Clinton Defections Should Raise Eyebrows
Rev. Jeremiah Wright has proven to be Barack Obama's cross to bear. Wright's recent road show, specifically his National Press Conference speech and subsequent press conference, raises questions for some about Obama.
It may not always be fair, but we are judged by the company we keep. What then does it say about the company we no longer keep? If Wright's behavior raises questions about Obama, are not similar questions raised by the defectors within the Clinton camp?
This week, former Democratic National Committee Chair and superdelegate, Joe Andrew switched his support from Clinton to Obama. On the heels of the Indiana primary, Andrew, who lives in Indianapolis, also stated he planned to call the other superdelegates he knows, lobbying them to back Obama.
Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chair of the DNC in 1999, he led the party through the disputed 2000 presidential race before resigning in 2001. He originally endorsed Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy last year.
Given the context of Jeremiah Wright and the contested Indiana primary the Andrew defection is big not only because of his superdelegate status, but because he worked with the Clintons. But he is hardly the first.
Former Ambassador to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, recently left the campaign apparently to hold a similar position with Obama. It was reported that he raised nearly $500,000 for Clinton. Guerra-Mondragon was appointed Ambassador to Chile by President Clinton in 1994 and served until 1998.
According to NBC News, among the reasons for Guerra-Mondragon's defection included his uneasiness with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election.
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, recently endorsed Obama. In addition to serving in the Clinton administration, Reich's personal relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton spans five decades.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's recent endorsement of Obama has been viewed by some as duplicity of the highest order. Former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, referred to Richardson, the former Clinton Energy Secretary and former presidential candidate as "Judas."
In addition, Greg Craig, who served as special counsel to Bill Clinton during his impeachment; Anthony Lake, former National Security Adviser, have thrown their support to Obama. Even Obama's chief political strategist David Axelrod worked for Hillary Clinton during her Senate campaign.
Then there are the members of the Senate who have known and worked with Bill and Hillary Clinton for the past two decades who have decided to support Obama, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and former presidential candidate Christopher Dodd.
There have been several reported cases of heated telephone conversations, most notable, between the former president and Kennedy as well as Richardson after they decided to endorse Obama.
Is this string of defections merely politics as usual? Are they the residue of angry former employees? Or is there something else at play?
The first hint of defection came in early 2007 when Hollywood media mogul David Geffen, once a Clinton supporter who was reported to have raised $18 million for the former president, decided to hold a fundraiser for Obama.
Geffen told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." Geffen described Hillary Clinton as "incredibly polarizing" and Bill Clinton as "reckless."
The adjective Geffen used to describe the former president conjures memories of Monica Lewinsky, a subject the Clinton's have deemed off limits during the primary season but may be reexamined in the post Jeremiah Wright world.
If Wright's association with Obama has done damage to the senator's image, is it not fair to ask what the myriad defections by a number of highly respected aides and supporters say about Clinton? Moreover, a number of these defections have occurred since "bittergate," the Pennsylvania primary, and Jeremiah Wright.
Many of these defectors are not immune to power. Some, in all likelihood, have made their own Faustian bargains at times for a seat at the table. For whatever reason the possibility of sitting at that table with the Clintons is no longer as appealing as it once was.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of "Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War". E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or go to his website, byronspeaks.com
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
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
What I find very confusing is why Ms Clinton has such a huge problem with the so-called "reverend" White.
Back when Mr. Clinton got caught messing with an intern, the first person the Clinton Couple called for 'advice' was 'reverend' White, who not only attended them but did so in the Whitehouse.
Why isn't this common knowledge?
The Clintons have a long relationship with White. She of the Bosnian Sniper Attack is known to obscure or flat-out lie about facts. Her relationship with 'reverend' White is just another in her repertoire.
I think you mean Wright and I, too, question, why the Clintons' assocation with the Reverend has not been brought up. HRC tried to act holier-than-thou when she said, "He wouldn't have been my pastor," but she had no problem with him helping out her husband during the Lewinsky affair.
Not only did the Clintons meet with Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the "National Prayer Breakfast" on many occasions, call on him when Clinton's scandals were peaking, they also sat in Jeremiah Wright's pews a 1/2 dozen times during the past twenty years.
