Rumors — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney

-

cheney hunting twn.jpg
A while back, I concocted a pretty interesting scenario to rationally explain why Bill Clinton sort of lost it against Barack Obama a while back. To recap, I thought that challenging the caucus procedures in Nevada and antagonizing the African-American vote along with other general harshness might be telegraphing messages to Hispanics and to other Dems tired of losing over the genteel weaknesses of the Gore and Kerry campaigns in the past.
However, a very well-placed Clinton official has shared the scoop with me that Bill Clinton “lost it” when Barack Obama had asserted that Reagan had been more transformative than Clinton. That is where the “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice” comment came from. Clinton was seething deep down. So, no strategy on behalf of his wife the candidate; just revenge at that moment.
Secondly, a friend of a friend of mine went hunting last week with Cheney-target Harry Whittington who was shot just about two years ago. In fact, the two year anniversary of the cloak-and-dagger hunting accident featuring Cheney shooting his campaign contributor will be February 11th.
According to my source, Whittington commented that the press really got played by Cheney’s team not only in the delayed reporting — but in how serious Whittington’s situation really was. According to my source, he nearly died and to this day, still carries quite a few metal pellets in him. But the seriousness of his condition was underplayed by Cheney’s team and in the press.
I wonder what would have happened if Whittington had accidentally shot the VP? Let’s not go there. . .
In other news, TWN has learned that New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski — considered by his peers to be one of the best of his kind in the business — has an article soon to appear that digs into the drug past of Barack Obama.
According to one source of mine (not further confirmed), Kovaleski has found and interviewed somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 people who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College where he did his undergraduate work. According to one interviewee of Kovaleski’s, the New York Times reporter said that thus far he thinks that if anything “Barack Obama overstated his drug profile in his memoir.”
A separate couple I found on my own and who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College are New America Foundation President and New Yorker staff writer Steve Coll and his wife Susan. I asked Coll what the depth of his and his wife’s relationship with Obama was — and whether he’d seen the presidential aspirant get “wild.”
Coll told me that he was two years ahead of Barack — and his wife one year ahead — and that they were all pretty good friends. They are friends now, but at a more pronounced distance and don’t see each other much.
Coll recounted that he and Susan were impressed with Obama then and saw absolutely nothing on the drug front with him — though he can’t say the same about a lot of his other Oxy pals. He said that his one wild thing that got him a lot of accolades was his hard lobbying to get the trustees to divest Occidental College holdings from South Africa, which they did.
So, despite the rumors that some of the campaigns hope might swirl around Obama’s youthful transgressions, Kovaleski and the New York Times may soon slay further speculation on that front.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

28 comments on “Rumors — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney

  1. Catholic TV says:

    Thanks for this brilliant stuff and hope so that you will keep providing us nice posts. This type of info is required by all of us

    Reply

  2. Janice says:

    DOWN WITH THE NEW WORLD ORDER!

    Reply

  3. Shawn Fassett says:

    We got played by Cheney’s media people, not because of the accident, but the company that Cheney was keeping on that hunting trip – Pamela Willeford.

    Reply

  4. Shawn Fassett says:

    We got played by Cheney’s media people, not because of the accident, but the company that Cheney was keeping on that hunting trip – Pamela Willeford.

    Reply

  5. Shawn Fassett says:

    We got played by Cheney’s media people, not because of the accident, but the company that Cheney was keeping on that hunting trip – Pamela Willeford.

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, its kinda interesting that Cheney’s hunting accident, that injured one man, seems to get more attention than Cheney’s part in murdering a million or so Iraqis.
    Whittington got off light, he could be languishing in some gulag somewhere, with some goon administering daily interrogations using techniques straight out of The Cheney Handbook of Satanic Depravity.
    Bush should be impeached, indicted, prosecuted and punished.
    But Cheney?
    A strong argument could be made that we should just save ourselves some money, haul his ass off to the Jackson Hole Animal Control compound, and have him euthani….
    (Oops, sorry, got a little carried away there, I meant to say “vaccinated for rabies”)

    Reply

  7. Annole says:

    Re: Whittington and the press.
    I always wondered why there was no follow-up when Whittington stated “and that’s what happened last Friday.”
    (from msnbc transcript of press conference http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11409731/)

    Reply

  8. erichwwk says:

    Just to clarify an ambiguity:
    Steve wrote: “… who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College where he did his undergraduate work.”
    That was long after my time, but I do get the alumni magazine. According to the alumni mag article, Obama attended Occidental College only for his first two years, transferring to Columbia for his final two undergraduate years as he found Oxy “too small”.
    I’m sure Steve Coll knows that, but those that don’t might assume Obama spent all four years there, and his UG degree is from there, rather than from Columbia.
    A brief summary of this article appears here:
    http://www.oxy.edu/x2526.xml

    Reply

  9. ExBrit says:

    Many years ago we used the label “war-profiteer” to describe people like Dick Cheney. Those words appear to have dropped out of public usage – at least by today’s mass media. Next time someone mentions the liberal media, it would be timely to point out that
    “war profiteer” describes the characteristics of many in the Bush White House.

