An Airing of Resentments at Meeting of Clinton Donors
An attendee at a meeting of top Clinton campaign fund-raisers with Clinton staff this afternoon at Weil, Gotshal & Manges said that there was a fair amount of frustration in the room over the campaign's handling of the race.
"People are just so resentful and feel the campaign has not fought back effectively," said the attendee. "They feel the campaign has been outmaneuvered by somebody who is going to lose in November."
The attendee said that the most memorable part of the meeting was when campaign manager Maggie Williams stood up and pronounced herself "ready for this fight."
Harold Ickes also spoke to the group of about 100 donors, though this particular attendee seemed unconvinced that Ickes, who is leading the effort to round up superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, was the right man for the job.
"Sending in a guy with the charm of Darth Vader to talk to Democratic Committee members seems kind of dopey," said the attendee.
When asked what the feeling was about the loyalty of the Clinton superdelegates to Clinton if Obama kept racking up victories, the attendee said, "This is how it works. Superdelegates have no superpower or super-backbone, and they are going to mirror the vote of the electorate."
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.4
- 42.8
- Obama +6.6
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 56.4
- 36.3
- +20.1
- McCain
- 50.1
- 41.3
- +8.8
Hillary is promising a V.A. Hospital to Latinos in Texas. Wonder what she promised THESE guys???
So true, renatam. It's sad that once the Clintons get back into office (if they even make it that far... doubt they will) they'll spend the first 6 months trying to position favors.
Senator Obama says that the last twenty years America was governed by the same people, doing the same things, getting the same results.
I'd like him to specify in what the Democratic Administration (1992-2000) was the same people with the Republican one (2000-2008), what they did the same, and what where their same results.
Mrs. Clinton is between a rock and a hard place in that a viable black candidate is a lodestone for black votes regardless of her past invovement with the black community. Blood is thicker than water, particularly for a group that regards itself as victimized and repressed.
Mrs. Clinton is hamstrung in that she cannot address Mr. Obama's liabilities without alienating the black support that is crucial to her if she secures the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency. Mr. Obama's long-time attendance at a church that declares itself Afrocentric, and makes blacks and their situation its primary concern to the derogation of whites, and its anti-white and anti-Semitic posture, is accentuated by Mr. Obama's public declaration that the alleged black racist pastor is his "mentor." Thus Mr. Obama is identified as a supporter of racially bigoted postions. The nature of his church affiliation is further established by the fact that its 2007 "Man of the Year" equivalent award was made to none other than Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the anti-white "Nation of Islam." Mr. Obama's church has an extreme pro-Palestinian and pro-Islamic position related to Israel, which fact has not been utilized by Mrs. Clinton to detract from his support.
Mr. Obama has also been invoolved in some questionable real estate transactions which have not made the light of day, such as purchasing a home through an Arab businessman for $300,000 under going market price in a rising market, and having the business man's wife purchase a lot contiguous with the Obama's home property, which the Obama's have enjoyed the use of without cost. Quite an accommodation.
With the black vote for Republicans approximating some 6%, the Republicans without much at stake, must be salivating at the prospect of unleashing this October surprise together with other unsavory aspects of Mr. Obama's past including his first job, which was a three year participation with a neo-Alinsky organization which used tactics of establishing racial and class conflict for empowerment of blacks, and advocated and agitated for transfer of assets from others, specifically non-blacks, to blacks.
These burdens are the 1200 pound gorilla that await disclosure during the national election campaign. Just imagine an ad with Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Obama's picture on it, one endorsing the other. These and other aspects of Mr. Obama's situation including his involvement in the drug trade are matters that are taboos that Mrs. Clinton has not dared to address - yet. What will she do when "pus' comes to "shove?"
Mrs. Clinton has many virtues. Personal honesty and financial integrity are NOT two of those gifts. Over and over in The Blogosphere you read comments about Obama and financial scandals. Mrs. Clinton should send Marc Rich out to attack Obama, or perhaps Norman Hsu.
Obama has many flaws, but Hillaryphiliacs should realize the "corrupt Obama' vs. the "vetted Clinton's" not only is a dog that won't hunt, it is the same tired dogged negativity that is their self-piteous trademark.
ALL public officials have friends who are corrupt. The Clinton's should know: since the day Hillary made 100 grand on a Cattle Trade to the latest donor to Bill's Library, they have enriched themselves to the tune of 35 to 50 million dollars from those types of donors.
McCain has a trunkload of chits and swag from the Keating Scandal to Jack Abramoff, so he cannot exactly claim "clean hands".
