The Talent in the Room

Rich Lowry, on Hillary's slide:

I believed, with a lot of other conservatives, that the Clintons were really good at destroying people. Judging from the last three weeks, they are really bad at destroying people. Maybe all those people they destroyed in the 1990's were just easily destroyed? This is very disorienting...

Without taking anything away from Bill Clinton's considerable prowess as a politician, his Nineties enemes were a pretty lackluster crop; few of them approached even George W. Bush's (none-too-intimidating) mix of charisma and political skill. Clinton's most talented foes, arguably, were Ross Perot and Newt Gingrich, both of whom were quite capable of destroying themselves without much of a push from the Clintonites. As for the rest, well, one could make a strong case that Barack Obama and John Edwards are both more talented politicians than any of the Democratic candidates (Tsongas, Jerry Brown, etc.) Clinton knocked off in '92, and that Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are all better-suited to the national campaign trail than George H.W. Bush and Robert Dole - or most of Dole's '96 GOP rivals, for that matter.

Moreover, when "the Clintons" destroyed their political rivals in the Nineties, it was Bill (and his hatchet men) who fought and won most of the battles; if anything, Hillary was a liability in the '92 and '96 races, and to a lesser extent in the struggles with the GOP Congress (until the Lewinsky scandal made her a figure of sympathy, that is). And Bill, as you may have heard, isn't on the ballot this time around.

Photo by Flickr user SSKennel used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

In the 1990s the Clintons' enemies were Republicans, and the media were more than willing allies in destroying them.

This time around the media does not love Hillary as much as Bill, and her enemies are fellow Democrats.

It has been more than clear that a lot of the mainstream media is in the bag for Obama.

Posted by Steven | December 16, 2007 2:36 PM

I don't think Rich Lowry's talking about politically destroying people here, more personally destroying. TBH, speaking from the liberal side of the fence, it seemed to me like more effort was put into destroying the Clintons than they ever put into destroying anyone else, but I understand the other side has a different view of this.

Posted by william | December 16, 2007 2:54 PM

I am curious - who were "all those people" the Clintons destroyed in the 1990s?

Like William, I lean Democratic and perhaps through personal bias see lots more political destruction coming from the Republicans - e.g. Kerry with the Swift Boat campaign, Clinton with just about everything imaginable (e.g. murder, drugs, rape ...)

Tom

Posted by Tom G. | December 16, 2007 3:06 PM

I am curious - who were "all those people" the Clintons destroyed in the 1990s?

Billy R. Dale, to cite one example.

With regard to the Swift Boat campaign, I would refer you to the archives of the BeldarBlog, moderated by William Dyer. John O'Neill and his confederates had a serious point to make to the effect that Kerry's service record was gilded. Mr. O'Neill has been an antagonist of John Kerry for more than thirty years but it is a mischaracterization to refer to him as a Republican operative.

Posted by Art Deco | December 16, 2007 3:30 PM

John O'Neill and his confederates

That's always the long and the short of it, isn't it?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 16, 2007 3:42 PM

The correct classification of John O'Neill is political tool.

Billy Dale. "Destroyed." You mean "fired." And you left out "crooked."

This redredging and embellishing of all the old lies about the Clintons is one of many reasons that I won't dare cast my vote for Hillary unless/until she is running against one of the stars of the Republican Primary Freak Show.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 16, 2007 4:55 PM

Oh, and if anyone uncovers evidence that the Clintons intentionally blew the cover of a covert CIA agent who was working on gathering Iran-nuclear intel just because her husband pulled back the mighty Oz's curtain, then you might have something to this whole "Clintons destroying people" thing.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 16, 2007 5:33 PM

I don't get it, Woody Bombay. Why should the prospect of the GOP flipping out make reality-based Americans stay away from Clinton? The GOP has put pugilists like Gingrich, DeLay, McConnell in leadership positions in the past ten years. We can't accommodate these guys into rationality.

She is not going to get my vote in the primaries, but I can't see not voting for Clinton against anyone the GOP puts up, if you care at all about balancing the budget, making the world hate us less, somewhat diminishing (not greatly) the prospect of invasions on a whim, improving health care, etc.

