle to abandon her unlikely story, perhaps, was something Isikoff didn’t report: the extensive history of arrests of both Michelle and Louwanda, under several pseudonyms, for prostitution.

Betsey Wright had been dealing with allegations like these for as long as she’d worked for Bill Clinton. Born and raised in Texas, Wright had first met Clinton in 1972, when he worked in Austin for George McGovern’s presidential campaign. After managing his comeback campaign for governor ten years later, Wright remained in Arkansas to serve as both mother hen and political commando. Although it’s been widely reported that she confronted Clinton with a “bimbo list” in 1988, persuading him to forgo a presidential bid, she insists that never happened.

“There was no list,” she said. “I discussed the issue with him. I didn’t see any opening in 1988. I thought it was a long shot. Even in 1992, I didn’t think the race should be run, because of what would happen to Hillary and Chelsea. Listen, the guy represented generational change. He was a baby boomer. He’d been on campuses during the Vietnam War. He did not go to Vietnam. He had been on campuses when birth control pills were first invented, and, quote, free sex, unquote, became a big deal. He had a brother who had gotten in trouble with drugs, and he was on campuses when drugs were used. He was attractive to women. There were a million rumors, and there were lots of people who would be willing to make allegations.

“I just knew that there was no way we were going to make that kind of generational change in this country without a struggle. That was what was going to happen to the first baby boomer who got out there by himself.”

Early on, Wright’s reluctance had kept her out of the 1992 presidential campaign. But as a resident at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government during the early weeks of 1992, she found herself transfixed in the middle of the New Hampshire media market. Then, having tried in vain to alert the campaign to the dangers posed by the likes of Larry Nichols and Gennifer Flowers, she was recruited by campaign lawyer Mickey Kantor on the morning after the crucial primary. Within days, she was back in Little Rock, organizing counterintelligence against Nichols, Case, and their journalistic allies.

Stifling Michelle and Louwanda wasn’t Wright’s only success. Another was Connie Hamzy, aka “Sweet, Sweet Connie,” Little Rock’s most notorious rock groupie. During the seventies, Hamzy had achieved minor national notoriety thanks to a song by a band called Grand Funk Railroad. According to the lyrics, “Sweet sweet Connie was doin’ her act / Had the whole band, and that’s a natural fact.” An inveterate publicity seeker, Hamzy was once the subject of a Cosmopolitan profile marveling at her sexual escapades. (Her interview included evaluations of the penis sizes and copulative skills of various rock stars.) Nothing could keep Hamzy from running to tabloid TV with a tale about Clinton passionately pursuing her, but Wright prevented the story from appearing anywhere else.

It was much the same with Sally Miller Perdue, a fifty-three-year-old former Miss Arkansas. Regarded as kooky and unreliable by most reporters in her hometown of Pine Bluff, Perdue had once kicked off a quixotic campaign for mayor with a press conference strenuously denying that she was a lesbian-a charge nobody present had ever heard. Not long before the Democratic convention, the Clinton campaign learned, Lenora Fulani of the fringe New Alliance Party planned to launch her own presidential candidacy in a joint appearance with Perdue, who would detail what she claimed had been her own passionate love affair with Bill Clinton. The New Alliance Party was a strange, quasi-Marxist group based on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, whose members were mostly psychotherapy patients of the party’s leaders. (Eventually it dissolved into another group that was simultaneously allied to Louis Farrakhan and H. Ross Perot.) Behind the scenes, Nichols and Case had helped broker the deal between Perdue and the eccentric New York activists. In their phone conversations, the two Arkansans had a derisive nickname for the New Alliance Party: “the Snake Doctors.”

Clinton denied ever having met Sally Perdue. Assisted by Wright, the Palladino firm lined up several relatives and former associates who agreed to talk to reporters about the woman’s eccentricities. The tactic succeeded. Although Perdue made an appearance on the nationally syndicated Sally Jessy Raphael TV program, no major news organization gave credence to her account.

The National Enquirer, of all papers, derided Perdue’s tale under the headline “WEIRD CULT OUT TO DESTROY CLINTON.”
Betsey Wright’s success in stifling Clinton sex stories drove Case and Nichols crazy. Having been in close contact with an Enquirer reporter named David Duffy for several months, the pair could not understand the tabloid’s motives for debunking Sally Perdue. “Tell me this world ain’t upside-fucking-down,” Nichols growled. “I’m still trying to fathom why Duffy put an unfucking story in the Enquirer.”

“I know why he did it,” Case said hopefully. “To shake some fucking people out of the bushes that know about the affair.”

Nichols suspected darker motives. “What I think, and I talked to [Bill] Rempel and he agreed. I told him if you want to see the unstory of the fucking century. I told you Duffy told me he was waiting to get his orders from the top. And I’m gonna guaran-fuckin’-tee you it’s gonna be…”

“A whitewash?” Case guessed.

“Yup.”

“It’s kinda terrible when you have a tabloid running a whitewash.”

A more immediate setback involved the saga of yet another woman, named “Denise,” who claimed that Bill Clinton had beaten her up during a sexual liaison at Little Rock’s Excelsior Hotel. Partly at Case’s insistence, the allegation had been previously investigated by the Pulaski County prosecuting attorney and found to be without foundation. The woman herself had filed no complaint. But Case had in his possession a photocopy of what purported to be a handwritten letter from Clinton to “Denise,” apologizing “for getting rough with you last night,” and signed: “Your friend, Bill.”

