« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why has NOONE discussed this when discussing the vetting of Hillary Clinton?
I was reading an article in yahoo news about the selection of Joe Biden while his wife was getting a root canal (they recently changed the story since they had JOE getting the root canal, but I digress). It says:
Now this shows to me irrefutable evidence that she WOULDNT' be the pick, since she basically would be putting Obama into a corner, choose her or bust. Will this be discussed in the MSM? Of course not. They already have the "slap to Hillary because he didn't vett her" narrative going on.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ran so closely to Obama in the primary, was never seriously considered, said two officials involved with the search. She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked, the two officials said, speaking on a condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.
Now this shows to me irrefutable evidence that she WOULDNT' be the pick, since she basically would be putting Obama into a corner, choose her or bust. Will this be discussed in the MSM? Of course not. They already have the "slap to Hillary because he didn't vett her" narrative going on.
Advertisement
Comments (57)
If it's true that she wanted a guarantee that she'd be picked even before she was vetted, there was no way. She was obviously afraid of what they'd find.
August 24, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You people are weird. Obviously vetting and finding something unacceptable means no go. For her not want more digging through her laundry if they weren't serious about her is a reasonable request. It's not like they didn't have enough info to decide if they were serious.
Remember how much hay Obama made implying there'd be something wrong in her tax returns? "Why won't she release them early?"
August 24, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they were "serious". But they hadn't decided before the vetting - that would have kind of defeated the purpose of the vetting, non?
August 24, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two officials involved in the search said:
"She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked"
not:
"She asked not to be vetted unless they were serious about her"
Can you spot the difference?
August 24, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very slight difference, but considering who we're talking about, it's irrelevant: "You know who I am, most of my life story is already out there, you know if you want me - if you get that far, I'll give you the rest of the records so you can be sure."
So if you want to say that just because she wasn't "vetted" doesn't prove she wasn't "considered", I would agree. Of course it would be very easy for someone to just smooth ruffled feathers by saying, "Of course we considered the highly qualified Senator Clinton among the other candidates, and because of who she is there was no need to ask her for more information unless she was near being picked". Why is this kind of simple statement so foreign to this campaign?
August 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right, Des. But you are still shouting in the echo chamber. I wish I could remember who first told me that. I think it was BevD, but don't remember and too lazy to figure it out. I hope in that converstation she had the presence of mind to place the four fingers of one hand under her chin and flip them in Axelrod's direction.
August 24, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even get why this is controversial. Hillary would simply say what anyone would say in her position: "You already know if you want to run with me or not. If you do, that's great. I'll give you all sorts of extra documentation and information so that you'll know you made the right decision. If you don't, my secretary will get you Biden's cell phone number."
Why on Earth would Hillary allow herself to be treated just like everyone else when she is decidedly not just like everyone else?
August 24, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did ya not read the quote? She didn't say she didn't want to be vetted if they weren't serious. She said she didn't want to be vetted if they weren't going to pick her. IOW, if they were going to vet her, the only way they could get out of picking her was if they found something wrong. Obama couldn't simply decide to "go in another direction."
August 24, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you have it - if they wanted her, they had to decide, short of there being some huge unknown skeleton in additional documentation.
How unreasonable of her - to demand someone be serious for a change. She wouldn't even let them user her for the Kaine-Bayh-Richardson fake-a-thon. What a poor sport.
August 25, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, what's the problem with that? It's not as if she was applying for the job. It's more like she said she'd consider taking it, if it were offered.
Heck, have you ever been recruited for a job? They come to you. Presumably because they know you and your work. At some point they're going to ask you for a resume and work samples. But before you spend the time putting those together you should have some assurance that the job is yours unless there's something horribly wrong in what you'll give them.
I know, I'm implying something crazy and unacceptable when I say that Hillary was entitled to consideration and even right of first refusal to the veep slot, given that she won pretty much as much or maybe more votes than Obama did during the primaries but... come on... how does one say that the neck and neck loser gets no consideration when the winner picks a primary opponent who got obliterated, as Biden did?