Yes, crazy people will go crazy. But what can you do to prevent that?

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 16, 2007 5:56 PM

Who did the Clintons destroy? Monica Lewinsky come to mind. The entire partnership of the Rose law firm as well. I think Hillary is the only one of her era not dead or in prison.

Posted by Aaron | December 16, 2007 6:47 PM

Art Deco,

So that's what you got, the White House Travel office scandal?

That's what qualifies as "really good" at destroying "all those people."

Goodness knows what you think of the firings in the Department of Justice under Bush.

On the Swift Boat side, is it your contention that Republicans (including the donors) were not behind the attacks?

Tom

Posted by Tom G. | December 16, 2007 7:43 PM

Sigh. Back to the graveyards of 1990s Clintonia.

Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky. Yes, Billy Dale from the White House Travel Office. The Arkansas state troopers from Clinton's security detail, the main sources for David Brock's Troopergate stories for the American Spectator.

Rightwing cash for trailer trash. Crazy stalker. Etc.

The targets were all small fry, which is why they were easily destroyed.

Posted by John bragg | December 16, 2007 8:17 PM

Billy Dale. "Destroyed." You mean "fired." And you left out "crooked."

Because uttering the word 'crooked' is slanderous.

Mr. Dale was a career employee of thirty years standing; he and his entire staff were dismissed from their jobs at Mrs. Clinton's behest because the Bloodworth-Thomason crew wanted the patronage. A prosecution for embezzlement was initiated against him. He was acquitted at trial by a jury which deliberated on the point for about ninety minutes.

I cannot say about the Federal courts, but here in New York, only around 2% of all criminal indictments are disposed of by jury trials (of which about half lead to acquittals); and for Mr. Dale's jury, it was not a tough call. It is a reasonable inference for the layman that the case brought against him was extraordinarily weak, and would not have survived ordinary prosecutorial discretion. How the Clinton camarilla persuaded the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office to do their bidding in this affair is a matter of conjecture.

The legal bills Mr. Dale incurred in defending himself against these bogus charges cleaned out his life savings.

So that's what you got, the White House Travel office scandal?
That's what qualifies as "really good" at destroying "all those people."

I am not an adept of the minutiae of the Clinton's various and sundry betrayals of the public trust. You asked who had been destroyed by them and I gave you a name that I remembered.

Goodness knows what you think of the firings in the Department of Justice under Bush.

U.S. Attorneys serve for a limited term of years. Unlike career public employees, they are expecting to be employed elsewhere in a few years. They also have readily salable skills and (one assumes) valuable contacts from antecedent careers in law and politics. If Mr. Gonzalez has launched bogus prosecutions of any of these individuals dismissed or saw to it that they were ruined financially, I missed it.

I do not wish to attribute to you (Tom G.) any thought or sentiment you have not expressed, so bear with me. At one time, and in nearly all public venues, we were all told that the activities of the White House Plumbers Unit and various other factotums on the White House staff, ca. 1971, were peculiarly outrageous. Abuse of power and illegal activity are to be condemned. Morton Halperin, a man deeply involved in the political life of the country and a genuine political enemy to Richard Nixon, got his phone tapped. Billy R. Dale, an ordinary man minding his own business, lost his career, lost his property, and had his reputation sufficiently sullied that Woody Bombay is peddling (a dozen years after the fact) tommyrot about him being a crook. Choose your preferred fate, Tom G., from these two alternatives.

Here we have a harmless and unimportant man, and with deliberation he was squashed like a cockroach because he was in the way of something Mrs. Clinton wanted. That should bother you.

Posted by Art Deco | December 16, 2007 8:37 PM

On the Swift Boat side, is it your contention that Republicans (including the donors) were not behind the attacks?

I am not sure if the Swift Boat Veterans solicited Republican donors or not, nor is that of much importance, unless it be your contention that the motor of their grievance was the machinations of Republican operatives.

