I want to respond to some of the early reaction out there to my post on the two Hillary books about to be published. The post takes note of the front-page story in the WP this morning about the two books, judges the revelations in the books (as reported in the WP story) to be fairly unsensational and then throws out the incontrovertible fact (at least to anyone who’s every spoken to someone senior from her campaign) that the Hillary campaign is worried that Democratic voters might react to the rehashing of old stories about her past by deciding they’d prefer someone entirely new (ie, not a Clinton) in the White House. My comment about Hillary’s fear that she might be indicted during Whitewater was simply that it was new. I don’t know — and said so — whether the fear was rational or not.
So I don’t get this response from reader “James, in Los Angeles”:
Yeah Jay?
What exactly was the basis for the proposed indictment? I hope you have some facts to back up your repetition of obviously baseless and vicious rumor by one of the most vicious liars to be employed in Washington.
FOR WHAT, Jay? Come on. I’m calling you on your bull sh*t.
What am I being called on? What “baseless and vicious rumor” did I repeat? Mark Fabiani was the special White House counsel working for the Clintons dealing with Whitewater. He is quoted saying there was a serious fear Hillary would be indicted. As another commenter points out, given the way Starr pursued his investigation, it may not be surprising that Hillary feared being indicted. But the fact that she did is new information. Not rock-the-world information, but new. I am making nothing more of it than that.
On another point, reader “CT Voter” asks a valid question:
What is your evidence that this might be worrying the Clinton campaign? Or are you simply assuming that it’s going to worry them? Please clarify. You state it as if you’ve spoken with them about this. Have you?
As I suggested above, the answer is, emphatically, YES! I speak to people working for Hillary Clinton regularly, often daily. And to people working for most of the other top-tier campaigns. There isn’t a person on Hillary’s campaign who wouldn’t acknowledge, or volunteer, that one of their big worries is that primary voters will suffer from Clinton fatigue. Obama has risen to the level of serious challenger in part because he has positioned himself as the fresh and appealing alternative to Clinton. Obama has his own liabilities, of course — lack of experience, especially in national security, is a big one. But his whole pitch is: Vote for me if you want change. And by “change” he doesn’t just mean change from Bush. He also means change from Clinton.
But saying the Clinton camp is worried about it doesn’t mean they think it’s an insurmountable obstacle. No one on the campaign believes that. After all, Hillary continues to lead most polls. And baggage or not, the Clinton brand is still considered top shelf among rank and file Democrats.
Update: Credit to reader James, who found an article from March 1999 by our own Karen Tumulty about the fact that Starr’s team had considered indicting Hillary. So it was news to me — since I forgot — but he’s right, it’s not news.