Anticipating a big payday, the detective had flown to California at the behest of the tabloid TV program “A Current Affair” and surreptitiously used a hidden camera to videotape an interview with the woman. The program’s decision not to broadcast his tape — or pay him — was exasperating. Case phoned producer David Lee Miller and accused him of having been bought off by Betsey Wright and Jack Palladino.

“I’ll take it to the fuckin’ FBI myself!” Case shouted. “I will bring this thing to a head. I’m not no wayward, dumb son of a bitch that don’t know how to operate. And if I have to accuse people to get my work done, I’ll do it. I want the truth put out about the fuckin’ tape. I want the truth put out about the fuckin’ letter. I don’t know if the letter’s right. Nobody knows if the letter’s right.”

“If I thought the letter was right, we’d do it,” Miller replied coolly. “Larry, we paid handwriting experts a lot of money to look at the letter, and it came back bogus.”

“Isn’t it a story that somebody’s out there trying to pass bogus letters? Put me on the air. Put Betsey Wright on the air. Ask Clinton to come on. Ask Jack Palladino to come on the air. Ask them all to take a fuckin’ polygraph. If people can’t see through what this man can do because he has the power and money, they’re crazy.”

“We looked at the story in good faith because we thought it might be true,” Miller patiently explained. “We wouldn’t have gotten into it if we didn’t. We spent a lot of time and money, and we talked to a lot of people involved in the case. If the story can be confirmed and corroborated, we will run with the story. But right now it isn’t, and we can’t use it.”

Ordinary news standards, honored in some respects even by tabloid media, confused and upset Case and Nichols. Yet they could sometimes see the humor in their situation: On one tape, Nichols can be heard telling Case about coaching yet another eager informant on how to present her story of a torrid love affair with Clinton to the press. Above all, Nichols laughed, he had warned her to avoid any mention of the “demons” that were haunting her.

Often frustrated by the media, the two Larrys were no more enamored of the Republicans who were feeding rumors to Nichols. He mentioned Sheffield Nelson and Cliff Jackson, a local Republican lawyer whose distaste for Clinton dated back more than twenty years. “God, those guys are sick,” Nichols told Case on the day Isikoff’s story appeared. “Jackson and Nelson. They want to stick it to Clinton so bad they can’t hardly see straight.” In the Post article, Betsey Wright had blamed local Republicans for the bimbo glut. “One of these days,” Nichols chuckled, “I’m just gonna probably give Betsey a kiss, and tell her it is coming from them.”

The tantalizing question of how the prostitute “Michelle” knew the name of Trooper Larry Patterson, a member of Clinton’s security detail, was a mystery Case and Nichols never solved. Case spent hours cultivating acquaintances at Arkansas State Police headquarters who he thought could give him the lowdown on the governor. At one point, Nichols convinced him that Clinton’s bodyguards actually had placed a battery-operated radio transmitter in a vase somewhere inside the governor’s mansion. All Case needed to do, said Nichols, was slip into the building and replace the batteries.

More to the point, Nichols believed that for the right inducement, some of the troopers might be persuaded to expose their employer. “The main ones I’ve been talking to are [Carl] Kirkland and Patterson. I think they’ll talk,” he said.

“One of them can retire,” Case suggested.

“I think it’s Patterson, the white guy,” Nichols said. “He’s obviously in the middle of it, but… I figured him to be like Buddy.” Nichols was referring to Buddy Young, the head of the governor’s security detail. “You know that sumbitch ain’t gonna crack. You know, most policemen are trained liars.”

“They better be, hadn’t they,” opined Case, “dealing in this kind of shit.”

Significantly, Case also had extensive conversations with Bill Rempel about the possibility of “turning” Clinton’s bodyguards. He told the reporter about the hidden bug in the governor’s mansion, and discussed a scheme to slip into the building on some pretext to activate it. Supposedly, the device was located in the bathroom of the Clintons’ living quarters.

“What would it have besides the sounds of the john?” Rempel asked. “Which is certainly not something I’m interested in.”

“You’ve come up with some stuff before that I’m not interested in,” retorted Case, “and that’s the size of somebody’s private parts. And I ain’t figured that shit out yet. I know you ain’t gonna write about that.”

Rempel guffawed. “That’s the kind of information I’m just going to have to keep to myself,” he agreed. “A family newspaper is just not the place for that.”

It was, however, the kind of information Rempel had gone out of his way to obtain. In another of their tape-recorded chats, Case badgered the reporter for information on that very topic. Rempel had told him that an anonymous source claimed to have seen a sexually explicit photograph of Clinton in bed with a woman. If he flew to California and managed to put his hands on the photograph, the detective wanted to know, how would he recognize the real thing?

Rempel replied that Clinton had a large mole “in an area that normally wouldn’t see that light of day…. I have extensive descriptions, as you know.”

“You say you don’t want to use tabloidism,” Case chided, “but this sounds like tabloidism.”

“I’ll gather it. I’ll ask all the questions and get all the information,” the reporter answered. “But what I put in the newspaper will always be less than what I know.”

“…. There’s a face in it?”