    Reply

  10. David N says:

    Steve:
    The part that got me going was Whittington talking about Cheney “playing” the media on the shooting.
    One part of that “playing” was Whittington appearing on camera three days later and appologizing for getting in front of Cheney’s gun (behind the line, where he should have been) and putting poor Dick to the trouble of worrying about whether the man he’d shot was seriously hurt while Dick was enjoying his dinner that evening.
    Whittington was part of the play, and certainly the media were part of the problem.
    And this is but the least of the many, many reasons this criminal should have been impeached and prosecuted and tossed in jail years ago, and his wealth returned to the government he stole it from — it used to be ours.
    The government, that is. Now it belongs to King Dick and his ilk. It’s no longer mine.

    Reply

  11. Linda says:

    Carroll,
    Small sample but very accurate report about voting in FL (Scarborough Country in Pensacola) where my sister has seen it to be her civic duty to take a day off work and work running her local precinct every election day for at least the past 10-15 years. She runs a tight ship. They are back to paper ballots but have to call in to headquarters to verify if someone comes to the wrong precinct voting place. And there is still a lot of that because people are still rebuilding from hurricanes and moving around the area a lot.
    Last Tuesday really good systems were in place. I trust and know my sister on this and don’t need to verify. But they didn’t have enough phone lines at headquarters–so she and one other worker were on the phone verifying and “on hold” a lot. And they had a lot of unhappy voters who had to wait too long before it was verified that they could vote. Pensacola, of course, is very Republican–and there was a big turnout. So she’s recommending more phone lines for November.
    My guess is that FL actually may be better than many other states, but I really don’t know.

    Reply

  12. pauline says:

    Carroll wrote:
    “Will we ever be able to bust up the two party system?”
    Probably not in my lifetime…but maybe we could work to have them renamed to something more appropriate like…Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Posted by pauline at February 4, 2008 09:55 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yea, I am so tired of the media and the establishment herding us into the dem-gop trap.
    Will we ever be able to bust up the two party system?

    Reply

  14. pauline says:

    September 13, 2007
    Obama, Brzezinski, and the Neolib-Neocon Family
    Let’s call Barack Obama what he is — a sock puppet for the ruling elite. Obama made this plainly obvious recently when he tabbed Zbigniew Brzezinski as his top foreign policy adviser. In addition to his affiliations with the Council on Foreign Relations (as director), the Trilateral Commission, and the National Endowment for Democracy, Brzezinski was the architect of Carter’s Afghanistan policy, that it to say he is responsible for killing thousands of innocents and organizing the Afghan Arabs, later to become “al-Qaeda.” It is said David Rockefeller asked Brzezinski to create the Trilateral Commission and details were hammered out at Rockefeller’s Pocantico Hills estate outside New York City. Rockefeller later introduced the idea to the Bilderberg group in Knokke, Belgium in the spring of 1972.
    As author Holly Sklar has noted, in “1973 the Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller, Chase Manhattan Bank chairman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security advisor, and other like-minded ’eminent private citizens.’ Some 300 members (up from about 200 members in 1973) are drawn from international business and banking, government, academia, media, and conservative labor. The Commission’s purpose is to engineer an enduring partnership among the ruling classes of North American, Western Europe, and Japan – hence the term ‘trilateral’ – in order to safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world. The private Trilateral Commission is attempting to mold public policy and construct a framework for international stability in the coming decades. Throughout this book, ‘trilateralism’ refers to the doctrine of world order advanced by the Commission” (Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Edited by Holly Sklar, South End Press, 1980).
    “Upon reading the 1970 book ‘Between Two Ages’, David Rockefeller lured its writer, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski, away from Columbia University to become the Chairman and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission,” writes Eric Barger (The New World Order Under Clinton: Establishment Insiders and Political Deceit, The Christian World Report, May 1993, pg. 7.) “Brzezinski, who later became the mastermind of Jimmy Carter’s foreign affairs and national security blunders, is still looked to as a policy guru by the liberal media today. Using the same socialist mindset, objectives and premise as the CFR, the TC sprang from, and was purposely patterned after, Brzezinski’s book in 1973.”
    In other words, Brzezinski is a consummate insider and enthusiastic proponent of world government, that is to say he has worked long and diligently for the plan to transform the world into a corporate slave plantation and mega-sweatshop.
    Thus it makes perfect sense Barack Obama, billed as one of “10 people who could change the world,” according to the New Statesman, has invited Zbigniew Brzezinski aboard, or rather was told by his globalist handlers to invite him. “For Brzezinski, 79, support for Obama means support for a radical change in direction of American foreign policy,” writes MSNBC. In other words, neolibs of Brzezinski’s ilk have lost patience with the chest-pounding neocons.
    from –
    http://adereview.com/blog/?p=38

