More

Frank Rich's Buried Lede: His Two-Page Handwritten Letter From Bill Clinton

Huffington Post   First Posted: 03/28/08 03:45 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 01:20 PM ET

Frank Rich Bill Clinton

Another week, another Sunday for Frank Rich to weigh in on the presidential race. This week his main point: Experience is no ace in the hole for this primary race. Case in point: Political (and war) veteran John McCain vs. proud foreign policy neophyte (not to mention NIE-o-phyte) Mike Huckabee, and self-proclaimed candidate of "experience" Hillary Clinton vs. self-proclaimed candidate of "change" Barack Obama. All very interesting, but is that the juice of the column? Hell, no! Buried way down — as in, paragraph 16 of 19 — is the revelation that Bill Clinton sent Rich a personal, handwritten letter complaining about how Rich portryed his wife in a column:

In a two-page handwritten letter in response to a recent column of mine criticizing Mrs. Clinton's Senate votes on Iraq and Iran, Bill Clinton made a serious and impassioned defense of her foreign-policy record. On the subject of her support for the so-called Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran this fall, Mr. Clinton wrote: "If Senator Obama, for example, had really believed it was an indirect authorization to attack Iran, he would not have stayed away on the campaign trail, but would have come back to vote against it." That's a fair point — and a fair criticism of Mr. Obama as he continues to vilify this particular Hillary Clinton vote. If voting for Kyl-Lieberman was as grave a step toward war as Mr. Obama claims, there's no excuse for his absence.

Good point, but if Rich is correct, unimportant either way since it goes to Hillary's — and Obama's — record (and also something Hillary doesn't really want to emphasize because it's in both their interests to downplay the importance of that vote). The more telling observation is this one:

Bill Clinton wouldn't have shifted gears to refer to his wife constantly as a "change agent," however implausibly, if his acute political sensors didn't tell him that Americans are not just willing but eager to roll the dice.

His acute political sensors probably read the ABC News-Washington Post poll Rich cites, which has Obama ahead by 4 points in Iowa. Possibly those same sensors told him that if he wrote Frank Rich a 2-page letter, it might just get a mention in his column.

NB: I have to disagree with RIch's equating of "the invocations of 'cocaine' and 'Hussein' and 'madrassa' by surrogates" with "similar smear campaigns against John McCain in 2000." Here is the thing: Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name, for better or for worse, and he freely admitted his cocaine use years ago, in print. (And if anyone hammered home the word "cocaine" in that now-infamous Hardball segment, it was Joe Trippi, not Mark Penn) (and meanwhile, we are never far from a reminder of the, er, challenges of Bill and Hill's marriage: See Maureen Dowd's gratuitous cigar reference just today). Meanwhile, Bob Kerrey's mention of the madrassa rumor may or may not have been intentional, but for argument's sake I'm going to give this war vet the benefit of the doubt. By contrast, the smear campaign against John McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 campaign was as ugly and coordinated as it gets: Making phone calls to voters suggesting that McCain's Bangladeshi daughter — adopted from Mother Teresa's orphanage — was actually his own illegitimate black child. It's known as one of the most scurrilous political smears ever. Whatever memes Hillary's team may (or may not) have tried to push, it just doesn't hold a candle.


Photo of Frank Rich from the NYT; photo of Bill Clinton via frankejames.com.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST MEDIA

Another week, another Sunday for Frank Rich to weigh in on the presidential race. This week his main point: Experience is no ace in the hole for this primary race. Case in point: Political (and war) v...
Another week, another Sunday for Frank Rich to weigh in on the presidential race. This week his main point: Experience is no ace in the hole for this primary race. Case in point: Political (and war) v...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 65
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:05 PM on 12/26/2007
Yeah, the spin is coming full circle here. So now the fact that HRC voted for war is "proof" that she "knew" Bush would never use the authorization? I guess it was just for patriotic show, then; never even considering that Bush would be fool enough to use powers Congress, bless their hearts, handed to him.

Excuse me, but listening to Bill Clinton's HRC defense-du-jour, while entertaining in a reality-TV kind of way, is hardly anything to enter into the spreadsheet, unless it's in the debit column.

If it has an effect on her campaign at all, it'll be the effect a Mark 45 torpedo has on an aircraft carrier. Bill, it seems, just can't shut his yap, and you know what they say about loose lips.

If I were Hillary, I'd be very concerned. But then, if I were Hillary, you would never have heard of me.

--------
Kill your TV, and free your mind.
07:06 PM on 12/25/2007
Whow dude. Hold on: You mean, H'lIARy is now the Hero for voting for the "Bomb Bomb Iran" bill passed by Kyle-Lieberman? And that Obama is a villian for skipping it? We are talking about this right? Not about the support given to Bush/Co years back....
There is a big difference from these 2 words: "Support" and "Ignore". If he ignores it: thats a silent approval that the bill was "Useless" and doesnt need or deserve his vote.
And H'LIARy supports it. Voted for it without thinking. That sounds like someone the Bushies would really want. Someone to keep the legacy. She would definitely continue from where he stops. I still read the dictionary once awhile.
H'LIARy supporters, and Bill Clinton can just stop blaming Obama for every mistake made by her. It makes her look so very "UNpresidential." She gets questioned, she attacks Obama. She gets slugged by the media, she attacks the dude. I dont see my vote going to some1 who cant stand up and face the consequence of her actions. So far so good, Obama hasn't blamed H'lary or attacked her for anything. Despite the fact that she has been smearing him, making him look bad, and even making fun of the guy right infront of him for the past couple months; Obama on the other hand hasnt pointed out anything negative about H'LAIRy. Thats POSITIVITY! Thats PRESEDENTIAL. I dont want a Rovian again in the WhiteHouse.
OBAMA & EDWARDS!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JayeSutter
09:49 PM on 12/24/2007
It is rather easy to oppose the war when Obama was not a member of the Senate whose state was not attacked. If he thinks that the vote qualifying the Iranian Army a terrorist organization was so important, important enough to criticize Senator Clinton's vote, why couldn't he come back to Washington to vote against it?

Why does he refuse to take a stand whenever he is standing there in the Senate?

If Senator Clinton had not voted to support the war how in the world would she have been re-elected?

The president, who at that time we didn't know was a lying bastard--okay people from Texas knew and tried to warn everyone--stated that the CIA told him that Iraq was developing WMDs. How would the people of New York react if she hadn't voted for war in Iraq?

Yes, Joe Wilson was right. And he supports Hillary Clinton. Bush was lying. And he used the CIA to prop up his lie. But we didn't know that at the time. Not until Joe Wilson exposed Bush.

We have the benefit of hindsight. Obama can't claim that if Chicago had been attacked he wouldn't have voted for war in Iraq.

Can someone please ask him if Chicago had been attacked that he would have used that intuition to just know that Bush was lying?

In other words, Senator Clinton had no choice but to go with the information she was given and make that decision based on what happened to New York.
01:03 AM on 12/24/2007
How often do you hear of a former president writing a nationally-known columnist directly about one of his pieces? My guess is this happened only after Clinton unsuccessfully tried a direct approach to the higher-ups at The New York Times, and that they must have refused to intervene. Perhaps that's why Rich is addressing Clinton directly through his column. This is only my speculation, but I think it's extraordinary that Rich buried his response deep, instead of giving it more prominence, almost as if to say, "And by the way, they're leaning on me."
10:48 PM on 12/23/2007
Rachel, why do you refer to Mrs. Clinton as "Hillary" and to Mr. Obama as "Obama"? Is it because she is a girl and he is a man?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
roncraw
08:22 PM on 12/23/2007
I keep reading about Hillary's negatives but when I ask someone to tell me a few they are at a loss for words. I was a lifetime Repb. till Bush and the reason you hear Hillary has to many negatives are Repb. talking points and lies are they have a huge undying hatred of the Clintons as they denyed Bush one a second term.
08:13 PM on 12/23/2007
What is it about the Clintons that so fervently wish the support of progressives when their record stands clearly now as enablers of the right-wing assault on America? I'll admit that in 1992 after Tsongas' defeat and 12 years of Reagan-Bush, progressives felt no other choice but "to roll the dice" with the DLC's centrist policies. But this is now 2008 and for progressives a watershed. No more playing ball with folks who pitch around us. I'm tired on being on first base constantly, I want home runs, if not grand slams. Let's be clear about this the Clintons are not progressives and if they want to make this a referendum on the Clintonian legacy, they might win now but long-term that is a woefully inadequate game plan. On issues both foreign and domestic the situation is grave and to our advantage. The time for a truly progressive liberal agenda has arrived and the one best to lead it is John Edwards.
04:37 PM on 12/23/2007
Billy Shaheen did not accuse Senator Obama of using cocaine because he would have appeared stupid since Obama has written and spoken about it. What Shaheen did was to raise the spectre that Obama has not answered if he was a drug dealer. The idea was to provoke racial prejudice against blacks as drug dealers and cannot be trusted to be commander-in-chief.