“Yeah, there’s no question about it. There’s more than a face,” Rempel laughed. “You know what I mean.”

“You can get somebody’s body,” Case cautioned him. “I may have one on mine. I haven’t looked lately. Haven’t had the opportunity.”

“But there’s a face to go with the mole,” Rempel insisted. “It’s a full-body shot.”

Neither man had ever seen this racy photo; neither ever would. As was his and Nichols’s custom, Case had no compunctions about embroidering information he’d gleaned from Rempel and passing it along to other reporters. Soon after their discussion about this “distinguishing characteristic,” CNN correspondent Art Harris showed curiosity about the same topic. He was reporting a rather damaging profile of Gennifer Flowers to accompany a photo layout in Penthouse.

“Did either of them [Michelle or Louwanda] describe Bill’s equipment,” Harris inquired, “and how big or little it was? Because I know from other sources….”

“I heard his equipment was rather dainty,” Case laughed.

“Yeah, you got it.” Harris laughed, too. “And that he makes up for it with a lot of oral sex.”

“That’s exactly what Michelle says,” Case assured him. “She says that she agrees with everything Gennifer says because that’s exactly how he is. She says that on the tape now!”

In fact, Michelle didn’t say anything about oral sex or Clinton’s penis. But then Harris had explicitly asked Case if he was taping their conversation, and been solemnly assured that he was not.

Not all of Case’s conversations with Rempel were as friendly and jocular as those concerning the candidate’s “equipment.” Rempel was annoyed when he learned that Case and Nichols were passing his information to other reporters. Although Case pressed him repeatedly for the names of his sources, the reporter never relented. When the frustrated detective demanded to know what kind of proof would justify publishing a story about Clinton’s alleged misconduct in Rempel’s newspaper, the reporter categorically refused to tell him. Plainly, he suspected Case and Nichols might manufacture the required evidence.

Meanwhile, the continuing effort by Case and Nichols to persuade Clinton’s state police bodyguards to accuse the governor of sexual misbehavior was also getting nowhere. All they had accomplished was to supply Rempel with the names of several troopers they thought might be amenable to persuasion. For the time being, none was yet willing to risk making public accusations against their boss, who might become president.
As the campaign summer wore on, in fact, it was beginning to look as if Case and Nichols would never make their big score. They had received minimal remuneration, if any, since Nichols’s payment from the Star in January. In early August, however, Case got an exciting phone call from Little Rock lawyer Cliff Jackson.

A Fulbright scholar at Oxford while Clinton was a Rhodes scholar there during the late sixties, Jackson had developed an obsession with what he saw as Clinton’s character flaws. Others speculated that the somewhat dour Jackson had always been jealous of his fellow Arkansan’s seemingly effortless charm, and had resented traveling all the way to England only to find himself in Clinton’s shadow. Back home, Jackson’s own political career had never gotten off the ground. He had run for Pulaski County district attorney some years earlier and done poorly.

During the 1992 campaign, Jackson developed a national reputation in media circles as a principled Clinton opponent who knew his old rival all too well. A member of the fundamentalist Assembly of God church, he held political views that were roughly in accordance with those of the religious right. During the New Hampshire primary, an organization formed by Jackson called the Alliance for the Rebirth of an Independent America had taken out full-page ads in the Manchester Union-Leader and distributed circulars that assailed Clinton as an unpatriotic draft dodger.

Washington Post reporter and Clinton biographer David Maraniss, the author of “First in His Class,” took Jackson’s opinions most seriously-despite the fact that, as his own careful reporting of the draft controversy proved, Jackson’s accounts of his Oxford classmate’s struggles with the Selective Service System were at least as self-serving as Clinton’s.

Jackson had provided Maraniss with several contemporaneous, but not particularly reliable, letters he had written on the subject in 1967. Specifically, in his letters Jackson had exaggerated his own role in assisting the candidate’s efforts to avoid induction. He had also provided an inaccurate chronology obscuring the fact that, partly out of guilt over the Vietnam combat death of a high school friend, Clinton had surrendered his draft deferment two months before drawing a high lottery number in December 1969. For all of Clinton’s efforts to avoid the draft, surrendering his deferment had been unusual back then. (Jackson himself got a medical deferment.)

Now the high-minded Jackson wanted to offer Larry Case something less elevated: a photograph sufficiently explicit to doom Clinton’s candidacy and end his political career. He wouldn’t tell Case who had this picture, but he wanted the detective to broker a lucrative deal.

“Is the photo good?” Case asked. “I mean, is it better than what we’ve seen around here? Because I’ve seen a bunch of photos, but nothing that’s really spicy.”

“This one is spicy,” Jackson assured him. “I haven’t actually seen it, but I know what’s in it. I don’t want to say over the phone, because that’ll identify her to the Clinton people if my phone were bugged. Or yours.”

“Aw, they wouldn’t do that,” Case said in a mocking tone.

“Bullshit.”

“Shit,” Case laughed. “I can’t go out this door that ol’ Betsey Wright don’t already know what I’m doing.”

“I told them that I didn’t want to get in the middle of this type stuff,” Jackson said. “That I’d pass it on to someone who can say what the market is. I’d put them into direct contact…. Let me just tell you this. My perception of it? If it’s what’s been represented to me, it ought to be worth two million…. If this woman has what she says she has, it’d be totally incriminating…. I think it’d absolutely do in the campaign.”