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    I didn’t hear Clinton’s comment about Jesse Jackson but evidently it was to the effect that Jackson won SC twice..referring to Obama’s win there also.
    I don’t think it is necessarily racist to compare that fact that two black men won in a state with a large black population. I am not a groupie for either Clinton, but I have never seen and don’t remember any evidence of the Clinton’s being racist, quite the opposite. Clinton was known as the black president among blacks and now he is a racist…? That’s very strange.
    The media brings up the blacks voting for blacks and women voting for women, hispanics voting for hispanics all the time in this campaign.
    So I think there is something of a double standard going on here…or much ado about nothing.
    Time would be better spent watching for signs of disenfranchising black voters like what happened in Florida in 2000.

    Reply

  16. Steve Clemons says:

    Dan Kervick — you are right that it wasn’t a scoop, just more of a definitive detail. I hadn’t seen it confirmed elsewhere, but the volume of political commentary out now is enormous and might have missed it. Thanks though — scoop was the wrong word — steve

    Reply

  17. p.lukasiak says:

    Has it ever occurred to anyone that criticism of Clinton’s comments about Jesse Jackson is essentially racist? Jesse Jackson did not run as “the black candidate”; he was all about inclusion (The Rainbow Coalition). Indeed, his campaign was based on the exact same themes as Obama’s — major change, hope, and inspiration.
    But in order to denigrate Bill Clinton, the media seems compelled to forget Jackson’s huge cross-racial appeal, and concentrate solely on the fact that he is “black” — and that therefore the 11 victories he won during the primary season in 1988 didn’t matter — to read the critics of Bill Clinton, one would think that Jesse Jackson was running a campaign based on racial polarization.
    The biggest difference between the Jackson and Obama campaigns is how the media and the pundits treated them — in 1988 the media put Jackson into the “black candidate” ghetto, in 2008 Obama is portrayed by the media as transcending race.

    Reply

  18. bob h says:

    I’ve wondered whether Bill might be suffering from the personality changes heart bypass patients sometimes undergo (“Pumphead” is one medical explanation I have heard). Al “I’m in charge here” Haig was one example.

    Reply

  19. Dan Kervick says:

    However, a very well-placed Clinton official has shared the scoop with me that Bill Clinton “lost it” when Barack Obama had asserted that Reagan had been more transformative than Clinton.
    This isn’t a scoop. It’s been reported for over a week now.

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    I wonder where Zuckerman bases his opinion on?
    Does anyone else see a change in our Israel policy?
    Zuckerman: Israel a ‘client state’ of U.S.
    Published: 02/03/2008
    Mort Zuckerman, the editor of U.S. News & World Report, called Israel a “client state” of the United States.
    “Israel has to understand — like it or not — it is not a great power. It is a client state. And therefore, it must be dependent upon a great power,” Zuckerman said during an interview on Shalom TV’s “World Jewish News” show last week. “There is no question that the United States has been and is the most reliable long-term friend and ally that Israel has, and it must do what it has to do in order to maintain that relationship. And if [cooperating with Bush’s Annapolis peace initiative] is part of that price, Israel has to do it for the United States.”
    Zuckerman, a recent past chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said he is pessimistic about the chances for peace between Israel and the Palestinians but that Israel must make the effort because “it is the only way to maintain whatever political support it has, especially in the United States — but really, in the Western world.”
    He compared Israel and her quest for peace to Sisyphus, the figure in Greek mythology who repeatedly rolled a huge rock up a hill only to have it roll from his grasp near the summit.
    Zuckerman says U.S. policy toward Israel likely will change when a new president takes office next year.
    “It never does stay the same — and it is often a surprise,” he said. “But it is my judgment that there are a whole variety of views of Israel.”

    Reply

  21. Carroll says:

    Hmm, that term seemed off to me too. I felt it a bit generic. May I suggest “airheads” as a reasonable alternative?
    Posted by PissedOffAmerican at February 3, 2008 07:07 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOl…groupies is more politically correct but I like airheads also. I wasn’t part of the “hippies” movement but todays groupies seem similar in a way to me.
    But too bad the groupies didn’t get a movement going on the Iraq war and foreign affairs if they wanted to group around something. I guess it’s a rock star world mentality today.