And that is not plausible. Mr. O'Neill is a very prominent and respected trial lawyer in Texas. He's an authentic big shot and not likely to be sock-puppet for someone else; he also does not need attention or controversy, and his activities in 2004 were consistent with his activities in 1971.

A comfortable majority of the Swiftboat commanders whose tour of duty was contemporaneous with Mr. Kerry's affiliated with Mr. O'Neill's committee, as did Mr. Kerry's entire chain of command. It is just astounding how many lying Republican hacks were stationed in the Mekong Delta in 1968.

Posted by Art Deco | December 16, 2007 8:53 PM

John Bragg,
If Monica Lewinsky is your concept of someone destroyed by the Clintons,I think we have a different concept of destroyed and of her role in the affair.

Art Deco,
You suggest care in making accusations about Billy Dale, but yourself go on to accuse the Clintons of launching a bogus prosecution to financially ruin a man. The evidence that you offer is the fact the defendent was quickly acquitted by the jury. You graciously acknowledge that "how" the Clintons did it is "conjecture." How about "if" they did it?

Given the similar conservative claims once made upon behalf of Wayne Dumond, I am cautious about accepting your beliefs. If you are correct, then yes, I would find it deeply disturbing.

Does it bother you that Bush had US Attorneys unfriendly to Republican interests fired?

For the Swift Boat veterans then, your position is that they were correct, that Kerry faked everything? That his boat-mates were to reverse your formulation all lying Democrats? That James Rassman just decided to pretend that Kerry saved his life?

Tom

Posted by Tom G. | December 16, 2007 10:03 PM

Ross,

I'm pretty sure that whenever you're tempted to write a post extolling the great men of today and belittling the little men of the past, you should rethink it as simply the benefits of hindsight -- after all, many of the formidable Democrats and talented Republicans you mention could and very likely will be exposed as paper tigers. The times have a-changed, but I don't think the general quality of politicians has really changed all that much.

Posted by Zack | December 16, 2007 11:44 PM

Bill Clinton's strength was not in "destroying" enemies. Rather, his strengths were 1) his ability to see opportunities where others couldn't see them, and 2) the cojones to seize those opportunities.

It's true that Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown were pretty weak foes in the 1992 primary season, but WHY were they the only opposition? Because the heavy hitters of the Democratic party were such myopic cowards! Wimps like Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt, Bill Bradley, Lloyd Bentsen, Al Gore and Sam Nunn saw the Elder Bush's post-Gulf War approval ratings and figured, "He's unbeatable. I'll sit this one out and run against Dan Quayle in 4 years."

Bill Clinton was smart enough to see Bush's vulnerability and bold enough to give it a shot. There's no need to make things more complicated than that.

Posted by astorian | December 17, 2007 12:46 AM

Monica was simply an illustration of the m.o. of, when confronted by a witness to Bill's debauchery, slime the witness.

Not that "lovestruck stalker" is better or worse than "Bill's occassional sex toy", but it shows the first reaction of Hillary and Co. to slime the witness.

Posted by John Bragg | December 17, 2007 7:14 AM

Really, if the best you can come up with is a few political casualties -- as if Bill Clinton invented power politics -- and some casual allusions to conspiracy theories that wouldn't pass the Snopes giggle test, really, that's pretty weak tea in the "destroying people" category.

And for the guy pointing out that Bush/Cheney were equally as slimy (Swift Boats, etc.), while true that argument is no more compelling than the "Clinton did it first" crowd.

Posted by Sam Hutcheson | December 17, 2007 2:09 PM

The comments on this post are like a microcosm of what political discourse will be like for at least four more years if Hillary is elected.

Have fun spending another four to eight years reliving the 1990s and arguing over who the Clintons destroyed, who they had sex with and who they were hounded by, because all that basically becomes fair play to most people when they are back in the White House. Meanwhile, nothing ever gets done because if you think that Republicans are playing an obstructionist role now you just wait and see what it is going to be like when their most hated enemies are back in charge.

Vote for Obama or Edwards so we can take finally that era out back and shoot it like it was Vince Foster.

Posted by Bryan Waage | December 18, 2007 4:55 AM