August 25, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quote: "I know, I'm implying something crazy and unacceptable when I say that Hillary was entitled to consideration and even right of first refusal to the veep slot,"
What a moron. Remember when Ed Rendell told Hillary, publicly, "You don't negotiate with the nominee. Even if you're Hillary Clinton, you don't negotiate"?
Apparently the lessn didn't take.
August 25, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody vets just one VP and nobody is going to tell Hillary, or anybody else, that they will be the VP pick before they've been vetted. Obama's campaign did a more thorough vetting this year then has been done in the past. If Hillary was hoping to have certainty before she cleared the vetting process, then she was being unrealistic. Another point, however, is that neither Caroline Kennedy or any top person was spilling this stuff. One has to wonder about the validity of the "anonymous" quote. I'm more than a bit tired of junk like this that can't be proved or disproved and that comes from people who aren't named and are held accountable. If it's true, it's more of that, don't question the Queen stuff and it's disgusting. If it's a lie it's character assassination and it's disgusting. who knows?
August 25, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am soooo sick and tired of Hillary and all her conditions before anything can go on.
August 24, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was handled correctly. If they had asked for Senator Clinton's information, in order to vet her, based on the conditions that she had set, then if Obama did not pick her, there would have been a bigger backlash. Imagine how that call from Senator Obama to Hillary, to tell her that she was not the one, would have gone.
You saw the media frenzy when it became known who the final three were. Imagine if Hillary had been one of those names, and then was not picked. Then you would have a huge problem with a lot of her outraged backers on the eve of the convention. It would dominate the MSM coverage and bury the story of his actual pick, and the convention build up.
August 24, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC did not want to be vetted without guarantee as the process would have forced disclosure of contributors to Clinton library, sources of Bill's income including perks and all current financials (what was released was only thru 2007).
This was published in data about specifics of VP vetting for all candidates.
August 24, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm, for one, very very happy she wasn't picked and/or vetted.
August 24, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! This post is off-message.
How so, you ask?
Because it contradicts the meme we heard so much about during the primaries, which is that Hillary is a desperate, power-hungry madwoman who will stop at nothing to get back into the White House.
Well, if this post's rumor is true, then Hillary made a choice not to be vetted, and therefore she chose not to be considered. So she must not be so desperate to get back into the White House again after all. Right?
Right.
August 24, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're off message, Gasket - she's power hungry because she expected to be appointed without being vetted at all (at which point she would have Obama assassinated like RFK), as well as taking the nomination forcefully in a convention roll call coup. As well as being John McCain's VP candidate and running as a 3rd party candidate in the fall. And backstabbing Obama so she can run in 2012.
August 24, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa. The plot thickens.
August 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just thank god she avoided this train wreck. I've heard Obama represents a new kind of politics. I've heard one way or another that everything he does or says is brilliant and cool. I've heard he's tough. About to pull that gun we heard so much about. And now I hear his big brother is coming to beat up John McCain and the Republicans and Barack will be able to walk home from school by himself again. Right.
August 24, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, what she said, was, unless she was guaranteed the VP slot, don't ask her to go through the vetting process.
What does that say about her? She was giving a signal that she could not be pleased no matter what. She didn't want to be vetted because of all the skeletons in her closet, but she cloaked it in a deal-breaker motif.
With Hillary, if she can't win she will do whatever it takes to make sure that no one else does either. Her "inevitable" self didn't work out because she simply can't run anything successfully, but she is trying her best to run Obama into the ground.
What has Hillary accomplished except for taking Health Care reform off the table for 16 years? She blew it and just gave up. Who needs her? I want someone who wants health care reform because it is the right thing to do; if Hillary had that goal she had 8 years to do it. She didn't. Why? Because she is not a team player and she simply couldn't get the ONE task she was given in the Clinton administration -- done. Experience? Please!
August 24, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille, you have no idea if this anecdote about Clinton is factual or not. Just because you read it in someone's blog doesn't make it true.
August 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I heard somewhere early on that she wouldn't be willing to turn over the list of donors to Bill's library and so wouldn't be able to be fully vetted.