    Reply

  22. Carroll says:

    Once upon a time we actually had American presidents, flawed though they were. I’ll even take Nixon over anyone running today. Nixon’s Watergate was nothing compared to what goes on today in the halls of power.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Memorandum written by Richard Nixon in ’69, to his Secy of State William Rogers and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger.
    Text reads:
    “I have noted in reading the papers prepared by the State Department and the Security Council Review Board on the Mideast, references from time to time to ‘domestic political considerations.’
    “The purpose of this memorandum is twofold:
    “1. Under no circumstances will domestic political considerations have any bearing on the decisions I make with regard to the Mideast;
    “2. The only consideration that will effect [sic] my decisions on this policy will be the security interests of the United States.
    “In the future, I want no references to domestic political considerations to be included in any papers and I do not want the subject of domestic political considerations to be brought up in discussions of this subject.
    “Will you please circulate this memorandum among all those who are working on this problem.
    “[Signed] RN”
    view original document
    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/files/
    nixondoc.pdf

    Reply

  23. Maxwell says:

    Turns out the Richardson endorsement was a false report. NPR screwed up. Politico has the goods:
    “Bill Richardson and Bill Clinton spoke to reporters during halftime in New Mexico…but no endorsement, and the Clinton campaign says not to expect one.
    “A senior Democratic source said Bill Richardson was expected to endorse Hillary Clinton tonight, but this seems to have been just high-level chatter.
    “The New Mexico governor is watching with the Super Bowl with the former president.”

    Reply

  24. Beth in VA says:

    Just to be fair, apparently Bill Richardson is endorsing Hillary Clinton. Makes sense from his history in the Clinton Administration.
    About the divestment (Obama’s efforts for South African divestment)–those were the days! Some friends of mine met and fell in love in one of those “shanty towns” that popped up on college campuses in the 80s!

    Reply

  25. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Nice post, Steve. This is good, and doesn’t call us Obama fans names (see “groupies” post below)”
    Hmm, that term seemed off to me too. I felt it a bit generic. May I suggest “airheads” as a reasonable alternative?
    I suspect, given the nature of modern politics, Obama’s alleged drug use will surface often, regardless of any realistic or fact based conclusions to be drawn by the comments and observations of his past acquaintances. When has the truth ever gotten in the way of a concerted swiftboating effort?
    Personally, I see no evidence of the kind of damage wrought by addiction or compulsive behaviour in Obama. A shame the same can’t be said about this monkey defecating all over the Oval Office rugs. As an ex-addict myself, I can assure you it takes one to know one, and Bush epitomizes what it means to be an ex-addict or a dry alcoholic that has no system of recovery.
    And, considering Obama’s age, it would be nothing short of a miracle if he did not experiment to some degree or another with drugs. Unlike Bush, however, he doesn’t seem to have a history of the failed business endeavors and unfullfilled commitments that are common to addicts and alcoholics.
    There is plenty I can find to dislike about this paper mache media sensation Obama, but it saddens me to know that this drug issue will be a recurrent issue throughout this electoral cycle. Considering the state of our union, and the events of the last seven years, it is truly a sad commentary on American politics to see such trivial and inane bullshit being given air time.

    Reply

  26. Linda says:

    Steve,
    I don’t mind being called a “Groupie” and you were way ahead of everybody else with the video as Move-on.org didn’t link all its e-mail list to it until this afternoon, and it appears to be on the way to being the “most watched” on YouTube.
    Thanks for the Clinton inside story which confirms what I thought and worries me about Hillary as President. Her husband’s narcissism and ego would get in the way, sooner or later.

    Reply

  27. Steven Clemons says:

    Thanks Beth — sorry to offend with the word “groupies”. I love the word and love TWN’s groupies — and I’ve long been a groupie of Madonna and Josh Marshall.
    On Obama’s support, it’s impressive — but still is just half the party — and well, complicated.
    But glad you are enthused.
    best — and thanks again for the good comment,
    Steve

    Reply

  28. Beth in VA says:

    Nice post, Steve. This is good, and doesn’t call us Obama fans names (see “groupies” post below).
    Other fun newsy news is Maria Shriver’s impromptu endorsement of Obama today! What a First Couple California has! Steve, we know you’re an intellect to be reckoned with, but this movement is so real and perhaps you might see that campaigning is NOT governing–but having the goodwill and backing of so many people could make an Obama Administration incredibly effective. I think also it would be excellent for America.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *