Hillary Clinton's Sleaze Parade

Politics can be a rough game. Candidates need to hold their competitors accountable and challenge distortions and lies. And God knows, we need a Democratic nominee who's willing to fight. But Hillary Clinton's campaign has included far too many cheap shots, sleazy manipulations, and unsavory players.

New questionable actions emerge daily. You're probably familiar with many. But it's the broader pattern that disturbs me--how much the Clinton campaign seems to nurture questionable actions from her operatives, supporters, and surrogates. And how the campaign's actions go beyond drawing legitimate political lines to an all-too-Rovian instinct to do whatever's deemed necessary to take down those blocking Clinton's potential victory. Here's a representative list of actions that, taken together, offer a troubling portent for her candidacy and presidency.

Start with the hiring of chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn. He's CEO of a PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is advising the giant industrial laundry corporation Cintas in fighting unionization, and whose website proudly heralded their union-busting expertise until it became a potential Clinton liability and they removed that section. B-M has historically represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster.

Then there are Clinton's campaign donors. Any major candidate has some dubious supporters, but Clinton's gotten money from particularly noxious sources. Start with her donation from Rupert Murdoch, who's given to no other Democrat. Add in massive amounts of money from Washington lobbyists and from industries like defense, banking, health care, and oil and energy providers (though Obama's also gotten a lot from some of these industries). Then there's Norman Hsu, who brought in over $850,000 to Hillary's campaign after returning to the US following his flight to evade a fraud conviction (Hsu was subsequently rearrested, sentenced to three years, and is facing further federal charges, and the campaign eventually returned the money he'd raised). There's the Nebraska data processing company InfoUSA, whose CEO, Vin Gupta, used private corporate jets to fly the Clintons on business, personal, and campaign trips, gave Bill Clinton a $3.3 million consulting contract, and is now being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly diverting company money to his own personal uses. Mississippi attorney Dickie Scruggs recently canceled a major December 15 Hillary fundraiser (with Bill Clinton headlining) after being indicted for trying to bribe a judge. Major international sweatshop owners, the Saipan-based Tan family, have given Clinton $26,000, complementing their previous massive support for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay. That doesn't even count dubious supporters from the past, like Peter Paul, the convicted con-artist turned event producer who coordinated a massive Hollywood Clinton fundraiser during the 2,000 election. Taken together, it's a pretty tainted constellation of backers.

Like most candidates, Clinton spends the bulk of her money on ads and mailings, and she's taken some pretty problematic approaches there too. I wonder how many of the New Hampshire women who voted last minute for Clinton were swayed by a mailing claiming that Obama wasn't really committed to abortion rights because he'd voted "present" on some abortion-related legislative votes. Except that Obama had done so as part of a strategy devised by Illinois Planned Parenthood to protect vulnerable swing district representatives. New England Planned Parenthood's Board Chair strongly refuted Clinton's letter, pointing out that Obama had a 100% record on all the votes that really mattered. But the mailing may still have damaged his support.

The distortion of Obama's position on abortion echoes Hillary's audacious argument that Obama really wasn't against the Iraq war and betrayed his promises by failing to vote against war appropriation bills after the Democrats couldn't override Bush's veto. I wish Obama had bucked the Democratic leadership and taken a stronger stand. But it's a gross distortion of history to equate his positions with Clinton's overt support for the war authorization, refusal to apologize for her vote, and claim that she was really doing it all to promote more diplomatic solutions.

We can find further distortions in a mailing sent out before the Iowa caucuses by the independent expenditure committee of a key Clinton ally, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The AFSCME mailing attacked Obama on his health care plan by using a John Edwards quote that was featured so prominently that recipients could assume that his campaign was the source of the attack piece. This and other actions so disturbed a group of seven AFSCME International Vice Presidents wrote a public letter to their union president, saying that although the union had endorsed Clinton on a split vote, the political committee had no mandate to attack Obama. They demanded the committee stop what they called "fundamentally dishonest" attacks.

Other surrogates have attacked Obama's character. Twice they've tried to raise Obama's early drug use as a campaign issue--despite his having addressed it directly and frankly in his book Dreams From My Father. Hillary's New Hampshire campaign chair, Billy Shaheen, mentioned it first, claiming that he was only worried about how the Republicans might use it. Sheehan resigned from the campaign after a storm of criticism, then Black Entertainment Television CEO Robert Johnson (who's backed Bush on issues like the estate tax) raised it again, with Clinton standing next to him at a South Carolina rally. After Johnson's words drew major heat, Clinton belatedly distanced herself from them, but the smear still stands, along with the disingenuous claim that those making it were just neutral participants, only trying to serve the Party's best interests.

Clinton's campaign also attacked the John Edwards campaign for appearing in New Hampshire with the parents of Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year-old leukemia patient who died after CIGNA refused her a liver transplant. Clinton press secretary Jay Carson claimed that the US needs to elect "somebody who's actually going to help people and not use them as talking points." Never mind that the Sarkisyans had initiated the chance to speak out by contacting Edwards about appearing at a Manchester New Hampshire town hall campaign appearance. To the Clinton campaign, their appearance had to be suspect, because they were supporting Edwards and his ideas.

The campaign has also attempted more directly to discourage participation by voters who might support Clinton's opponents. A judge just shut down the lawsuit filed by the pro-Clinton leadership of the Nevada teacher's union, which sought to prevent long-scheduled caucuses from being held at central locations on the main casino strip, where workers largely represented by the Obama-endorsing Culinary Workers Union would find it easier to attend. When asked, Hillary Clinton claimed to have "no opinion on the lawsuit" and Bill Clinton overtly supported it.

New Hampshire saw parallel voter suppression tactics, as the campaign encouraged the New Hampshire Democratic Party to evict Obama get-out-the-vote observers from the polls. In Iowa, the Clinton Campaign tried to discourage out-of-state students from returning to their campuses to participate in the caucuses. In the Michigan primary, Clinton kept her name on the ballot after the state violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving its primary ahead of the Feb 5 "Super Tuesday" vote, while Edwards and Obama took theirs off.

Campaigns can have either closed or open information styles. Clinton's comes far too close to the Bush-Cheney model, as when the Clintons successfully killed a major story in the national men's magazine GQ about Clinton campaign infighting. Author Josh Green had written a long critical previous piece on Clinton for The Atlantic, and campaign press secretary Jay Carson threatened to deny the magazine access to Bill Clinton for a separate cover story on his international foundation work. GQ acquiesced and pulled the critical piece.

The flip side of trying to stop negative coverage is manufacturing praise. Clinton's campaign did this when they gave planted questions to Iowa student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, and according to Chasanoff, to other students as well. After being driven to a public event by Clinton interns, Chasanoff was introduced to a Clinton staffer who showed her a list of suggested questions to ask, one of which she used at Clinton's forum. It's not quite like Bush inviting the softball inquiries of former male-prostitute turned right-wing blogger Jeff Gannon. But it isn't so different either.

Taken together, these examples echo the Bush's administration's tendency to attack anyone who challenges them. They echo Clinton's refusal to apologize for her Iraq war vote or for an Iran vote so reckless that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." They hardly bode well for reversing the massive erosions of transparency of the past seven years.

The list could go on, but it's the pattern that's important. It's true that one person's cheap shot artist is another's fierce competitor. Obama himself has called politics "a full-contact sport," and used legal maneuvers to block a long-time state legislator when he first ran for office. And Democrats will need to be fierce in their campaigning if they're going to defeat the right-wing Swiftboating machine that gave Bush the last two presidencies. So maybe I'd be more charitable if I didn't disagree so strongly with Clinton's Iraq and Iran votes, and utter failure to take leadership in standing up to Bush when he was riding high in the polls. But I think I'd still have a problem. I look at the actions of her campaign, and see an ugly example, a ruthlessness not remotely equaled by either Obama or Edwards. I'll vote for the last Democrat standing, because the Republicans will continue the current administration's disastrous priorities. But Hillary's scorched-earth approach threatens to fracture the party if she does get the nomination, and to leave a trail of bitterness even if she wins. We can do better for the Democratic nominee.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Comments

[altohone]

Right before the NH vote count was flubbed, I saw two pundits who clearly believed the polls and were looking for the reasons she lost (free of repercussions) bring up how many people have been alienated by the Clinton's strong arm tactics in wrangling backers. When she won, the discussion disappeared for some reason...