August 24, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be true. I heard Osama bin Laden donated to his library.
August 24, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The PERCEPTION alone that she was not vetted only ads to the foolish "she is not respected" narrative. The O camp should be a little more disciplined than that so it seems there should be more to the story.
August 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep wondering what sort of role Obama would have in the convention if HRC had won the primaries in April but he kept on competing, and savaging her, for several months afterwards --- and THEN challeged the win by trying to get the rules changed after the fact -- and THEN started insisting on special consideration for VP -- and THEN started insisting (or at least let his supporters insist) that he be given a special role and special priviliges at the convention?
I wonder what Obama's future in the party would be .... or, to the extent he was a trailblazer, how future AA candidates would be viewed. ("They may bring excitement but then you have to deal with tham/their supporters if they don't win.")
I'm not sorry that she continued to the end, I understand her not wanting vetting unless he had pretty well decided on her (barring something that came up in the vetting that totally nixed it), and I'm glad her name is going to be put into nomination ............... but have nothing but contempt for those supporters who continue to say "that's not enough!"
August 24, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth2, what a moving Ode to Vindictiveness.
August 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Obama campaign did enough opposition research on Hillary to know from the start that she wouldn't have passed the vetting process. Hillary, it seems, knew she wouldn't have passed a proper vetting either.
August 24, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very common and very silly argument. If you decide to run it's because you believe you can withstand any oppo research (see Obama, Barack). If you are a nominee, you believe you can withstand any oppo research. In other words, if she was OK with oppo were she to be a nominee, how can that change when she's a VP?
This oppo crap is just a lame excuse, that's all it is.
August 24, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might be right. But I vaguely remember something about the Clintons being under investigation or something like that. Was it the big stink over her tax returns? Didn't she have a court appearance delayed until after the primaries or the general election? I'm thinking she's got some dirty laundry, and being POTUS or VPOTUS would have given her the resources to cover it up better than she did. Asking for a guaranteed pick allows her to spend her time more wisely. Course, I'm probably just blowing smoke or confused. Ha!
August 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, it was rumored for months that Hillary was hiding something with her tax returns, and it was an atrocity and an affront to all that she didn't release them early, though Obama and the MSM had lots of fun implying there was some impropriety with them. And the only thing they discovered was that the Clintons had a lot of money. Which then became a crime. (Because they had more than $5 million, and the Obamas had less than $5 million, and we all know from distorting McCain's statement that $5 million or less is middle class.)
August 24, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't John Edwards run for President?
August 24, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you decide to run it's because you believe you can withstand any oppo research (see Obama, Barack).
See also Edwards, John.
August 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you decide to run it's because you believe you can withstand any oppo research (see Obama, Barack). If you are a nominee, you believe you can withstand any oppo research.
See Edwards, John?
August 25, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they're going to talk about this in the MSM. They're going to do anything they can to keep the story of a delicious feud between Clinton and Obama alive.
Blecchh.
August 24, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked..."
My gut says that there are other sides to the story that we're not getting.
Nevertheless, lovers and haters of Hillary will have a field day unleashing their latest rounds of resentments...
August 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look what they just did on CNN. "Hillary should have been the pick because right now she is leading John McCain by 6 points in polls and Barack by 3." Uhhhhhhhh, News Flash you MSM FOOLS, Hillary isn't in a presidential race at the moment and she isn't being bombarded by negative ads on a daily basis. If that is the case Al Gore is beating John McCain right now, what difference does it make.
August 24, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check:
Unless you are Joe Biden, today, there is no difference between those who were vetted and those that were not. Senator Bayh and Senator Clinton both ended up in the same place, so all those crocodile tears being shed because Senator Clinton wasn't vetted are just absurd. Only one person was picked, and all others were not, regardless of if they were vetted or not. I wasn't, and I am holding up quite well, thank you very much.