But it is annoying and distressing to see Hillary's supporters claim that The Clinton's are so corrupt they are clean.
Bill can wag his finger and denounce Monica and Obama's Fairy Tale only so often.
The Clinton's are a sad joke on Progressives and Democratic Party members. Bill had a good economy and some good moves, but the rich still got richer and the Republicans thrived.
Bill executed a mentally deficient person to show how tough he was, signed a Welfare "reform" bill that punished the poor without providing meaningful work, day care, transportation assistance, or a living wage.
Hillary voted to allow The Village Idiot W to have his war.
What can they do for an encore if she is elected? And what a drag it will be seeing a million anti-Clinton articles and watching Republicans come back while Clinton apologists do what we always have done for this twisted pair: excuse, excuse, excuse.
I am bitter because I voted for them twice each. And all I get is Bill's anger at Obama and his equating Obama with Jesse Jackson. Guess what Bill Clinton? Another Senator, like Obama, won South Carolina in 2004 and did not win the nomination. What were you pointing out by comparing Obama to someone who NEVER held office and won 20 years earlier?
Gee, I wonder. I am so tired of the tiresome Clinton's. With The Bush's and Ronald Reagan they made America small and stupid.
The last comment is outrageous and will infuriate Chicagoans. Mr. Obama's church is highly respected here. He and his wife, Michelle, are closely connected to the University of Chicago and are part of the Hyde Park neighborhood, itself an integral part of the Chicago political and social scene. Incidentally, Mr. Farrakhan also lives in that neighborhood where Temple No. 1 also exists. Chicagoans are not threatened by the Black Muslims. They have lived here for more than 50 years and are a part of our political world. Ethnic discussion is much less sensitive and high strung than it is in NYC.
Similarly, Sol Alinsky is a local saint, much like Saul Bellow etc. People still remember and respect him. He worked for the Catholic archdiocese here in his community organizing. Hillary Clinton also wrote her undergraduate honors essay on him and his work.
While the NYC comment may reflect the canards that opponents will use, any such suggestion from Hillary's camp will simply backlash hereabouts. Obama has very solid backing from Chicago democrats.
You'd better find other ways to elevate Hillary's vote.
Jay Fraser
To Anonymous above: If it was a person whose religion is jewish, everyone would just look the other way.
20 years? try 30.
No need to bring the race issue up again, as she is vying for her share of 'minorities', i.e. Latinos. Instead of pouring a barrage of negatives to one positive, remember, 'no one is perfect' that includes you and me. If I am correct, Bill too had his swig at some type of grass too - see? This bickering and complaining wont get America anywhere. SO let us act like grown ups and look to the days ahead, NOT BEHIND US.
As I view the political landscape, I think Hillary's political troubles were somewhat predictable. The way the campaign is being run is somewhat of a mute issue, because Hillary is the "real" problem. Forget Obama for a while.
Personally, I have always liked Bill and Hillary Clinton, and our political views are pretty much in sync. Although I greatly admire them, there are flaws. Are they saints? No! Is anyone in politics a saint? No!
As much as I like Hillary and Bill, I really don't understand why they both want more. More of everything. More, more, more, more! I guess it's only human nature to want more as many people are never satisfied. Granted, they are ambitious and bright people, but they had eight-years in the White House. That's quite an achievement, and they can reflect back to the White House years with pride. Can George Bush reflect back to the White House years with pride? No! No!
Just a few short years ago, Bill and Hillary borrowed money to buy their house in Chappaqua. Now they're wealth easily exceeds 50 million and possibly more. She's currently a powerful and influential senator. They own a Washington home. They have everything, and yet they want more.
Many in the Democratic establishment embraced Hillary early-on. Not everyone but quite a few. The Clinton's have a lot of powerful and wealthy friends, and most of them overlooked some of Hillary's flaws. In addition, Bush's presidency has been such a dismal failure that almost any Democratic candidate looked like a winner. Although Hillary's demons were there, her deomons didn't seem to be of great concern. A red flag was waving, but many people didn't see it.
However, one powerful and wealthy friend, David Geffen, assessed Hillary's chances of winning and jumped ship. He saw red flags. Another friend, Steven Spielberg, jumped ship. He saw red flags. Both David Geffen and Steven Spielberg are smart, perceptive men. David Geffen knew Hillary and Bill quite well.
I think the Clinton's can only blame themselves. They underestimated Hillary's weaknesses, and overestimated her strengths.