Jackson’s client — a friend of a friend, he said — wanted cash; no checks, no wire transfers. The lawyer wanted his own fingerprints kept off the deal, but he also wanted it done. Before he took another step, Case called Rempel. “Did you have Cliff Jackson make a run at me?”

“No, I didn’t,” Rempel replied. “I was surprised to hear you guys got together.”

“We didn’t get together on my call. And I assure you, I can play you his call.”

The reporter laughed. “I’m sure you could. You could probably play this call.”

Case denied taping Rempel. “He initiated the call. I don’t know if he was trying to trick me. But I wouldn’t burn him.”

“One thing about Cliff Jackson,” said Rempel. “I’ve never known him to lie or exaggerate. He’s about the straightest man I’ve met in this state.” The reporter told Case he hadn’t seen the photograph, but if Jackson vouched for it, that was good enough. Thus encouraged, Case phoned an editor at the National Enquirer. Like many tabloid journalists, David Duffy spoke with a brisk British accent. Having been falsely promised raunchy photos of Clinton by the detective on an earlier occasion, he was understandably leery.

“She might as well stick it in her left ear,” Duffy said, “until we’ve satisfied ourselves that it’s a picture we want to buy. And if it’s the genuine article, Christ, you’re right. ‘There’s Bill Clinton. He is in bed with a woman.’ Then you start to negotiate, and it’s a very straightforward piece of negotiation…. We would not part with any money until I get that picture. Unless she’s an imbecile, she can get the phone number of the National Enquirer from the papers. She must be a real nutcase if she doesn’t know how to make a telephone call.” His doubts proved prophetic. The $2 million picture never materialized. And Rempel, though fully aware of Jackson’s attempt at brokering this deal, continued to describe him as a principled, thoughtful critic of Clinton’s character. “Jackson said he regretted making the call to Case and said it made his skin crawl to be involved even that much,” the reporter explained. “I believed him.”

Joe Conason blogs in Salon several times a week and writes a weekly column for the New York Observer. His latest book is "It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush."

Arkansas Times columnist Gene Lyons is a National Magazine Award winner and co-author of "The Hunting of the President" (St. Martin's Press, 2000). You can e-mail Lyons at eugenelyons2@yahoo.com.

The politicization of the Secret Service scandal

What was once one of the right's favorite government agencies becomes a symbol of waste and moral degradation

  • more
    • All Share Services

The politicization of the Secret Service scandalPresident Obama, surrounded by members of the Secret Service, upon his arrival in San Diego, Sept. 26, 2011. (Credit: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

It’s hard to work up much outrage about the Secret Service prostitution scandal, in which 11 members of the president’s elite protective service and various military personnel were found to have picked up escorts in Colombia, where they were doing advance work for the president’s visit. I guess it is probably not a good idea for the people in charge of protecting the president to leave themselves vulnerable to sexual blackmail, but on the other hand we do not live in a John Le Carré novel or “24″ episode, and I don’t think the threat of a honey-trap assassination conspiracy plot is very credible. If members of the Secret Service want to get drunk and hire escorts after work, that is their business. (As Melissa Gira Grant says, the only actual scandal here — and the reason this became an international incident — is that all these guys tried to bilk one of the women out of the money she was owed.)

But the predictable Washington mixture of prurient interest and moral posturing has turned this incident into grist for the scandals-and-investigations mill. And now we have the attempts at somehow making this a winning partisan issue for Republicans. Chuck Grassley, the senator from Iowa who triumphed over adversity and became the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee despite being functionally illiterate, would like to know whether any White House staff also slept with escorts that evening. No one has made the claim, but Grassley’s asking just in case. (For a live peek at a future paranoid right-wing myth in its embryonic stage, read the comments on that Washington Times story: “I can just hear those paper shredders going a mile a minute in the white house, and the document forgers are being called in, you know the same ones that did the birth certificate.”) Grassley was on Fox last night to make sure viewers repeatedly heard baseless speculation as to the involvement of White House staff.

Rep. Pete King, Long Island Republican and stalwart publicity monger, has sent Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan a list of 50 questions about the scandal in order to make it appear that he is very seriously investigating this very serious incident.

For those outside Congress, for whom insinuating escort patronage by unnamed White House staff seems a bit of a reach, the game is to attempt to use the scandal to prove some point the fecklessness of Obama as a leader and his shameful failure to make everyone in Washington stop being so awful and wasteful all the time.

NRO’s Mark Steyn, after praising the fiscal discipline of the agent who attempted to bilk his escort (ugh), suggests that the moral of the story is that we pay too much for presidential security, and that all those agents and fancy bullet-proof Suburbans are wastes of taxpayer funds and evidence of broke post-Imperial America’s profligacy. Sarah Palin, who had every right to be personally aggrieved for once, after it was reported that the agent at the center of the scandal wrote gross sexist things about her on Facebook, was among the first to declare that the problem was with the “culture” Obama has created at the White House. (Karl Rove, smarter than most of these people, suggested that politicizing a Secret Service scandal was dumb and counterproductive. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, coincidentally, was elevated to his position under George W. Bush.)