August 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check 2:
In the spirit of party unity, perhaps Obama campaign leaks may want to refrain from continuing to backslap Hillary in the press by revealing that Obama did not have the guts to tell Hillary himself and asked one of Hillary's associates to do it. It doesn't paint very flattering picture of him. If he doesn't have the courage to face Hillary, how does he have the courage to be president?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/24/obama-not-the-first-to-inform-clinton/
Shameful, stupid, insulting, divisive and yet they are so proud of it, they are leaking it to the press. Meanwhile Hillary's releasing her delegates and strongly encouraging them to vote for Obama. And yet folks continue to criticize Hillary for not doing more for unity. What has Obama done? Nothing.
August 24, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRONG dijamo. OH SO WRONG. Obama was praising Hillary for MONTHS while she was STILL bashing him. Obama CALLED Bill on Thursday and spoke to Hill DIRECTLY. If he was afraid he would have avoided calling her. He gave her a roll call, he gave he her platform, he gave her and her husband prime time speaking slots, AND he has people that LITERALLY detest Hillary Clinton raising money for her (I dare you to tell me it's harder to raise money for the losing candidate than a winning one). Now I will agree that Hill is doing a heck of a lot and she should be more than commended for her work, I hope she has a very important roll helping her constituents in an Obama administration but what you said was flat out wrong.
August 24, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can source your denials then do so, but the story cites a senior aide to Obama and a Democratic party official saying this is how Hillary was told. Obama should be demanding a retraction from CNN if the story is untrue and investigating who on his campaign and the Democratic party is stupid enough to leak this story if they didn't want t public. Maybe they wee afraid it would leak from Hilary's supporters first. That's the only thing that makes even halfway sense because it shows such little character on his part to not be able to face Hillary himself.
August 24, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
August 25, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
He spoke with her Friday morning, here's a source:
"ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., heading into the convention next week and coming off of choosing his vice president -- had phone conversations with both Bill and Hillary Clinton this week.
The presumptive Democratic nominee spoke at length with former President Clinton on Thursday afternoon.
"It was a broad, wide ranging conversation about what's going on in the country," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, insisting that he and the ex-commander in chief speak often.
During the time of their phone conversation, Obama had already made his mind up for his VP pick, but did not inform Clinton of his choice on the call.
Clinton speaks at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night.
On Friday morning, Obama called his former opponent, Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y.
Presumably, Clinton, who was on the long list of potential vice presidential picks, was informed then that Obama did not intend to choose her. But the Obama campaign refuses to characterize Clinton and Obama's phone conversation as a "courtesy call" to tell her she was not the choice for VP.
Obama had such conversations on Thursday with top contenders Sen. Evan Bayh and Gov. Tim Kaine.
"It was a broad conversation," Pskai said.
Sen. Clinton speaks at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obamas-broad-ph.html
August 25, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell is the point of all this bickering. It is over. The ticket is in place.
Senator Obama said, quite sometime ago, with regard to the Clintons, that three presidents at the same time, would be two too many.
How much more did he have to spell it out that he was not going to put Hillary on the ticket. She knew it way back then.
August 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that were the case liam but they are OBSESSED with that damn divisive narrative. They know that storyline gets ratings and they will be looking for any sort of friction they can find. I am just trying to show that the spin is bullcrap and they should know it that way.
August 24, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, nothing to talk about here, the ticket's been picked! Never mind that he picked a running mate who was resoundingly defeated in the primaries, helped Clarence Thomas get his Supreme Court seat, voted for the Iraq war and then rewrote the bankruptcy laws in favor of the very banks who have led the economy into a severe downturn.
Kudos to Biden for admitting his Iraq war vote was a mistake. But it still makes Obama a hypocrite for picking Biden as his oreign policy guru even though he made the same blunder that Obama used so effectively against Clinton that he managed to beat her against the odds.
August 24, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is a better choice than Hillary. With respect to Iraq, finding someone who didn't sign on board would be quite difficult... and I don't have a lot of faith in the ones that voted against the war for a variety of other reasons. The difference between Biden and Hillary (or, frankly, Hillary and nearly anyone) is that Hillary has yet to say: I made a mistake.
Like her husband, she sticks to the deny, deny, deny mentality, hoping that if she is stubborn enough, you will simply give up and move on.