The Clinton's flawed thinking ( Hillary's a winner ) is one reason there's a lot of bad feelings at her campaign headquarters. I think resentment and hurt feelings were a certainty at some future point in time, once Hillary tossed her hat in the ring. We're now at that point in time.
Barack Obama entered the picture and he's not as polarizing as Hillary. He's a new political figure, and that is a plus. If Obama is the nominee I think he will win, because McCain has a lot of negatives. Hillary could probably win the presidential election, but her delegate count may be a little low.
To name one example of the same people doing the same thing with the same results I would mention Alan Greenspan. Clinton reappointed him in 1998 (I think) as FED chief, even though he was and is a very conservative Republican, an Ayn Rand fan even, whose policies very clearly were oriented at promoting corporate power and the stock market, and very definitely at the expense of ordinary Americans. We're still suffering the damage resulting from this appointment, and will be for some time. I'm not sure I see the point in electing a Clinton, who supposedly is a Democrat, if they're going to appoint conservative Republicans to important positions.
I'm amazed at the contempt Obama supporters show towards Clinton. Is that what he is inspiring in you all. To be hateful and disrespectful and high and almighty towards a fellow democrat, towards a woman who is also working hard day and night to change our world for the better. Have any of you even bothered to actually listen to her? The self-righteuos attack comments written night after night by Obama supporters about anything writtten about Hillary is far nastier and more negative than anything she's been accused of. Why are you spending so much time bashing Hillary? She's not the enemy.
Give some respect as she likely will be our next president, and she'll be a brilliant one!
Fighting for you everyday!! Open your eyes and send her some love!!
I have listened to what Hiliary says. Repeatedly, she has said, she has fought for change for the last 35 years.
Okay......was she fighting for change when she was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart in the late 1980's?
Was she fighting for change in her position of corporate lawyer in Little Rock?
If she wants to say she's been fighting for change, say you've been fighting for 6 years, maybe 14 if you want to count her 1st lady days. But her to say she's been fighting for change for 35 years....well.......
Is she lying? Not really. Bulls**ing? A bit. Fudging? Kind of.
Make no mistake, Hiliary has had some really, really solid debates. to be sure, she has been BETTER than Obama in the debates.
But, please consider this: this is a woman, a very, very bright woman, who promised to create 350,000 jobs in New York if she were elected Senator. She got the seat, and never delivered. And you what, that's fine. 9/11 happened. Things happen.......but then don't come in and say you have all this experience on economic issues.
On economic issues, she is a FAILURE. Plain and simple. And, when taking her jobs pledge into account, intellectually dishonest.
THAT'S WHY SHE'S LOSING THIS RACE. Although she says the right things, WE JUST DON'T TRUST HER......
Have any of you even bothered to actually listen to her." Well, I'd like to listen to Hillary without Bill adding his two cents. Two cents? Yeah! Sure!
It's really shameful how ex-presidents rake in the dough after they leave office. Bill Clinton isn't the only one to rake in the dough, but he is the highest-paid speaker/lecturer far surpassing anyone else on the lecture circuit. His lecture fees do vary, and some are for his foundations, but his speaking fees have been as high as $600,000 a speech. Outrageous! One year he booked 352 speeches, so there were only 13 days in that year he did not book a speech.
Yes, Hillary and Bill are great politicians with genius-level intelligence, but they've kind of worn out their welcome. I would welcome them back, but many Americans want to move on to someone else.
Now the fat cats know how the rest of us non-elites feel when we run into the Clinton-me-first buzz saw! Poor little things.
Americans have always sought to define issues via relevancy and meaning. EQ is as important to us as IQ, historically, since our beginning. It informs how we conduct ourselves in the world and domestically -- except during Republican administrations. It is a core part of our identity that has been trampled by politicians such as George H.W. Bush, who made a comment about the "...vision thing" and his PROUD lack of it, famous. I respectfully suggest that ironically Hillary Clinton has exactly the SAME problem and I know James Carville, her staff and others in her bubble KNOW this. Hillary is not Bill. She knows it as well, which is why she long ago literally FUSED herself to his talents, career and work record to an extraordinary way that I am surprised Feminists don't choose to see. Nobody knows better than Hillary that she lacks the "vision thing" and has absolutely no EQ, an absolutely necessary skill for politics and just about ANY career in the modern world. Out of the bubble, the Electorate knows this and we won't be fooled as we were with George W. Bush, whose EQ performance in 2000 mimicked Ronald Reagan communication/acting skills as all Republicans attempt to do. Lincoln had high EQ. Roosevelt had high EQ. Kennedy had high EQ. Bill Clinton had high EQ. Barack Obama has, to the Clinton's (and John McCain's) dismay, high EQ. Americans will focus on the economy and other serious challenges we face and repair work, AFTER we make our decision based upon how we rate the EQ of the candidates. EQ will help us reconnect with our IDEALS and sense of self, which has been eroded to the extreme under BOTH the Bushes and Clintons' scandals. We can tackle anything in our innovative and very hard working culture IF and only IF we are centered. The Bushes/Clintons have sought to keep us off balance and distracted -- as Billary are doing now -- State by State. American interests have been bartered away for side deals and special interests for 30 years, while Americans have been distracted from what OUR priorities are. EQ equals LEADERSHIP, first and foremost. We are choosing a LEADER for the 21st Century. After we accomplish that, we will move toward the economy, ending the war, domestic challenges we face as 79mil boomers make their historical march into third age w/the gift of historically unprecedented longevity. This LEADER will prepare our children for their role in the 21st Century world and determine what RELEVANCY and MEANING is for this Century. The Bushes/Clintons are FAMILY (very for-profit) BUSINESSES that have hijacked American interests for monetary gain for more than a quarter of a century. WE ARE OUR SPECIAL OWN INTERESTS, NOW. Sorry international fat cats and their surrogates in NYC and LA. Chelsea can go back to her NYC Hedge Fund job soon and stop dialing superdelegates and thwarting cub reporters. Exxon and other monied interests of this INVESTOR CLASS may have to forego tax abatements and sweetheart deregulation. No more NAFTA agreements and Chinagate, throwing away American jobs and destablizing the American way of life by those we trust. No more PARDONS-for-profit. The ECONOMY is on deck...and, we will solve the problem based upon OUR interests and politicians who don't GET that now, will be voted out by a younger generation who can see things as they are...and the CONSEQUENCES. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton feigned EQ, but their politics indicated how we were fooled. We need the real thing, now. AKA Lincoln and Roosevelt. We NOW know the difference. Turn the page.
Zach, wanting more of EVERYTHING, at the expense of EVERYONE is what holds the Clintons together. They are FUSED and when we end their reign, we'll see how long they last together. Hillary could have divorced Bill when she became a United States Senator, but HE was commoditizing their joint politics as she did when he was Governor of Arkansas -- and, possibly President via Lincoln Bedroom visits and teas she HOSTESSED, preparing for the amazing 7 year financial run they refuse to disclose, but we can only guess at. THIS IS OUR POLITICS AS BUSINESS. PERIOD. Perhaps no other business can net what The White House can. Dick Cheney left the CEO job at Halliburton when their profits were down, to become VP and met in secret w/oil interests as his FIRST PRIORITY. Look at how well the oil industries, including Halliburton, have done? Dick Cheney had STOCK AND OPTIONS in Halliburton during this period. Billary said NOTHING, because Bill was too busy commoditizing the NAFTA and deregulated deals HE cut, to the detriment of Americans. Listening to Hillary say she cares for us is sickening. What will we have left after another 4-8 years of THEM??? Let them go out into the world and earn their keep based upon THEIR own talents, assuming RISKS as we all have to thanks to their legacies. WE ARE NO LONGER THE COMMODITY OF THE BUSH/CLINTON FAMILIAS.
WHERE DID HILLARY GET THE $5 MILLION FROM TO LOAN TO HER CAMPAIGN ??? Did she earn it in her 'do good' work?
WE WANT TO SEE HER TAX RETURNS.
SHE OBVIOUSLY HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE.
