Clinton, Obama, Drugs and the Politics of Cynicism

There are plenty of what might charitably be referred to as "unsavory" characters associated with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, who tends to attract the seamy political hangers-on who like to attach themselves to candidates who have money and good poll numbers.

One of the worst of these, Bill Shaheen, was serving as co-chairman of the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire.

Now he's suddenly out of his official role. But don't think this shady character is gone for good.

Shaheen, the husband of former New Hampshire governor and current U.S. Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen, got in hot water after saying Clinton's leading challenger for the nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama', would be a weak nominee because of his admission of past drug use.

But don't think that Billy Shaheen, one of the most calculating people in New Hampshire -- and America, for that matter -- made any kind of mistake.

The veteran Democratic leader in New Hampshire was not really expressing concern -- sincere or simulated -- about the drug use admission. That's old news and Obama's frankness about the issue pretty much put it to rest.

Rather, Shaheen was trying to get reporters digging for more dirt on Obama and drugs -- and, of course, to get grassroots Democrats in key states worried about the prospect that the Republican opposition research team has already assembled the materials need to finish Obama in the fall.

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," Shaheen told a Washington Post reporter Wednesday. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Notice the none-too-subtle "Obama-might-have-been-a-dope-dealer" hint by Shaheen.

That's the claim the Clinton campaign, which is feeling the heat from Obama's hot pursuit in polling data from the first caucus state of Iowa and the first-primary state of New Hampshire, wants circulating as the January 3 caucusing and January 8 voting rapidly approach.

For floating the drug-peddler's-don't-make-sound-presidential-timber line, Shaheen was officially -- if somewhat insincerely -- rebuked by Clinton and everyone around her.

But don't think Bill Shaheen has really lost favor with a Clinton campaign that likes nothing so much as digging dirt and distributing it -- preferably without the finger prints of the candidate or her top national aides.

Shaheen will remain a key player in New Hampshire and in the national Clinton campaign; working, whether officially or unofficially, for Clinton. As the preeminent Democratic fixer in what for the fading front-runner has emerged as the critical primary state, he knows his services will be in demand.

He also knows that the Clinton camp doesn't hold grudges against people who do the dirty work.

Officially, Bill Shaheen is off the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Unofficially, the smart bet is that Shaheen's taking "thank-you" calls from the Clinton team and awaiting his next assignment. An even smarter bet is that Shaheen's will not be a long wait.

Comments (33)

1. As things stand currently, there is a good chance that the 2008 presidential election will be largely decided between now and the Feb. 5, 2007 Super Tuesday contests. And the winning Democrat will be the significant favorite for the much later actual election.

   If that is the case then we're now watching the stretch run of the most important presidential run in U.S. history. And the alarming fact is that the slight favorite is still the Democrat in name only, Hillary Clinton.

   So one might have expected at least some mildly aggressive moves from some the candidates. Or not.

   The Des Moines Register has a fairly descent set-up at their web site for viewing todays "debate". It's worth a look if you're at all interested. The video screen window has a scroll down menu directly above so the viewer can choose from about 30 different roughly 3 minute clips titled by topic. All in all a nice way to be able to navigate around and pick and choose clips.

   Of particular interest perhaps, is the short answer "candidate statements" --one for each participant-- interspersed throughout the debate.

   So check it out.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/14/2007 @ 12:56am

2. Here is the text of the statements of Obama and Edwards. Personally, I think the difference in the two is very telling.

   Barack Obama:

   Forty years ago Dr. King challenged America to act on what he called the fierce urgency of now, and I feel that urgency today. Our nation's at war, the planet's in peril, and Americans and Iowans are working harder and harder just to keep pace.

   Now I am confident that we can meet these challenges. I believe we can provide better economic security, that we can restore our standing in the world, and we that can make sure our children have a brighter future, but we can only do it if we have the courage to change. If we can bring the country together, if we can push back the against special interests, and if we level with the American people about how we're gonna solve our problems.

   That's the kind of campaign I've tried to run, and that's the kind of president I intend to be. I ask that all of you caucus for me.

   John Edwards:

   So much (is) at stake in this election. You know, what makes America, America, is at stake. Jobs, the middle class, health care, preserving the environment, and the world for future generations.

   But all those things are risk, and why are they at risk? Because of corporate power, and corporate greed in Washington DC, and we have to take them on. You can't make a deal with 'em. You can't hope that they're gonna go away. You have to actually be willing to fight.