In fact, her reaction to the mistake of her AUMF vote is seriously telling. That sort of stubbornness reminds me a lot of GWB.
August 25, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her reaction to her mistake on AUMF was the same as Biden's - if we'd had all the info, there wouldn't have been a vote, Bush deceived us.
A little more lipstick on that pig, you missed a spot.
August 25, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
liam.. Find another word. Bicker does not properly equate with the emotion-rage.
August 25, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am just relieved that the All Hillary News Cycle is coming to an end and we can forget about her. I was convinced that she was Inevitable and that the Democrats would lose the chance at the White House when she was nominated, and things have been looking up since then. And really glad Barack did not select her for Veep. That would have been a terrible mistake. And the stories coming out about how badly managed her campaign was just confirm what I had suspected all along.
August 24, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
if u think the war on iraq vote is what sunk hrc's ship than no wonder you are still dreaming of an hrc presidency for 08...coo coo in la la land is what i call it...
hrc lost fair and square..inept campaigning is what separates a winner from a loser..
mccain may win this thing if his campaign outsmarts obama....mccain likes to play dirty and so did hrc....we all how that boded for the HILL..
i am going to bed b/c the more i read about hrc and her supporters, the easier it is becoming for all my negative feelings about hrc to creep back in...
djama, lalo, desi, all of them were quote on quote on board b/c they were hoping and praying the hrc would have sneaked her way in as vp..now that it is not going to happen, the backstabbing and obama bashing is now back in full effect!!!
i feel bad that mccain is using hrc against obama..no matter what hrc is one of us, but she has not been very passionate about helping obama to win..that is fact!
August 24, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? Posters here are stabbing Obama in the back?
That makes no sense. Obama is the one who should court the vote of everyone who posts here. He's the one who will win or lose votes based on how well he does that.
Nobody here can "stab Obama in the back" because we don't, in the end, owe him anything. He owes us. Let's see if he can deliver. Choosing Biden, a man that we all resoundingly rejected in the primaries, is not a good start.
August 25, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And my God, now Paul Begala is on the tube yakking about how Obama should have consulted the Clintons. And I understand James Carville was doing the same.
You know, Hillary could shut this down, but obviously she hasn't. If I had a dime for every time I'd gotten pissed at the Clintons after having felt more or less agreeable toward them (I even thought I'd be okay with her being selected for VP!), I could retire and become a legend.
I have just about had it with the Democratic party. And I have definitely had it with the Clintons. As far as I'm concerned, her freaking political career is toast. I will never ever vote for her. In fact, I'm thinking about moving to New York so I can NOT vote for her for Senator.
Jeebus, when will this all be over??
August 24, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, theone76, but it looks like this whole story is probably based on a misquote, just as I suspected. here's Politico's take:
Hillary wanted what others -- including Joe Biden -- asked for and got: the assurance that if they were vetted they would have a serious shot. Obama must never have thought Hillary had a serious shot, so he respected her wishes and didn't bother vetting her.Hillary didn't hold anyone hostage. She didn't insist on totally out of the ordinary treatment. Don't believe everything you read from unattributed, confidential sources.
I wish we could all just move on from the Hillary/Barack conflict story, but this point is worth making because so many TPM readers are eager to believe any mistruth that's put into Hillary's mouth by journalists who want to inflame intraparty tensions.
August 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voter fraud, caucus abuse, fear tactics, lying about small donors, questionable 527 activity, delegate theft and pretend reinstatement of states, third election in a row stolen. Yeah, Clinton supporters aren't going away anytime soon, no matter what she does. So get used to it.
August 25, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this story is true (and who really knows these days?), it's another indication of the Clinton sense of entitlement.
Frankly, I'm not sure if there would even have been enough time to properly vet Hillary in just the few short months available. We are talking a lot of potential trails here...
August 25, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is interesting that you didn't stop--for obvious reasons--right there. In fact, it's curious that you didn't stop after you thought it. But no, you think it, write it and continue on as if it were true. Now, what would you have written if instead you had the thought... "What if this story isn't true?"
August 25, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment