|
||
Who Is Maggie Williams?
The announcement that Maggie Williams just became Hillary Clinton's new campaign manager sent me back to a column I wrote about her over ten years ago:
Fallen Angels In Clinton's Rogues' Gallery
November 17, 1997
One of the most distressing features of our current political system and the Clinton White House in particular, is the way they turn otherwise honest, caring, idealistic individuals into spinning, rationalizing, truth-twisting defendants desperately trying to stay out of jail. Last week, we saw the results of this transformation in Hillary Clinton's former Chief of Staff Maggie Williams and in Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, whose testimony to Congress is now under investigation by the Justice Department.
Maggie Williams' case is particularly poignant. Last week, she testified at the House Government Oversight Committee hearings about her relationship with serial donor Johnny Chung. After spending the afternoon mesmerized by her contortionist testimony, I watched an actress in Anna Deavere Smith's new play "House Arrest" portray Williams and express her hopes that she would really make a difference in the lives of children and those in need. And I have no doubt that is what Williams originally believed her tenure at the White House would be about. Instead, it turned out to be about lie detector tests, racking up over $300,000 in legal bills, and spinning -- the committee, the press and perhaps even herself.
You can see at once the toll this has taken on her. I remember meeting Williams at the start of the first Clinton term and being impressed by her presence, her passion and her sense of humor. And here she is now, having chosen to leave the White House to live in Paris, looking tired, heavy -- defeated.
Ever since her days as a student at a parochial school in Kansas City, loyalty has been a Williams trademark. The French nuns at her school divided the class into groups with their own distinct dress colors. "We all learned to develop this incredible loyalty to our color," Williams once explained. This loyalty was transferred to her bosses. The Washington Post described her working motto as "let them set the mission, let me get it done." But at some moment during Clinton's first term, the mission shifted from saving the country to saving the first couple.
For an idealist like Maggie Williams, maybe the first lady was the embodiment of the mission, the only means at hand through which the ends she believed in could be achieved. But one thing led to another. And allegations that she removed Vince Foster's files were followed by allegations that she sold access to Johnny Chung -- until this past week, she found herself trying to jerry-fit her fund-raising involvement into the nobility of her once-worthy hopes. Back in 1993, Williams said: "Everybody hates the big injustices. ... But I hate even the little injustices, even the way a sales clerk treats somebody who is shabbily dressed and happens to go into a nice store."
What made last week's testimony sad and laughable at the same time is her pretense that that same hatred of injustice toward the little guy explains her relentlessly solicitous behavior toward Chung. "As an African American," she told the committee, "I know what it means to be different in politics in America and be on the outside of things and struggle mightily for insider status and recognition, and so I perhaps had an especially high tolerance for Mr. Chung."
Williams wants us to believe that she helped Chung get what he asked for in his typed wish list because he was "not given overall the kind of respect" extended in the White House to white males. "We are going to treat him as well as we would treat any other irritable jerk who would show up," Williams explained in her deposition last May. Tired of seeing white, rich, irritable jerks being the only ones allowed to subvert the democratic process, Williams had a dream that, one day, all rich, irritable jerks would be equally allowed to subvert the democratic process.
So as part of her outreach to overlooked minorities, she gave Chung, among other things, signed photographs with the first lady, the privilege to eat on her tab at the White House Mess as often as he wanted, and access to the president's radio address for him and his "little guy" friends -- the head of China's petrochemical monopoly among them. Perhaps next time, Williams should launch a broader outreach to include minorities who have not given $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Or maybe she should just join a Big Sister program.
Chung ended up visiting the White House 51 times, many of these visits taking place after the National Security Council had described him as a "hustler" who should be treated with "suspicion." But to hear Maggie Williams tell it, Johnny Chung was a poor, innocent waif, a sort of diamond in the rough, an Eliza Doolittle grossly in need of expert counseling in the finer points of fund-raising etiquette from Mrs. Clinton's staff -- who, after all, are responsible for the social niceties at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "A prime example of his ... misguided behavior," Williams testified, "was his persistent request to give money directly to Mrs. Clinton. On more than one occasion, I told Mr. Chung this was not possible, although his offer was much appreciated."
At the same time, Williams' aide, Evan Ryan, was telling Chung -- according to both Chung and Ryan -- that the DNC owed the White House $80,000 for a Christmas party and that any contribution would help pay off the debt. So it's no wonder that despite his charming cluelessness about fund-raising protocol, Chung was pretty clued in to how the White House worked: "The White House is like a subway -- you have to put in coins to open the gates."
Maggie Williams' story is a "Pilgrim's Progress" in reverse. She started out trying to do good and has ended up in the City of Destruction, trying to spin her way out of the rogues' gallery.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Clinton machine?" As someone noted, there is revisionist history going on. Bill Clinton lost the majority in his second term. His machine carried him but not the party. Talk about a cult of personality. Many speak about the "Clintons" and what they bring, not about what Hillary Clinton--outside her time in the Arkansas and U.S. 1st lady positions--brings. Her husband gave her positions and support (still did not help with health care) to push her agendas and build her political resume. If she had run as Hillary Rodham with bill somewhere on the sidelines as an ex after his cheating, would she be as successful? She played the gender card shamelessly, bringing out her mother and daughter for 3 generations of women. She found the name "Clinton" after using her maiden name in her career (I used my maiden name so I am not a conservative ranting about dumping the hubby's name) when she found it to be more politically expedient. I watched NOW talk about how Hillary represents women's interests. Which ones more so than the other 17 senators outranking her on the liberal scale (liberals and experience stressing critics: there were more liberal and experienced people on the democratic side, were they getting the vote). At some point, there will be a woman president who history will show as having reached that distinction by the power and ability of her own individual achievements, not a "machine" created through a cult surrounding her husband. I shudder to think how history will view the rush to put the Clintons in office, again, and have her be a front for Bill. Such a president would not be the one I would point out as a role model for my grandchildren.
These questions are for Arianna (or someone who has correct info).
1. Has there been any accurate breakdown of the white male vote for Obama in any of the primaries, especially the caucuses, as to how many were registered republicans, or who had voted republican in the past?
2. Was there ever any communication to these men encouraging them to vote for Obama?
3. Were there any valid (if there is such a thing) exit polls done questioning them about who they'll vote for in November?
I like the positions, and the personas, of both Barack and Hillary, could vote for either, but tilt toward Hillary, secondary to her very well articulated policies.
What concerns me, however, is the cynical (and perhaps somewhat paranoid) perspective (my work as psychiatrist and lawyer, as well as my neurotic mother gives me some license for this) that the democrats are being set up by the republicans, and the right wing, to lose in November, by taking advantage of the idealists, especially the younger folk, in the democratic party. If so, this is classic George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm, and numerous essays written under his real name). I suspect the republicans are far more fearful of a Hillary administration actually being able to gore their ox. (Many men, especially those who value power, distrust women...they're actually afraid of them...especially women who are comfortable with power and know where the levers are. For somewhat different, and more complex reasons, many women are also afraid of women who are comfortable with power.)
If the above perspective is accurate, most white males (and many females, for similar but also reverse sexist reasons) will not vote for Obama, for either political or racist reasons (there is plenty of racism left in America, much of it beneath the surface and that only comes out when there is anonymity, as in a voting booth, or there is plausible deniability, as in the workplace, suburbia, etc.).
I would like to be relieved of this perspective (and vision), but with facts, not faith.
These fears/arguments would be just as legitimate in service of the notion that Republican manipulation of Democratic primaries and caucuses is in Hillary's favor.
In fact, the Republicans that have supported Hillary are unlikely to vote for her. Rupert Murdoch, for instance. The Republicans for Obama are likely to vote for him. If you talk to them, they will tell you they are ready for a change in their party and will vote/trust/have faith in Obama to demonstrate to a skeptical world that Americans are no longer racist, hateful, or politically naive enough to vote for the person trying to scare them the most.
They're Republicans, and they are pretty good at spotting a winner.
It's absolutely incredible with what the Clinton power machine get away with. Every day that goes by more and more juicy tidbits rise to the surface to enlighten any intelligent person who values his/her vote.
Mark Penn we find out has ties to the Exelon Company at the same time their campaign is ramping up their swiftboating on Obama. Go figure?
Then there's Maggie Williams, from all accounts was seen removing documents from Vince Foster's office following his suicide.
I just watched "The Clinton Chronicles" video on UTube -- are we in for trouble if the Clinton's get back in the Whitehouse.
Bill Clinton has tied the hands of so many politicians/people who he has done favors for; his recent statement to Bill Richardson; wasn't two terms as _____ enough (to get you to back Hillary?) Richardson won't endorse Obama because he's afraid of the backlash of the Clintons.
And so we come full circle and the loyal Maggie Williams who is known to be as clever as Hillary in attacking anyone who gets in the way is now in charge of their campaign. Now the fun begins as quoted by Hillary after the Iowa caucus.
You make all this sound bad! Clearly you are part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Or maybe misogynistic. Or cultist.
All these situations have perfectly good explanations/talking points. Also, war is peace.
Hillary hilarity!
Enlightening and interesting observations which reveal the psychological makeup and background of someone in the Clinton camp. Blind loyalty and an ability to overlook the Clinton's obvious flaws and failings, seems to be a common denominator when analyzing people that have remained close to both Clintons.
Yes beyondgoodandevil:
It's a pretty wonderful thing, when people can still be loyal despite flaws that all humans have. Except for Obama of course. He's the second coming, who's only made a small mistake here and there. Right.
Clinton supporters like you must think that human flaws are a lack of integrity, honesty, blatant corruption, political opportunism, political expediency, and a moral vacuum. And did I even mention Obama, or write he is the second coming? No, because unlike you, I know he is not the second anything, but he will be the first African American President.
It's about the issues, not the personalities. And lord knows, all the flying accusations of dishonesty, manipulation, ignorance, etc.,won't accomplish anything.
If you support Candidate A, say why. What policies or ideas do you support? Or what is it that you don't support about Candidate B? Have you checked your favorite candidate's stand on the war? Taxes? Social Security? What is their plan for reducing poverty? How about exporting jobs? Our prison system, which is just about in a state of crisis?
I, personally, won't vote for Hillary Clinton because of the work she did to promote ending aid for our poor, essentially turning them into a Third World workforce, using those welfare dollars to provide "tax relief" to corporations. H. Clinton still periodically throws out that nonsense about corporations needing this "tax relief" to "create family supporting jobs". Well, I suppose they actually do create jobs, but those jobs are in Pakistan, Mexico, Korea... Meanwhile, largely as a result of our anti-poor policies, America now has some of the highest rates of infant mortality in the modern world, and the life expectancy of our poor has fallen below that of most Third World nations. The fact that H. Clinton advocated these policies for so many years, knowing the suffering that would result,
gives us some idea of how she would stand on other vital issues, such as protecting Social Security.
Re DHFabian: These rantings are what you reap, Ms. Huffington when you stoop so low as to fall back on a 10-year old article filled even then with innuendo and unproved accusations. How about a follow up article on the Maggie Williams indictment, trial, and conviction, and how she has fought back from her prison days. Oh, she was not indicted, charged, convicted, or jailed? Who cares, it makes for another delicious slam against Hillary. Shame on you.
WHY is the justice department wasting it's time on Clinton crap?
Maybe because they don't want to investigate BushCo war crimes and treason!
I don't trust this justice department, and you are foolish if you do.
Ughh, Duhhhh...the article was written more than 10 years ago. Years before GWB came along.
The Justice Dept. aren't investigating the Clintons now. But wait and see what happens if Sen. Clinton happens to win the Presidency.
But Ariana's column should remind people of what the Clintons are about. I remember the Johhny Chung scandal and Charlie Trie the Chinese agent and old President Clinton crony from Arkansas, is convicted of having raised hundreds of thousands of illegal dollars for the DNC from friends with ties to the Indonesian military and Chinese intelligence. (Chief fund-raiser for the DNC in these transactions was John Huang, personal fund-raiser for Clinton, Chinese intelligence asset and agent for the Riady empire -- a billion-dollar Chinese syndicate with ties to Chinese military and intelligence agencies.) Trie is also the genius who came up with the idea to use the Buddhist Temple as a front for Chinese money headed for the Clinton-Gore campaign coffers.
Here's why I don't trust Maggie Williams, who I'd never even heard of until this week: According to the story I read, and who knows how accurate this is, Maggie Williams said that unless her "role in the campaign was clarified," she'd leave. That, to me, says that she's more concerned with self-promotion than with a strong feeling that her candidate is the right candidate. If she really believed in HRC, she would say, "As long as I've got enough money for food and rent, I'm with you until the end."
Wait...putting self-interest ahead of what's best for the country? She'll fit right in with the Clinton camp.
Right stefanielaine:
In your opinion ALL Hillary supporters are in it for themselves and ALL Obama supporters are God's children.
Geesh.
Hillary blew it. Or, she was fooling us all along and her true colors came out.
A monster is growing in the Democratic campaign, largely due to the press and their influence on misguided, naive, followers. The dangers this UNTESTED, DEMAGOGUE presents at this time in our nation’s history may be devastating and irreversible.
Obama has yet to present any substance or definitive plans for our country’s future. It is unconscionable that the press continues to allow this metamorphosis to grow, unchecked, in any way.
Now as his ego grows, Obama’s rhetoric and propaganda is more arrogant and filled with more subtle “NEGATIVE INNUENDO.” His cocky language is becoming filled with more jargon, and interjections of “rapper slang.” His rallies resemble “Rock Star Events.” Now 17 year old rappers are driving the vote for our President! Do these young people realize that once Obama is elected, that these “Rock Star, Rallies” will end?
It is great that our youth is so involved in the election process. Shouldn’t they know the substance of the man these masses are following and the magnitude of the outcome in electing this man? And the bigger question…Will these young voters even show up this fall, (after the damage has been done in these early Primaries/“Rock Star Events”)?
When our next major crisis occurs - and one surely will, (whether an Economic Crash, another Katrina, a disastrous event in Iraq, etc…), then what?
We are certain of Hillary’s competence and clearly “articulated” plans. Other than the art of speech, Obama does not appear to even have the wherewithal or savvy to even reach the incompetence of George W. Bush! ( Proof has been seen.)
History has taught us that when the masses follow a demagogue, who is unchecked, with only a vague clue as to why they are doing so, (“except feeling up”), the outcome can be catastrophic!
THE CITIZENS OF AMERICA SHALL NOT FORGET THE ROLE OF THE PRESS, PUNDITS AND BLIND OBAMA FOLLOWERS FOR YEARS TO COME. WE HOPE WE CAN ENDURE THE VAST EFFECTS OF YOUR 2008 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION WHICH WILL SOON BE REALIZED.
LIVE WITH IT ON YOUR CONSCIENCE!
Thank you for this post - it reminds us that bigotry is still rampant in our country. NOt sure what this post as to do with the Maggie Williams blog - but I've noticed on almost any blog there are posts like this -- luckily most people are not swayed by stereotypes and fear - which is exactly why Obama's campaign is working. He does have detailed ideas - did you hear his speech yesterday? Senator Clinton has not more detail in her speeches than Obama - Universal HealthCare - how? ease burden on middle income America - how? Same rhetoric from 15 years ago -- she didn't even take time to vote on the FISA bill yesterday-which affects our Constitutional Rights. Tell me again how we are sure of Senator Clinton's competence - her attempt at healthcare before? her disastrous attorney general choice? must have missed her in the boats for Katrina? and she voted for the war in Iraq which is the biggest disaster of all. She made a mistake that 100 million Americans knew was a mistake with the intel. There are plenty of details of both candidates' plans on their websites. 17 year olds can't even vote so not sure how you think their support is helping Obama -- Obama didn't get press until he started winning - if you'll recall Senator Clinton and Mayor Guiliani were "shoe -ins" -- except somebody forgot to ask the American citizens. If you want to find out about Obama - read his books. Read about what it takes to be President of the Harvard Law Review - others in that position are on the Supreme Court, highly successful business people and politicians. As for contributions - if I'd contributed to Senator Clinton I'd want to know where the $175 million she previously raised has gone. . . and as far as demagogues, I'd say look to yourself because that's a person who prays on peoples prejudices to gain power. . .
auntie..... if you look closely you'll find most of Obama's details come from Hillary.
As for reading his book ... it's real easy to put pretty words on paper and make pretty speeches, especially when you have the media and your Republican opponents singing your praises. Imagine.. the Republicans selling Obama's merits for the last 6 weeks! Who ever heard of such a thing happening in any election anywhere on this earth before!
What's wrong with this picture?
You do Clinton no favors with these words against Obama. Are you really trying to help her, or are you writing this for personal gain of some kind?
You really should review your own 'rhetoric and propaganda'.
You have a lot of nerve interpreting Maggie Williams's life for her. How patronizing!
I suppose this blog is just going to get more and more tasteless as the primaries continue. I myself don't plan to read it.
Sarah in Santa Barbara
To all those Hillary hater's, you're going to eat your word's come NOV. Whether she's the nominee or not. The Republican will bring a new meaning to hatred in this country, and you all can think one another. All that nicety crap, and working together, will go out the window. And, O.B. will stand there with egg on his face, trying to figure it out. So when the vote's are counted it will be too late, to say, we made a mistake we should have kept Hillary.
If Hillary gets the nomination it won't matter what the Republicans do, since at that point, no matter who wins, we'll be stuck with a Republican president. It will be a choice between John Clinton and Hillary McCain. Now that Edwards, Kucinich, and Dodd are out of the race, there is only one candidate left who isn't a right-wing wacko. Hint: it isn't Hillary, by a country mile.
Is this the straw you folks are grasping at now? "You'll be sorry?" I'm just not sure that's going to work. I think this same sort of argument was made back around 1960 about a young senator from Massachusetts who was running against an opponent with much more experience and political savvy. If the voters had listened to this, err, argument, things would have been very different. (Watergate might have happened in 1964 instead of 1972.)
bartleby042:
I think, "you'll be sorry" is a hell of a lot better than Obamayts, threatening that streets will burn if he's not nominated, don't you?
Here I have a message for Hillary-the-dirty-trick: Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. What goes around comes around.
Why do you, Hillary, constantly want to remind us that you and us women are women? Do you really think all women are two-year-old-don’t-knows? Do you think all women are unhappy souls (like you) that they have to fight (for you)? What are you fighting for, Hillary? What is not enough of you, Hillary? One vote for the Iraq War isn't enough? Why create more fight and war to divide our country? Honestly, to me, Hillary, you are so confused (or calculating) that on one hand you want all the women sympathy-votes, but on the other hand you are a real women hater who wants to destroy women by destroying their mind, heart, and soul.
God help those who help themselves. Demand (respect) not from others but from yourself. Hillary, be truthful! When there are not thousands, but hundreds of thousands that "hate" you, there must be a reason.
I have never come across one with wisdom, kindness, and courage being "hated", not to mention by so many.
Our nation's youth is smarter than you Hillary can imagine!
Most of the hate Hillary gets is unreasonable from neo-cons that hate anything that threatens their wealth. I sure am getting sick of replying to disgruntled people with an axe to grind.Hillary is a politicion
not the Mother Mary. She has workrf all of her life helping others and it was not for profit. Look up her bio on Wilipedia and then tell me what you think of her.
Hillary Clinton Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton
Hillary may as well be a Neocon. She enables the Neocons with her votes in the Senate. She spent MOST of her career working as a Corporate Lawyer, and that's a fact. If she hadn't failed the bar exam in DC, she probably would not have married Bill, but stayed in DC as a Corporate lawyer, and would still be a Republican today.
Vote Republican! You believe all of their propaganda anyhow. Way to swallow the Republican bait hook, line, and sinker.
Or vote for the Goldwater Girl whom the Neocons have taken over. It's the same thing.
Jonny, the reason I won't vote for Hillary is because I won't vote for a Republican.
How clever of the Republicans to get the Democratic Left to trash Hillary, so the Repugs don't have to. And if Hillary does manage to survive the beating she is getting from her own party, and she is the nominee, just watch what the Repugs will do with all this crap from the Huffington Left. Shame, shame on you!
Sarah in Santa Barbara
Sexism is coming out of the closet! I am referring to men who hate women, or at least powerful women. And I am referring to those women who hate or at least can only see other women as competitors. Any woman who is more powerful or successful therefore is viciously attacked.
Regarding the comment about never coming across one with wisdom, etc. being hated, I could think of Jesus, the saints, Galileo, the so called witches of Salem, the millions of people exterminated in the Nazi death camps, the list goes on...
Quoting A. Einstein: "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
user: you must be unbelievably naive! It's those like you who have allowed the glass ceiling to perpetuate into the 21st century. Obviously you have not held a job, gone out for a sport or competed with men in your whole life.
Someone has to be strong enough, intelligent enough and tough enough to withstand the power of the hatred of women who try to actually BE equal. You hold us back with your insipid lack of self esteem and willingness to be subjugated to men who have no respect for you.
Note to user168;
I'm really wondering what you're using. Hundreds of thousands hated Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Your arguement that "there must be a reason" goes right down the crapper, where it belongs. Perhaps you should think through your position before you spew in public. Your post reads like chopped-up psychobabble.
Gramma Rose
Wait, an update to my questions above:
Go here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?
type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL
&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz1VeFnrO5fmhCz7sNEgkr6eaqCz3hWJURc5eE5Cz8bp0emPnej3&bbParentWidgetId=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL
I think that we should ask both candidates the following:
(1) Since the passing of NAFTA, many Americans have lost their jobs due to companies moving. Do you still support NAFTA?
(2) Will you pledge to restore habeas corpus and the rights of all citizens to protections guaranteed by the consitution?
(3) Do you support the rumored efforts to have a "North American Union" and would, in essence, gut our consitution?
(4) Will you honor the Geneva Accords?
Neither O nor HRC would give you straight and
specific answers to these questions. (The John Edwards campaign did!) NAFTA was, as you recall,
a program that W. Clinton and Newt Gingrich
fought hard for on the advice of former Wall Street banker Robert Rubin (then Secretary of
the Treasury). Rubin and his anti-labor views
is still involved in DC and back on Wall
Street (for Citi-Corp).
Remember W. Clinton's promise that there would
be lots and lots of US jobs???
And more recently HRC shouted (to a labor audience): "Under my administration, every day
will be labor day."
Both O and HRC are close to Wall Street. The
billions of dollars did not come from nickels
and dime contributions!
great questions - also ask about the massive enivronmental nightmare highway/railroad that is being developed in texas to link up with Mexico!!!! who is running these debates and why aren't real questions being asked!!!????
Oh, for a return to the League of Women Voters' debates!
Far from making me doubtful about Maggie Williams and the Clintons, this column made me feel nostalgic for a time when checks and balances were still practiced. Would that Bush's and Cheney's crimes and their enablers were subject to a tenth of the scrutiny the Clintonites went through.
And why were they not? Who took impeachment off the table? It was not me. Was it you? Or was it a certain Democratic "leader"?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