   And I want every caucus-goer to know I've been fighting these people and winning my entire life, and if we do this together and rise up together, we can make actually make absolutely certain --starting here in Iowa-- that we can make this country better than we left it.......Leave it better than we started! (laughter)

   Q. So which one do you think will provide a closer shave of Washington DC?

   A. Foam or Edge?

   But don't trust me, watch for yourself:

   Charlie Rose interviews Edwards .

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/14/2007 @ 01:47am

3. I should mention a debt of thanks to The Nation, and the highly respected John Nichols for giving me a chance to air these pieces in their valuable public forum.

   Thank You!

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/14/2007 @ 02:18am

4. wow, BKOOL, that is a flash from the past marketing campaigns. We can only hope that Shrillery falls into a vat of

   shhhhhavving cream

   be nice and clean

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/14/2007 @ 07:41am

5. Unfortunately, the corporate media would rather talk about Edwards haircut than any policy issue he might raise. If only we actually lived in the neo-con world of delusion, where the media really was liberal.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/14/2007 @ 07:43am

6. Like the kindergarden attack, it is amazingingly lame, considering sleazy Bill's "I didn't inhale" and Shrub's history. It reeks of desperation and has the reverse effect of coming up empty. This is the dirty, jaded power structure of the Clintonistas. Ironically enough, Obama's claim to break with the past is exposed as a sham when his advisors are from the Clinton team. And Hillary laughs with arrogant upper hand smugness. True, Obama put her in her place, but what did it say about Clinton and her self-satisfied sneering? She and her smarmy "partner" are the ballast that has to be thrown out, since they are incapable of a dignified exit--continuing their stranglehold on the Democratic party even when they have become a liability.

   Posted by Lil at 12/14/2007 @ 07:44am

7. Hey kids, DON"T DO DRUGS!

   This message brought to you by Pfizer and it's new line of ADD medications, which are NOT drugs.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/14/2007 @ 07:46am

8. It appears that my boy Richardson made some wild claims in the debate. Why do they have to make stuff up when the truth is bad enough? The same reason they have to talk about haircuts and middle names? Will we ever have adults leading our country again?

   Dammit!, when I am King, this crap is going to change!! Hear me now and believe me later. My first act will be to make RIO the Piss-boy.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/14/2007 @ 07:51am

9. Clinton, Obama, Drugs and the Politics of Cynicism

   No, maybe, yes, no.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/14/2007 @ 08:08am

10. I wonder what we'll hear from the local Hillary'ites?

    Will CCORBELL try to keep the "scandal" alive, thus contradicting Her Majesty who apologized for it?

    Will "reluctant Hillary supporter" KEV00009 say "Shaheen made a mistake, but the info he put out NEEDS investigation!"

    And what of... whatever new nickname FRANKGRITS is operating under?....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 09:08am

11. She and her smarmy "partner" are the ballast that has to be thrown out, since they are incapable of a dignified exit--continuing their stranglehold on the Democratic party even when they have become a liability.

    Posted by LIL 12/14/2007 @ 07:44am

    that could be dangerous.

    ballast water is a leading vector in the distribution

    of

    invasive species.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 09:33am

12. Bar-act HUSSEIN obonga is a druggie!

    he will sodom-and-gomorrahize our freedom!

    "whisper" -- he's black, too.

    Posted by HILLARY ROVE CLINTON 12/14/2007 @ 09:33am | ignore this person

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 09:40am

13. OFF TOPIC ALERT!

    watch the titanic sink [avaaz.org]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 10:00am

14. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/14/2007 @ 10:00am

    Odd analogy "Don't just rearrange the deck-chairs"?!?!?

    If they're discussing global warming, and linking that to the sinking of the Titanic, and "rearranging the deck-chairs"...

    the analogy would mean that, like the Titanic, global warming is irreversible and NOTHING can change that and we need to get to the lifeboats, not stand around rearraning the chairs, but either way...she's going under.

    Perhaps if they said "Don't just rearrange the deck chairs AFTER the ship has hit the iceberg....slow down and double the lookouts and don't hit the berg in the first place"

    Think the joke and/or point failed.

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 10:34am

15. Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 10:34am

    dunno about all that,

    just seeing harper's smug "visage" MADE ME PISSED!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 10:41am

16. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/14/2007 @ 02:18am | ignore this person

    Kool,

    Thanks for asserting yourself in this manner. I know that most are frustrated by the Democratic party, but Edwards is clearly the best of the three determined as front runners. Edwards is speaking the truth, and the best his critics can do is maintain that he's lying or promising things he will not stand behind. To not support him will lend credence to the cynics asserting that his message doesn't resonate with Americans. Obama is a perpetual disapointment, while Hillary is little better than the Republicans.

    Posted by Oustbush at 12/14/2007 @ 10:45am

17. What is interesting to me is that the media can nail Imus to the cross for his sexist/racist comments, but they are virtually silent on the obvious racist undertones of the Hillary campaign's attack against the first viable black candidate for president. Now I'm not one to rush to accusations about racism or sexism at the drop of a hat, but c'mon, no questions about Dubya or Bill, her own husband, were raised about whether they also had a history of dealing drugs, or how recently they had done drugs, or any of these concerns; yet now that the candidate is African-American, now we are supposed to assume that this adolescent drug use, that he has been very clear about, is just the tip of the iceberg and that he might have dealt the stuff as well? That is abhorrent. I think the Republicans are even more racially sensitive (or at least smarter) than to make claims like that. It reeks of racism, plausible deniability and filth. Hillary's campaign has a lot of people, so maybe they can afford to shed a few to "unofficial" muckdropping, or bigoted and false email forwarding, or blog sockpuppeting or whatever other unethical tricks they want to pull to get an edge, but I hope the voters, especially in these important primary states that appear to be the targets of these methods, get the message and reject this outdated and disgusting brand of politics and elect someone who will clean up the presidency and actually bring about some CHANGE.

    PS: Did anyone else notice her favorite past presidents included Bush Sr. and REAGAN??? That alone should be a deal breaker for anyone who considers themselves a Democrat, even a moderate one. It makes me sick. So much for principles or change.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/14/2007 @ 10:56am

18. It comes down to a difference in character:

    Clinton: I smoked marijuana in my youth but I didn't inhale (i.e., someone saw me smoking but they can't "prove" that I inhaled)

    Obama: I smoked marijuana in my youth, and, yes, I inhaled. Isn't inhaling the point of smoking it?

    Hillary's entire bid to be president has been focused on preparing for probable GOP attacks and NOT on pursuing policies that most Democrats want. It's as though she believed in her own inevitability of her nomination, and looked past the nomination to some hypothetical duel between her and the Republicans.

    Democrats will not be slighted in this way, and will not fall for "I am better prepared than Barack for the Republican attack machine" as a rallying cry to get behind her candidacy. If the best Hillary has to offer is Bush-Cheney Lite as the candidate who is prepared to take on the Republicans, then she might as well BE a Republican.

    "The Prince" is not Obama's blueprint for running government, but this does appear to be the operating manual for Hillary and the Republicans. Barack is turning the page on the divisive "us v. them" politics of the past and will beat the Republicans because he is liked, not because he is feared.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/14/2007 @ 11:10am

19. BKOOL, thanks for site reference. But: "If that is the case then we're now watching the stretch run of the most important presidential run in U.S. history. And the alarming fact is that the slight favorite is still the Democrat in name only, Hillary Clinton."

    That most important election was 2000, and that's why it was stolen so openly.

    Which is not to say '08 is unimportant. But the winner's hands will be tied far more tightly as a result of W&Co. GOP won't mind. HRC will feel comfy. Obama will try to smile his way through. Edwards could get killed for trying too hard.

    Posted by sloper at 12/14/2007 @ 11:40am

20. Hillary's campaign has a lot of people, so maybe they can afford to shed a few to "unofficial" muckdropping, or bigoted and false email forwarding, or blog sockpuppeting or whatever other unethical tricks they want to pull to get an edge...

    Posted by BRIDOC 12/14/2007 @ 10:56am | ignore this person

    If anyone thinks this was a mistake and that Hillary doesn't condone this kind of action should really stop to think about law and lawyers (which she is). In law, many times a lawyer will purposefully say or try to admit a document or a piece of evidence that they know will get objected to and tossed. The whole point is to get that piece of evidence into the awareness of the jury. Sure, the jury is instructed by the judge to not take that tidbit into consideration but it's already present in their psyche and the vast majority of folks can't ignore it. The whole point is achieved by the lawyer to get that into their awareness.

    I see this latest ploy by the Hillary campaign as the exact same thing. But rather than a judge telling voters not to consider it, Hillary comes out far and wide saying it wasn't "sanctioned" by her campaign. All the while driving that little tidbit by Sheehan further into the voter's psyche.

    I do have to admit that the Obama camp has taken the high road and not resorted to the same tactics or overreacting to this. They may have but I haven't seen or heard about it. If nothing else, that shows class. Something the Hillary campaign obviously lacks.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/14/2007 @ 11:53am

21. If Hillary does manage to steal the election, will she ever wear a blue dress in the Oval Office?

    And if so, will that blue dress get stained with a protein compound, lustily put there by our so-called only "friend" in the Middle East, during a midnight soirée?