The reason why all the dirt being thrown on Obama does not stick is because vast majority of people see him as honest and authentic. The reservation the soceity has for Obama is the fear of lack of experience. In 1992, the then Governor Bill Clinton faced similar reservations and it is normal human reaction.
04:36 PM on 12/23/2007
Mr. Rachel Sklar, l am afraid that you are not sounding like an honest broker in this matter. If you are in doubt, please name any public official or politician that is addressed by his or her middle name. The subtext of mentioning ‘Hussein’ is to associate Obama with Saddam Hussein, who was the then most hated leader in the Middle East. The West is at war with Islamic terrorists. Islamic fundamentalists are assumed to be trained in Madrassa. Once the soceity believes that Obama attended ‘madrassa’, he has immediately become a political liability. The smear that John McCain fathered illegitimate black child is not a stigma since white Americans in high and low places have done that from slavery to date. The idea of smearing John McCain in SC of having illegitimate black child was to provoke racial ressentment against his candidacy. Even if it was true that McCain fathered illegitimate black child, he would never be treated like an outcast. An American with madrassa background will never win any statewide election and will be continuously under FBI survelleince.
04:33 PM on 12/23/2007
Rachel Sklar,
Senator Obama has not explained the reason why he did not vote on Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran except that that was a price to pay when a person is campaigning for president. If you agree that it is immpossible for a person to be in two different places at the same time, then, why raise the issue why Obama did not vote on Iran amendment. Senator Obama has resisted saying the reason why he was not present for the vote in order to avoid offending power that be in his party; it is because it will bring to light the intrigue by the Senate Leader that led to schedule the vote after he was told it would not be in the immediate future and he left to campaign and it was schedule while he was away.

I watched hardball segment in question and it was Mark Penn who mentioned “cocaine” and Joe Trippi called him on it. If you are in doubt, please contact MSNBC to give you the link to view the whole episode, assuming that you are a disinterested party that wants to know the fact.
04:19 PM on 12/23/2007
you dems are something i tell ya you never here the nazi party ripping there candidates the way you's do.you all talk a big game, but when it comes right down to it your all weak. your followers, you need to be leaders and stick together. for the better of your country, at least the nazi party stick together at all times from what i see, even if what they do is criminal they still stick together.all i'm saying is whoever wins your parties nomination i hope you'll support that person no matter what. even if its hillary she would be alot better then any repug don't ya think

ok so now i wait for the rebuttals telling me to stay out of it i have no vote yaddi yaddi yaddi
04:05 PM on 12/23/2007
Hillary's gradual embrace of Bill's legacy -- or should I say, the "PG" (pretty good) Rated part of it -- has gone from avoidance/denial, to reluctance/lukewarmness, to flirtation/dating, to consummation/gambling -- inversely proportionate to her declining fortunes in the polls.

Reading the signs of the times -- the zeitgeist of a new century -- we are so not early 90's. And "back-to-the-future" Resorationism is not going to cut it.

Frank Rich in this Sunday's NYT's column concludes: "Bill Clinton wouldn't have shifted gears to refer to his wife constantly as a "change agent," however implausibly, if his acute political sensors didn't tell him that Americans are not just willing but eager to roll the dice" -- referencing Bill's steamroll of Obama on Charlie Rose. Bill may buy "back-to-the-future," as his legacy is at stake, but what can Hillary be thinking?

Bill's experience is not Hillary's. Frank Rich quotes Ted Sorenson, Kennedy's speech writer, re Clintons' slapping down of Obama on experience: "Hillary should be careful about scoffing at other people's experience," Mr. Sorensen said. "It's not as if the process of osmosis gives her presidential qualities by physical proximity."

The way back is seldom the way forward, as times change. Even domestic issues like health care hinge on the open doors of our incipient global economy -- again, so not 90"s.

Hillary wants to cling to Bill. The country seems poised to move on. "Roll of the dice" doesn't come close to the truth of what Obama brings to this presidential race.

I'm not a gambler and I'm for Obama. Hillary and Bill, Part II, plays like that scary movie where time moves backward. I can say that because I've seen it. Been there. Done that.

So, here we are, well post '92, and Hillary singing the blues, "The Twelve Days of Christmas" -- "On the first day of Christmas, my untrue love said to me....On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love said to me...and my partner in a paramour."
02:39 PM on 12/23/2007
Nice try Sklar,
People, go to Frank Rich's article and read it in full. This is an attempt to remove the original article by Mr Rich with the comments in order to protect the Clinton's. Ms/Mr Sklar must be in the pocket, as a supporter, or maybe she got a letter?????
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
raptor
02:22 PM on 12/23/2007
Show me the letter. And by all means, let us all analyze Bill's handwriting.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
02:06 PM on 12/23/2007
Wow, a handwritten letter! Wouldn't you like to have been a fly on Rich's shoulder when he read it? I imagine a lot of spluttering and ranting. Hold on to that letter though, Frank, because it will turn out to be valuable on the autograph market one day.