The makeup of the Secret Service, obviously, has very little connection to the political party of the person occupying the White House. Like most American law enforcement agencies, it’s primarily white and overwhelmingly male, and, historically, the culture of the agency has had more than a whiff of machismo. These are not exactly the sort of public sector employees right-wingers get off on demonizing.

In fact, the right has had for years a sort of Clint Eastwood-inspired fantasy of the Secret Service agent as folk hero. Decent, hard-working men putting their lives on the line to protect a bunch of elitist ingrates. That ingratiating phony Bill Clinton and his frigid, hectoring monster of a wife weren’t deserving of such stolid, unflinching loyalty and service.

The fullest expression of this fantasy is in this classic chain email that made its way to every inbox in the nation during the second president Bush’s first term. According to this email, attributed to the unnamed author’s former neighbor, the president’s security detail was constantly disrespected by those awful Clintons and their terrible staff. Hillary Clinton was “arrogant and orally abusive.” “She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with” agents. “Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was to centrist. He despised all republicans.” Agents prayed for Bush to win the election, and their reward was the joy they all felt in the presence of President Bush and his amazing, wonderful wife.

This nonsense has its roots in fake anti-Hillary attacks, attributed to imaginary Secret Service members, that Republican operatives spread to sympathetic media voices starting more or less the day Bill took office. Former Secret Service agents do plenty of gossiping and bitching, most frequently to Ronald Kessler, but their complaints don’t tend to track quite so directly to right-wing fantasy narratives.

But a popular trope is of the upstanding agents blanching at being asked to look the other way as libidinous Democratic presidents — Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton — womanized. (Clinton was said to have threatened to fire agents who stymied his attempts to have trysts with Monica Lewinsky, though the agent who made the claim admitted to having invented it.) The pat moralism of the conservative Secret Service fantasy makes the agency’s lurid misadventure a bit funnier. It also explains why various people have to somehow convince themselves that the Obama administration somehow degraded the agency, through a lack of “management skills” or the widespread embrace of sexual deviance that is the logical end result of repealing the military’s ban on out gays and lesbians.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

The silly 2016 speculation game

It may be impossible to make any serious predictions about a far-off race, but that has never stopped a pundit

  • more
    • All Share Services

The silly 2016 speculation game (Credit: AP/Shutterstock/Salon)

Being that it’s still March 2012 and we have no way of knowing who will actually be president by the end of January 2013 (besides “not Ron Paul,” obviously), it would seem to be a bit premature to speculate as to how the 2016 presidential race will shake out. And yet political reporters, finally bored perhaps with the inevitable Republican nomination of Mitt Romney, are already spewing forth predictions. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post has even created a “Sweet 2016″ bracket. 

The most important lesson of terrible premature presidential-campaign speculation is that nearly everyone who engages in it will be terribly, hilariously wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’re a complete buffoon, like Dick Morris, author of the 2007 classic “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race,” or someone fairly serious and “savvy,” like New York Times politics reporter Matt Bai, who posited current nobody Mark Warner as the future of the party in a 2006 Times magazine cover story now best (if barely) remembered for its altered and unflattering photo of the subject.

There will be events no one could’ve predicted — like “obvious” future Republican presidential contender George Allen using an obscure racial slur on camera, or John Edwards being generally John Edwards — that destroy promising careers in an instant.

And there is also the plain fact that the sort of politicians that Washington-based reporters and pundits and political operatives like, and the sort of politicians they think “voters” would like, are often people who have no appeal for anyone outside of their districts or the Beltway. (Like Evan Bayh. Jon Huntsman. And Mitch Daniels, probably.)

Some people turn out to be awful at campaigning: Like Wesley Clark, the general who was going to sweep a troop-worshiping country off its feet and away from George W. Bush, until it turned out that he did not blink like a human. Or Rick Perry, who, it turned out, seems too dumb to dress himself when asked simple questions on television.

There are times when this sort of long-range forecasting is easy until you overthink it: John McCain was the logical 2008 front-runner the moment he addressed the 2004 Republican convention, until you started daydreaming about Fred Thompson’s seductive drawl. Al Gore was pretty obviously going to be the Democratic nominee in 2000, and boredom with his inevitability might’ve had a hand in how the political press helped destroy him that year.

A hell of a lot will obviously depend on whether or not Barack Obama wins reelection. If he loses, Democrats might suddenly find white candidates from the West or the South more attractive. If he wins, we might have to take Joe Biden semi-seriously for a few unlikely news cycles. If Obama ends a second term as popular as Clinton, someone associated with his administration is certainly more likely to be nominated than if Obama’s 2015 numbers look more like Bush’s in 2007.

So let’s get to the predictions, shall we? According to Cillizza, the “number one seed” for 2016 is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. (Mark Warner is still on the shortlist, by the way. His time will come!)

Cuomo is the reasonably popular governor of a very populous state. He’s thus far managed to balance liberal base-pleasing deeds (gay marriage!) with “moderate” newspaper editorial-board pleasing things (going after the pensions of public employees!). But we’re still talking about a Northeast liberal (or “liberal”) — from New York! — who’s living with but not currently married to a celebrity television cook who makes awful-looking garbage food out of prepackaged garbage food. The Democratic Party might not want to chance another blatantly culturally urban candidate. (I mean urban in the literal sense, and not as weird racial code.) Plus he’s in the honeymoon portion of his governorship, and that job has utterly destroyed its last two holders.

Plus, Cuomo looks like he’s on pace to use up much of the goodwill he built up with liberals after signing gay marriage into law. (So far there’s been his apparent lack of interest in transit, signing awful gerrymandered legislative and congressional district lines, and his property tax cap.)

Joe Biden has run for president twice and never come remotely close to winning a single primary. He’ll be 74 in 2016. As Steve Kornacki already pointed out, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to nominate 70-somethings. He’s also a gaffe-prone goofball whose appeal is that he’s a ridiculous character. I would not put a lot of InTrade money on Joe Biden winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Hillary Clinton is a bit younger than Biden, and a lot more serious than Biden. But does she still want to be president? Who knows. (Anyone who says they know is lying.) And if she runs in 2016, does she hire the same asinine campaign team that lost her the nomination in 2008?

After those three, we’re already essentially in “who?” territory with the Democrats. Not to say that someone no one has heard of now won’t be the nominee — with Democrats, you may be more likely to get a relative unknown than with Republicans — but we can’t know which governors or senators will turn out to be Barack Obama (or even John Edwards) and which ones will turn out to be… well, Mark Warner.

And theoretically there would be more women vying for the nomination than just Hillary Clinton. Cillizza posits New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand — a long shot, in my estimation — and senatorial hopeful Elizabeth Warren, who, if she loses her election, would surely be out of the running, and if she wins, would be … a liberal senator from Massachusetts. So, I dunno, Amy Klobuchar? Sadly, four of the current six female governors are Republicans. The two Democrats are North Carolina’s Bev Purdue, who is currently polling poorly enough that she’s announced that she won’t seek reelection, and Washington’s Christine Gregoire, who seems cool, so let’s just put her on the fantasy shortlist. (Oh, I guess the Times already did.)

But you see where we are, at this point: Randomly tossing out names. It’s like predicting the 2016 NFL Draft. Some of these kids are still in high school!

As for Republicans: If Mitt Romney wins the election, there’s the candidate, fun speculation time done. (Unless Newt and Ron Paul mount a primary challenge?!?) If he loses, the party likely learns the lesson it always learns and lurches to the right for a while, and your front-runner in that case (assuming he doesn’t blow up the party at the convention, I guess?) is Rick Santorum. I made this point already and Dave Weigel concurred. He’s a “true conservative” and he looks like he’ll “come in second” this year, which are both substantial advantages in the Republican race.

Maybe it’s Marco Rubio if Romney makes him the running mate, but the GOP does not often nominate losing running mates, because why would you?

Is Paul Ryan, who frantically introduces numbers-laden fake-serious budgets every year, the future of the party? I happen to think he’s basically a bland weenie who only excites people predisposed to thrill to rich-on-poor economic warefare, but a not insubstantial portion of the Republican Party “elite” seems to like that sort of thing. Mitch Daniels is somehow even less electrifying, but as a governor he has a better shot than Rep. Ryan. And Santorum still seems to have a massive advantage over them all.

(Oh, what about Chris Christie? Yes, well, he’d certainly be fun but he is pretty moderate for the national Republican Party, even if he masks it by being an obnoxious, belligerent bully. And he is woefully unprepared to protect us from CREEPING SHARIAH.)

One guy changes this calculus, obviously: Jeb Bush, because the Bush name exerts some sort of weird hypnotic power over the Republican Party, and they are often forced to do their bidding, even when, afterward, they all regret it. I like to imagine that the nation as a whole has decided that it’s done with Bushes forever, but that is pretty naive. I mean, Nixon got elected twice. Jeb Bush has not actually held office in a while — by 2016 he’ll have been a regular private citizen for nearly a decade — and it’s possible the family has decided to wait for George P. Bush to come of age before reasserting their claim over the White House (oh man, guys, he just turned 35).

The sick need to treat politics like it’s fantasy baseball ensures that there’s absolutely nothing anyone can do to make people not wildly speculate as to what will happen years after an election that is still months away, so I just encourage you to be sensible and responsible about it. (Like, it won’t be Rand Paul.)

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Bill Keller writes newest, dumbest Biden-Clinton 2012 swap piece

Former New York Times editor combines hackneyed analysis with shopworn topic, with predictable results

  • more
    • All Share Services

Bill Keller writes newest, dumbest Biden-Clinton 2012 swap pieceJoe Biden and Hillary Clinton (Credit: AP/Jason Reed)

Bill Keller, a bad opinion columnist, has written a bad opinion column. It is about how Barack Obama will replace Vice President Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a thing that will not actually happen.

The former New York Times editor has lately been celebrating his return to writing by fearlessly tackling hacky column ideas already exhausted by everyone who was writing bad opinion columns during Keller’s tenure as a person with an actually important job. Having offered his own takes on classics like “The Huffington Post isn’t as good as a real newspaper” and “Twitter is dumb,” Keller today tries the old “running mate switcharoo” scenario.

John Heilemann made the case in August of 2010, but Bob Woodward really kicked it off by pretending a Biden-Clinton switch was “on the table” in October of 2010. That notion — supposedly — can be traced back to pollster grifter Mark Penn, which should have stopped anyone else from bringing it up ever again. But Jonathan Alter took another crack at it last October, and publishing speculation on the switch has become reliable Drudge-bait ever since.

Keller’s column frames the switch as something wished for, instead of predicting it based on the “chatter” of “insiders,” which helps make it merely stupid instead of inherently dishonest. But here are his arguments as to why it would be a good idea instead of a bizarre and desperate stunt:

One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016. If she sits out politics for the next four years, other Democrats (yes, Governor Cuomo, we see your hand up) will fill the void.

One: What? Prove it, maybe? Two: Haha what, again? Congress will get ungridlocked if the president switches vice presidents? To a Clinton? Three: OK, but what if Obama/Clinton loses? And if Obama wins again wouldn’t any Democrat be at a disadvantage in 2016 due to historical trends anyway, making it a “safer” bet to not be his running mate, assuming she actually wants to be president still, which is not at all a given?

But we’re not dealing with observable reality here, as the bit about Clinton’s magical power to un-gridlock Congress demonstrates. We’re in the world of vague assertions about “warmth” and “voltage.” How many electoral votes would running mate Hillary Clinton be worth? Keller never bothers to attempt to make a quantitative guess. This is the closest we get:

Moreover, even if Obama can win without Hillary, there’s a lot to be said for running up the score. If she can do in 2012 what Obama did in 2008 — animate that feeling of historic possibility — the pair can lift some House and Senate candidates along with them. One reason Republicans did so well in the 2010 Congressional elections is that they overcame the gender gap and carried women voters 51 to 49. Those voters will flock back to Hillary, the more so if the Republican ticket is locked into a culture-war agenda. So, by the way, will Hispanic voters, securing such endangered states as Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.

Ooh, actual data! The Republicans won women in a midterm election. Hillary Clinton is a woman. So in a presidential general election, women will “flock back to Hillary.” Those women may be Republicans, voting in a Republican wave election, but they are women and so they will vote for Barack Obama if he is next to a woman on the ballot. (Though what about those Hispanics? Shouldn’t Obama replace Biden with a Hispanic woman, in this case? Or isn’t he in fact best off retaining Joe Biden, who is, after all, a white man? From Scranton? White men will “flock back” to Obama once they see that he is friends with a white person.)

The column isn’t just bad analysis — it’s also oddly condescending to Secretary Clinton! It complains that she owes “us” a vice-presidential run after she “raised our expectations” by running for president last time. It calls Clinton “the dutiful Methodist schoolgirl.”

Here’s the line that is secretly the worst:

But the idea that she should replace Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate in 2012 is something else. It has been kicking around on the blogs for more than a year without getting any traction, mainly because it has been authoritatively, emphatically dismissed by Hillary, Biden and Team Obama.

Did you see that? “Kicking around on the blogs.” That’s Keller-speak for “not worth anyone’s time until a real journalist like New York Times opinion columnist Bill Keller brought it up.” The “bloggers” kicking this idea around, as I mentioned earlier, are New York magazine political writer John Heilemann, Washington Post living legend Bob Woodward, and former Newsweek senior editor and best-selling author Jonathan Alter. Those bloggers and their crazy notions!

As a blogger, I know that my silly opinion is not as carefully considered and well-informed as that of former New York Times editor Bill Keller, who is not at all simply talking out of his ass. But even if there were any hint at all that the switch was a possibility, which there isn’t, it would be a stupid idea. Hillary Clinton is already part of the president’s Cabinet, and she and her husband will already campaign for the president’s reelection. Running mates barely nudge the numbers in presidential elections, unless they’re historically awful, which Joe Biden isn’t. The Clintons are among the most divisive figures in American politics — Hillary Clinton’s recent high approval rating has come because she’s not running for anything — and relitigating every Clinton scandal would consume the national political press for weeks if she ended up on the ticket.

The running mate switch hasn’t been successful since the Franklin Roosevelt administration, and the last time a president made a strategic switch to help win a tough reelection, it failed.

And I bet if Obama did make this stupid switch, Bill Keller would write some awful column about how desperate it made the president look. Unless he will have by then moved on to finally writing his “kids today sure are sexting each other a lot” piece.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Fake Democratic pollsters have stupid idea

The Wall Street Journal publishes nonsense from Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, because they think you're an idiot

  • more
    • All Share Services

Fake Democratic pollsters have stupid ideaHillary Clinton and President Obama (Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)

I think it’s best to understand the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s decision to publish any given column by con artist pollsters Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell as basically an expression of contempt for people who read the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Caddell and Schoen, two loser “Democratic” “pollsters,” regularly publish very lame link-bait columns about how if Democrats want to succeed electorally, they must immediately cease being Democrats, and become, instead, Republicans. This week’s variation on that theme: Barack Obama should step aside (already heard that one last year around this time) and allow himself to be replaced by Hillary Clinton, for the good of the party and the nation.

Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country.

Because she’s not running for anything.

So Hillary Clinton should be president instead of Barack Obama, because Obama is too partisan and divisive. America needs a bipartisan plan to attack the deficit and also create jobs, and it is Obama’s fault that that is a vague, magical fairy tale. Hillary Clinton will make this fairy tale real, thanks to the fact that, as we all know, Republicans love cheerfully working with the Clintons for the good of the nation. When a Clinton’s in the White House, partisan politics are always put aside!

This is self-evidently dumb on about ten different levels — Clinton won’t run, President Clinton wouldn’t have any more success negotiating with Congressional Republicans than President Obama, Clinton’s popularity is a result of her not being a partisan candidate for office anymore, if there was such a thing as a “bipartisan” plan to reduce the deficit while also stimulating job growth (and protecting entitlements!) we’d presumably have already decided to act on this fantastical plan, everything resembling such a plan is explicitly supported by the White House and rejected by Republicans, Republicans would not endorse said plans if President Obama promised to go away because then they’d simply want to wait for a Republican to take over for him, and Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen are not, as they claim to be, Democrats — but the Journal published this regardless, as they always do with fresh tripe from Schoen and Caddell.

Schoen — who works for hypothetical future independent presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, though that fact is never, ever disclosed — is a simple hack, precisely as dumb and unprincipled as you’d expect anyone who was once Mark Penn’s right-hand man to be. Caddell angrily left the Democratic party 20 years ago, which is seldom mentioned when he’s trotted out to trash the president on behalf of the right-wing media outlets that pay his rent. But the fact that they’re classic “Fox Democrats” matters much less than the fact that all of their editorials are predictable, wrong, and patently stupid.

As I said, printing their editorials is an implicit admission that you think your audience is credulous and moronic. The people in charge of the Wall Street Journal are savvy enough about politics to know that all of this is bilge and bullshit. They know both that this will never happen and that it’d be a stupid suggestion even if it were within the realm of possibility. They just don’t care. They don’t care that they’re printing garbage, because they figure garbage will get some traffic from those engaged in the same game.

If I were a conservative American I’d be less outraged at the specter of liberal elites hypothetically disrespecting me from their coastal enclaves and much more pissed off that the people on my side are constantly peddling this bullshit.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Does Hillary Clinton get too much credit?

She's a huge foreign policy asset to the president but this week's hosannas feel like overkill

  • more
    • All Share Services

Does Hillary Clinton get too much credit? Hillary Clinton (Credit: Reuters)

I’m on record as a great admirer of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, going back to her days as New York senator and certainly through her 2008 presidential campaign. But this week’s set of stories depicting the U.S. Libya intervention as “Hillary’s War” (The Washington Post) and an example of Clinton’s “smart power” doctrine (Time Magazine’s cover) go a little bit too far for me. They feel like someone’s effort to upstage or diminish President Obama. For the record, I don’t think the effort is Clinton’s. It may just reflect the mainstream media’s inability to give Obama his due.

Clearly Clinton’s competence is an asset to the president, and her power and credibility reflects well on his ability to work with a former rival. And the Time piece, in particular, makes clear, while praising Clinton, that ultimately Obama makes most of his decisions with a small team of confidantes, and she is not among them. He’s the commander in chief.

And there’s fine reporting in the two pieces. Certainly Clinton deserves credit for using her role to leverage support and resources from other agencies, getting greater control of foreign aid funding and even Defense Department funds to bolster her agenda at State. Elevating the role of the State Department took particular work after George W. Bush ignored and degraded so many American alliances.

But neither piece apportions any share of blame for the downside of Clinton’s expansive diplomacy – her role in pushing a bigger continued U.S. presence in and around Iraq, for instance, flagged Monday by Glenn Greenwald. The continued Iraq presence will also use more of the sometimes lawless private contractors whose role she opposed during the presidential campaign. It also seems a little early to be declaring Libya a decisive victory for American interests, or the cause of human freedom, as the nature of the government that will emerge there remains unclear.

Still, at a time when Obama struggles to get the kind of credit he deserves on the foreign policy and domestic security front – for killing Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaida leaders, winding down the military role in Iraq and toppling Muammar Gaddhafi without losing a single American life – it strikes me as a little unseemly that when credit is given, so much of it goes to Clinton. For her part, at least publicly, Clinton works to turn the spotlight on her boss, telling David Gregory on Meet the Press 10 days ago that “President Obama has passed with flying colors every leadership challenge.” And while she insisted, not convincingly, “I’m out of politics, as you know, David, I don’t comment on it,” she quickly boosted her boss against his potential 2012 rivals.  “I think Americans are going to want to know that they have a steady, experienced, smart hand on the tiller of the ship of state, and there’s no doubt that that’s Barack Obama.”

It feels a little mean-spirited to be raising these questions about Clinton’s coverage on the day she lost her mother, Dorothy Rodham, at 92, but this is the week of the adoring press coverage. Again, I’m a strong Clinton admirer. But there’s something a little odd about the worshipful tone of these pieces. I still see a faint echo of Maureen Dowd’s analysis propping up Clinton and other female administration “hawks” in her continued effort to diminish Obama’s leadership and masculinity.   Dowd seems to be on vacation, or else we might see her to use these two profiles as another reason to pit Clinton against her boss.

I spoke with a close Clinton friend last week who insists the Secretary of State has no interest in either the role of vice president in 2012, or a presidential run in 2016, so I don’t think there’s any crusade for either job behind these admiring stories. Maybe her allies are just trying to make sure she gets credit for the great work she did, against all odds, for a man she was once accused of trying to destroy.

Continue Reading Close
Joan Walsh

Joan Walsh is Salon's editor at large.

Page 1 of 239 in Hillary Rodham Clinton