    Posted by Greg Bacon at 12/14/2007 @ 11:54am

22. I didn't see the debate but I have to wonder if Richardson came to Obama's rescue the same way he did Hillary when she was getting "picked on." I guess if he didn't, and I doubt he did, then he isn't vying for the VP slot for Obama. Heheheh.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/14/2007 @ 11:58am

23. @ FritsTheCat

    I hope you quoted me to show you were agreeing with what I said, because I do totally agree with everything you just said. There was obviously nothing accidental about the smear, and your courtroom example is a great one. Anyway, I just wanted to make clear that no one mistakenly thinks that I in any way fall for this "oops, did we say that?" crap.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/14/2007 @ 12:17pm

24. I could beat either one in general election.----Posted by GUPDOG 12/14/2007 @ 12:18pm

    Running on "more of the same that Bush has done"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 12:24pm

25. BRIDOC I was absolutely agreeing with you. Apologies for not making that clear!

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/14/2007 @ 12:33pm

26. @ GUPDOG

    Obama is going to do just fine in the general election, I'm not worried at all about his chances.

    As for Hillary, she may win, she may not, it is hard to say with her high negative ratings, but that isn't really my concern. I'm more worried about going into the voting booth on general election day and having to be content with choosing the lesser of two evils: GOP or GOP lite. I really really don't want to have that moment.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/14/2007 @ 12:34pm

27. thx for those bringing out the just under-the-surface, if not kinda in your facen tactic by ms dem, racism - not focused on in the article. look at the underpinnings of the sick national consciousness of the black teen, and apply all that negativity to mr obama because of a single word always associated with the young black urbanite - drugs. This is not paint-gun politics, ms dem is using big time land mines that have already begun to explode with the presuppositional racism inherent in our american experience.

    Posted by steve foster at 12/14/2007 @ 12:48pm

28. Okay, let me see...the Iowa Democratic Party decide to not include Kucinich and Gravel in Thursday's "Democratic" debate, the only two progressives in the race, and not a word from the Nation.

    The Nation is becoming less and less relevant.

    Posted by LarryB at 12/14/2007 @ 1:03pm

29. LET THE BATTLE BEGIN!

    '08 -- FRITZTHECAT VS. GUPDOG!!!!

    GET YOUR TICKETS NOW!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 2:51pm

30. At least Obama was honest.

    Posted by ZERO 12/14/2007 @ 2:33pm

    At least Obama was honestish.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 2:52pm

31. Honestish? He was entirely honest about everything last time I checked. He isn't hiding anything, he willingly came out with it and put it in print. The same can't be said for Bill or Dub.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/14/2007 @ 2:57pm

32. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/14/2007 @ 2:52pm

    Is that like "truthiness"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 3:20pm

33. Kool,

    Thanks for asserting yourself in this manner. I know that most are frustrated by the Democratic party, but Edwards is clearly the best of the three determined as front runners. Edwards is speaking the truth, and the best his critics can do is maintain that he's lying or promising things he will not stand behind. To not support him will lend credence to the cynics asserting that his message doesn't resonate with Americans. Obama is a perpetual disapointment, while Hillary is little better than the Republicans.

    ~OUSTBUSH 12/13 @ 10:45am

    Thanks, OB, for the kind words and especially for the succint, on target post. Well done.

    I have to say that in some ways I'm as irked by Obama'a limp-wristed campaign as I am by Hillary's "brought to you by Murdoch Inc" campaign.

    I had a discussion recently with "Bridoc" who seemed to take umbrage at my comparison of Obama'a campaign to Kerry '04. His beef was that Obama is so much more inspiring than the "wet trout" Kerry.

    I think Bridoc is missing something here that, unfortunately, far too many Americans are clueless about. What in the hell ever happened to the concept of taking a strong stand on issues of conscience?

    The Democrats are playing themselves right into the hands of the Swift Boat butchers if they go into the fall of '08 with a bambi candidate.

    Not only that, but even if Obama is elected prez in '08 on his central campaign plank of "let's make nice now", how is going he to roll back the enormous damage wreaked by Dubya's dreadnought of disaster?

    The hapless Jackasses have been playing nice with Dubya and his "whores of war" --thanks to one of the Blackwater moms for that phrase-- for seven achingly painful years now and our answer is essentially, "Why can't we all get along?".

    Well, excuse my latin but Uck-fay At-they!

    Aren't we all just about at our wits end with "the politics of Pelosi"?

    The reality is that we are truly F#@&ed if we don't start fighting back. At least John Edwards is spoiling for a fight, and he's got the intellectual tools to be successful.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/15/2007 @ 11:37am