The large checks for consultants who happen to be party leaders should have been mentioned too, not to forget her campaign paying off Vilsacks huge campaign debts right before he decided to support her.

Excellent post though.

[Fairfloss]

Remember, there are two of them. The hardcore, battle hardened politicians whose ambitions make them ruthless. Power is their life blood.
Hillary's found her "voice" and than lost it again when she slipped back into the old Hillary.
Bill is more than ready to take on any reporter, with a dignity less than befitting a former President. (Did you think he'd be quiet?)
They are a team, like salt and pepper and they want back in the White House in the worst way.
Nothing or no body is going to stop them.
Than comes Barak Obama, like a breath of fresh air. A new name and handsome face, yes, the Clinton's are threaten the most by him. Compared to Barak Obama, the Clinton's look just plain ugly in every way. They will just get uglier.

[AnnMedlock]

This citizen's soul is much troubled by a worst-case political nightmare: the Clinton machine flattens her Democratic rivals, stealing their main stances, as she did in echoing Edwards' populist, anti-corporate stance in her NH victory speech--a stance she has never, will never take action on. Republican strategists rejoice and roll out the devastating oppo files they've amassed on her. She is in turn flattened, and the Republicans keep the White House, completing their destruction of the real USA. Guess I should re-read Loeb's Citizen's Guide to Hope.

[AngryAmish]

And Obama, product of Chicago machine politics, is possessed of clean hands and a pure heart? Please. Check out some of his classic Chicago machine maneuvers, such as the craven role he played in the installation of an unqualified idiot as Cook County Board President. In the dirty politics department, I'd say Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are evenly matched.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

The MLK/LBJ comparison still disturbs me. I was disappointed that Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" said he didn't see anything controversial about it.

What I want to know is: *why* did Hillary say this? Candidates don't just say stuff because it pops into their head (maybe Howard Dean did once in a while). Sure, it was "the truth"-- LBJ did sign it into law-- but what is The Truth, the motivation behind such a statement?

Obama isn't running to be a civil rights leader, he's running to be President, so when she said "it took a President to get it done"-- well, as President, Obama would get it done. He would also inspire and mobilize the American people on the way to the White House.

I don't understand the Clintons' strategy, but if a Republican campaign had done the things the Clinton campaign did regarding race, they would be called racists. Andrew Cuomo's comment, the "hip" friend comment-- and since, no, I'm not reading from the Obama campaign memo which listed what Clinton surrogates had said (the strategy being to remind people what the other side has said-- for shame!), I don't remember what else.

But there was a clear pattern of trying to inject race into the campaign. My theory: the Clintons are trying to get Obama to act like a "victim" and whether you are or you're not, Americans don't like people who think they are victims. Obama didn't do that-- so next strategy please.

Hillary isn't a racist, obviously. But her willingness to do anything to win has made it very hard for me to vote for her if she's the nominee.

[MPeter]

Yes, thank you. You are a guy with a backbone and the gumption to call them as you see them. The Clintons are so crooked and so ruthless, they foam on their mouths at the slightest indication they might lose power. They lie, distort, smear and even fake emotions. Thank you for your honest and dead-on piece. America needs to wake up before the Clintons pull off another con job.

[TheKiddy]

What about Clinton's attacks on Edwards? Why is the choice between Obama (with huge amounts of money from big pharma, banking interests, nuclear, oil and gas, et al) and Clinton (with her attack style politics and huge amounts of money from big pharma, banking interests, oil and gas, et al)?

I don't want either one of them and am tired of reading posts that frame this as a two-person race. Enough.

[ebbtide]

They apparently do. Pay no attention to her war vote, probably do not know how many have been killed and teach their children that smearing and attacking others in order to win is just fine and dandy behavior. More the same if she is elected. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent just so the wife of Bill Clinton can be president. You can bet there is nothing she will do to address the war crimes of George Bush, son of Bill's pal, George HW Bush

and so goes our country. I am ashamed to be a citizen of this country. I may not even vote. And the two party system sucks. It requires soeone to vote for president, who directly goes against their moral and ethical beliefs.

Won't hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she wins.

[Countess]

This is dead on! Mrs. Clinton and her cohorts have run a campaign worthy of Richard Nixon or more recently the swift-boaters. How could any democrat want this person to be president?