This is what happens to a Reverend that support's another milestone, instead of their own.....a black man. That is the 'hate' the Clinton's feel. It's not just a (so-what) feeling, it's betrayal, an enormous disappointed of grandiose scale.....to them, nobody else, just them. they are very radical, in all their views, with all their associations, at all times. This is a pathology that's a mental disorder, and a very dangerous disorder to have with a leader of a country.
Just think, no more continuous scandals that overtake all of Congress, all of the American people, all of our hope and dreams, all for .....themselves.
I used to support Rev. Byron Williams, but now I've changed my mind. I no longer back him -- and I'll be encouraging everyone else I know to abandon him.
Because....?
What exactly did Pastor Williams do wrong? He is making a valid point and one that I wish the MSM would talk more about. The fact that so many Clinton supporters (fundraisers, friends, superdelegates etc) are switching to Obama and no Obama supporters are switching to HRC is significant. She's losing by every metric (delegates, popular vote, states won) and her supporters are jumping ship.
That's a shame you choose that, but he is speaking the truth. Byron Williams I do not know, but...you seem to be a Hillary supporter and condemn without giving a public reason, so, who cares?
I Think if we paid more attention to a persons OWN words and deeds, we would not be hung up on those of another's.
Barack Obama has been around for many years.... research his own words, his own actions, his own record as a politician and then make your judgment based on Barack Obama's OWN life and legacy and certainly not that of the Rev Wright. There were many Germans subjected to Hitler's lunacy but still followed their own hearts and hid many Jews risking their own lives during the reign of terror.
It is ... "by their fruits you shall know them"... and not by the media's spin.
"Gollum grabs for the ring of power... he had it once, and he wants it back..."
See photo above... top left.
"Former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville..."
Former?
We all know better...
"Gollum grabs for the ring of power... he had it once, and he wants it back..."
Maybe they are all part of the "elite" experts that Hillary doesn't need to pay attention to - because she has the solutions? (sarcasm)
that's a nice thought but in the parts of indiana in the chicago market she's up double digits over obama, and you know he over saw the complete destruction of the dems in congress in elections and in most state races as well. so hmm he can go. There's a reason he didn't last.
Thanks for the writing Mr. Williams
You provide much food for thought. I like the kind of campaign Obama has run so far.
The candidate that respects me adds a positive benefit to my life. I feel respected by Mr. Obama. When I compare Clinton and Obama after observing them for these many months, I come away with a desire to meet Mr. Obama. I say, Mr. Obama tell me more about your vision for our country. I believe he inspires new thinking and constructive inertia; he adds value to my life.
Obama, as leader, makes our country greater. Obama energizes us to “fight the good fight” and turn the tide of mediocrity, prejudice, and partisan divisiveness. Mr. Obama inspires us to new thinking and action. When we read his books, listen to his words, observe his thoughtfulness we like what we see, read, hear, and feel. We like this relationship so far. We feel very committed already, Mr. Obama what are your intentions, are they honorable? Will you act consistently and continuously for what is good for us? What value do you bring to this very needy table?
Warren Bennis says in his book, On Becoming a Leader (2003) that the “differences between leaders… are those who master the context and those who surrender to it. (Clinton surrendered long ago.)” Obama demonstrates the thoughtful patience, intelligence, and tenacity we need in a leader. ars
I for one, am still puzzled by the blatant spin by the media that this contest is closer than it is. I actually heard that cooc James Carville say that if Hillary were to win Indiana and NC she would be the nominee, then I held my gut and bellowed in laughter. Look if Hillary were ahead by 500 000 in popular vote, ahead in states won, and ahead in the pledged delegate count by 130+, what would the tone be? The very fact that Hillary Clinton, the politician of privlege, backed by a popular president, is behind, running against a political rookie is starkly telling. And what she is currently doing, this campaign of super delegate convincing, is a dangerous one that would seriously damage her chance at a GE win in November...definitely so, if it is perceived that she somehow stole the nomination.
I am glad to know that someone else saw that crazy guy James Carville saying such an outrageous thing. I almost doubled over with laughter. It never ceases to amaze me that Clinton and her people are so willing to say that she is winning. But then again, maybe that is not so amazing given the fact that they have lied ..uh..''misspoken'' about everything else in this process. Equally hilarious was Terry McAuliffee on Morning Joe today reeling off a list of the handful of states that she has won. The man, like most of Hillary's staff, seem a little off these days. Thanks for a great article, Mr. Williams.
Carville's a talented, intelligent, canny spin-meister. He's crazy like a fox, and in this case, IMHO, loyal to the Clintons to a fault. I say this because he knows in his heart of hearts as well as anyone that should Clinton somehow wrest the nomination at this point, the Democratic Party would be handing both houses of congress as well as the White House to the GOP for at least the next four years, very likely eight. Clinton has done too much damage to herself in the African-American community, and those droves of new voters Obama has brought into the fold would rightfully see the denial of Obama as a repudiation of the democratic process, further proof that the United States is a shell of the democracy it once aspired to be. No amount of pandering to working-class white voters can possibly make up for the voters Clinton has turned off, and the voters Clinton can never hope to turn on.
Without denying the possibility of a political calculus in the decisions of some of the superdelegates Mr. Williams cites in this piece, maybe we should also consider the possibility that they are supporting Obama because they see at least a chance for a change from the divisive politics that has dominated the political landscape for the past three decades.
I wish the Clintons would get it together. Hillary REALLY needs to bow out GRACEFULLY while she still can.
Not going to happen... Hillary lacks class and integrity!
There are a few more former Clinton cabinet members who are now with Obama. Dr. Susan Rice(the better of the Dr Rices), who is as smart and savvy as they come. She was Bill Clinton's asst secretary of state for african affairs. Two others served in Ciinton;s cabinet , an asst attorney general and a human health and services member are with Obama as well. Even if you are the staunchest Hillary supporter, you have got to ask yourself why are so many former Clinton people alignining themselves with Obama?
I was very impressed with Dr. Susan Rice. She joined the Obama campaign early on after hearing one of Obama's speeches on the campaign trail.
Hillary is spinning every chance she gets. Ickes was hired to do JUST that. The REMAINING superdelegates are aware of it. At this point, Hillary's camp could care less how "spinning" appears to the superdelegates. The Clintons sincerely believe their 90's tactics will convince the SD's in Denver. However, the Clintons are hoping there are enough UNINFORMED voters out there to fall for their tactics.
I agree!!
It was learning about Ickes coming in as a primary adviser for Hillary that convinced me to support Obama - at least initially. He's bad, bad news. The closest thing the Dems have to Rove. His tactics during the Clinton-Dole campaign were rotten to the core. That's when I "dropped out" of the Democratic Party. I could not ethically be a party to the Party any longer, not if people like Ickes were running it.
I would not say that everyone voting for Hillary is uninformed. They are just ignorant and prefer Hillary over Obama because most of them are probably racist!
What it means to me is that Hillary is not Bill. The loyalty Bill commanded is not necessarily transferable to Hillary. She started out with built-in backers and loyal associates, but they can be lost, and some have been.
Doesn't raise eyebrows with me...
Ever hear of rats abandoning a sinking ship? Clinton's negatives are so high that she is unelectable. Lets face it, running almost unopposed in MI, she still lost 40% of the Democrats. If 40% of Dems won't vote for her (even before she went negative), how can she win MI?
I agree because it is Hillary against Obama we don't here about Hillary's scandles,but once she steals the election the neocons will bring them out. The reason we don't hear about them now is because the media and the GOP wants Hillary to be the nominee. The GOP knows she and Bill wrote the book on scandles, and they will surely have enough to last them till November. The people that are defecting from her camp obviously has a conscience that finally got the better of them,unfortunately unlike Hillary or her blind supporters.
HRC's aides have been talking privately about what a shrew she is at least since '93. Many were unceremoniously dumped by her along the way. Many remained, because they wanted to stay on the political scene, and HRC was it for them. Now, however, they've reached the point where it's time to cut bait, to take the chance that the Empty Suit is going to make it big. When the Empty Suit fails, the HRC camp will have to find other political homes, which is preferable to remaining with The Shrew.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
