| No one should be surprised by the threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi from the Democratic Party fat-cats supporting Hillary Clinton. Despite all the high-minded talk of “sticking to the issues”, the Clintons have since the beginning followed a strategy of offering favors to supporters and attempting to intimidate voters in the Democrats' 2008 Presidential campaign. And the Pelosi letter is only the latest example that these tactics are now being applied to superdelegates. For those who have not followed these matters as closely, let me recap some highlights. After former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack endorsed Hillary Clinton, her campaign arranged for some of her wealthy supporters to pay off some of the $400,000 debt he incurred before ending his own Presidential candidacy the previous month. That was almost 10 months before the Iowa caucuses. At the end of 2007, as evidence mounted of Clinton's inability to contain the growing grass roots movement for Barack Obama, her campaign set out to intimidate out-of-state students, who under Iowa law were legally allowed to register to vote and caucus in January. This was the first, but not be the last attempt at voter suppression. In NH, poll watchers were prevented from observing some polling stations. I personally met a poll watcher who was asked to leave in Keene, ostensibly because it was too crowded; but Obama was able to carry all five wards in the city. But there were reports of widespread intimidation in areas where Hillary Clinton registered her best results: Nashua, Concord and Manchester. |
In Nevada, which was mounting its first serious Presidential caucus, Clinton enjoyed the active support of Clark County Commissioner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory Reid. Sensing opportunity, Las Vegas became a virtual playground for intimidation and disruption by the Clinton campaign and Bill Clinton himself. As soon as the service union employees endorsed Barack Obama, Hillary supporters launched a legal challenge to the at-large precincts created intentionally to encourage participation by shift workers on the Las Vegas strip; never mind that some of the complainants had originally approved the rules creating these special precincts. After the caucuses on January 19, the Obama campaign received numerous complaints about irregularities (I read somewhere there were about 1600 reports) that it filed a complaint with the state Democratic Party (similar problems were also reported this month in Texas). Much has been made of Bill Clinton's racially-tinged remarks in South Carolina. What was not widely reported in the media, but was openly discussed during my own visit there in late January, was the use of "donations" to church leaders in exchange for supporting Hillary Clinton. But it was not money well spent; by late January the recipients were privately assuring friends and neighbors of their intention to vote for Obama. In addition, there were reports suggesting local politicians who endorsed Hillary Clinton signed contracts with her campaign or may have otherwise benefitted financially. The Clinton intimidation tactics were escalated last week following Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama when James Carville "branded" him as ‘Judas’ for betraying the Clintons. As a former candidate himself and Governor of New Mexico, Richardson is one of the most prominent of several hundred superdelegates. Along with Pelosi, he could be termed an “elder statesman” of the Democratic Party, whose support both campaigns need in order to clinch a nomination. Does anyone believe that Carville, who with Karl Rove is considered a grand master of the Freak Show of modern American politics, was acting without the Clintons approval? No, his was an intentional, highly visible warning to other superdelegates that they would suffer consequences if they cross the former First Family. Ironically, after his initial broadside, Cow-poke Carville suggested Richardson may have received a "promise" or "favor". That is of course exactly how the Clintons do business. A lawyer friend of mine in Washington who donated to the Clintons in the past recently decided to also donate to Obama. He was warned by a Clinton fundraiser who learned of his defection not to "expect any favors". The message here is: loyal donors may expect and will receive favors. Now we have this donors letter to Pelosi. Does the Clinton campaign really believe it can simultaneously intimidate or buy off the highest-ranking superdelegate in the country, the Speaker of the House, the second person in the line of succession to the President? And is this part of what Bill Clinton was talking about yesterday when he said: I don't think any of these people oughta be asked to resign. All these guys that say bad things about any other campaign, they say, 'Should they resign?' My answer is no; they're repeating party line. They oughta stay right where they are. Let's just saddle up and have an argument. What's the matter with that? That's what America's about, right?"
Was he referring to Hillary or Barack Obama resigning? Was he preemptively defending James Carville in light of the Samantha Power and Geraldine Ferraro resignations? Or was he signaling that Hillary's financial backers were fully entitled to use strong-arm tactics on the Speaker of the House of Representatives? As is his custom, there was sufficient vagueness in the former President's comments -- like his "loved this country" and "all this other stuff" -- to leave the listener wondering. There is a reason for Bill Clinton’s devious wordplay. He obviously has been looking forward to regaining power, this time behind the throne. However, Bill Clinton does not enjoy the same freedom of expression and clarity of Vladimir Putin, who replied to Hillary’s comment in NH that he had no soul saying: “At a minimum, a head of state should have a head.” Putin will exercise a real power-behind-the-throne of his hand-picked successor, President Dmitry Medvedev, serving as Prime Minister of Russia. But fortunately, Bill Clinton does not enjoy Vladimir Putin’s powers, to silence newspapers, have his opponents beaten up, and openly call political enemies “traitors”. No, the Clintons have to rely on Rupert Murdoch and Fox, try to drag their opponents into their cesspool and hint at a lack of patriotism. Fortunately, Bill Clinton cannot call on thugs and tanks to go into the streets in our country. But if he could, would he? No, at best Bill Clinton has become a Putin-Light who commands his forces to "saddle up" for an old-fashioned cavalry charge. Are these final acts of desperation actually a sign that, after seeing the current polls and trends, Bill Clinton knows the contest is about to end? Does this latest behavior mean Bubba is poised for his last, desperate assault on the grass roots movement inspired by Barack Obama? Does he finally understand that all those small donors are prepared to outspend his fat-cat friends? Does he now recognize there is a new generation preparing to take power in his Democratic Party and change the politics of Washington? If Bill Clinton’s last assault fails, with all the havoc he has caused over the past 3 months, he would be wise to avoid Denver completely in August. Because if he fails, "Boo Bill" will become the new chorus added to "Yes We Can". |