Check out how the no. of registered LOBBYISTS have exploded in Washington DC during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush eras -- and correlate THAT to the demise of our industries, jobs, infrastructure and the RISE OF THE INVESTOR CLASS -- outsourcing, downsizing, deregulation, favorable corporate tax treatment and business replacing the interests of Americans in the definition of what America is and means. Other Nations have benefitted by this major shifting offshore of OUR industries, while America's ONLY product is our MILITARY and the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX to protect the oil/corporate interests overseas. Beautiful, new cities are rising in the Arab States while WE PAY TO PROTECT THEM, MILITARILY. Ditto, Europe and Japan. While these Nations invest in education and medical care, Bush/Clinton/Bush have done out-of-Office DEALS with Nations Americans are clearly subsidizing. Today, there are STILL Americans living in TRAILERS two years after Katrina! TRAILERS that are now too toxic to live in. More than 40 million Americans living on permanent financial edge w/no health insurance is a NATIONAL DISGRACE. Barack Obama wants to change this entire paradigm and he needs our help. McCain/Bush and Clintons MOCK him for even trying and propagandize him as an emty suit when they KNOW he has put forth serious Legislation and position papers on his website. They are two sides of the same coin, and Americans LOSE no matter which one. Now, our wealthy have had their day and it isn't even in THEIR interests to want more at the expense of the Middle Class. Watching the Clintons MOCK the politics of hope and uplift demonstrates they have changed what being a Democrat means -- and not for the better. TAKE BACK OUR PARTY! TAKE BACK OUR NATION! OH and TX, don't fall for Bill Clinton's PROPAGANDA about the work for children Hillary did while in AK. She sat on the Board of Walmart and garnered a PARTNERSHIP at a major lawfirm because her spouse was Governor. Scandals ensued, as usual. They brought that to DC and more scandals ensued. Many women sit on Boards and do charity work, but we don't LIE about our real work in the for-profit sector. Barack was in the top 1% of his Class at Harvard Law and Law Review. Hillary failed her first two attempts to pass the Bar...and followed Bill to AK. Barack HAD other independent opportunities he turned down to do community work, full time. That is NOT the same as sitting on Boards when your spouse is Governor. Come on, America! Where does Hillary's money come from??? Charity work? Wake up! The RECORDS would out this, which is WHY they are refusing to show them. Turn the page for America! Stand up for yourselves. To our RICH, enough already! The foundation of the Nation is crumbling and you can't ALL become expatriates and offshore your money. For shame. To think Americans have died and are dying to prop this up. Turn the page!
EQ isn't religious zeolotry and we need Republicans and Independents to STOP processing religious zeolotry as EQ. Barack Obama understands this important distinction. The elite class in America MOCKS RELIGION by politicizing it and using it as a substitute for real services that represent our ideals and best selves. Consequently, we have a cold, callous media product, a backing away from real journalism that would question the FACT Americans are still living in trailers after Katrina and billions spent, lack of accountability by ANY political appointee for LIES and poor performance, mismanagement of HUGE budgets for privatized/outsourced products/goods/services that don't work such as the entire MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Focusing overworked and overwrought Americans on doing more for less, while the top 1% sells out our interests is the antithesis of ANY religious ethics. It is THEFT! Religion is a private matter and has no role in our politics. Journalism is a Constitutionally protected product that is essential to our Democracy and should not have been commoditized for special interests to manipulate. We have work to do, America. We were sleep at the wheel for far too long -- shopping and playing videogames. WE had a role in this disaster. Since we have no real journalism, WE must work even harder to stop and then turn back these downward, un-American trendlines. Our RICH have no class. Our poor/middle class have more class than the RICH. They continue to work while getting less because they haven't forgotten what we stand for and our ideals. America's old families should rise up and help us take this Nation back from this money class/hedge fund/special interest/lobbying cabal. We are depending upon you, Kennedys, Rockefellers, etc. Do the RIGHT THING!
renatam,
We're all works in progress, and many of us change dramatically as we age. Hillary is 60-years-old, so whatever deficiencies may have defined her when she was younger, may not define her today. Her EI is marginally better today than in the '70s, '80s, and '90s.
Power and influence rule this planet, so power is the name of the game. Bill is a natural-born leader with great rapport with people. Hillary doesn't possess these skills to the degree Bill does.
I firmly believe Bill and Hillary will not divorce. A divorce isn't really necessary since they appear to lead separate lives, which they can do because they have a lot of resources.
They're also a team, and that's the way it's always been. They may connect on a romance level, but they obviously connect on an intellectual level.
Most of the blogs, I've read recently favor Obama, and seem to be extraordinarily critical of Hillary and her husband Bill. He did everything wrong when he was president and she is decadent- actually a word not used. Obama seems to be riding a wave of optimism and frankly naivety. If he happens to sound like JFK and RK it's because his speechwriters have advise from theirs, Ted Sorenson. I voted for them, but looking back, I doubt that JFK would have been a great president. Among other reasons, he had the same fatal flaw as Clinton. Did people know about JFK? Some did. I did as I live in "Hollywood."
There are going to be a lot of disappointed voters, if they think Barak Husein Obama will be any different from Hillary. If he is he'll be ineffective, and if not a compromiser, like most if not all Presidents since probably the best of the 20th century FDR.
It is said-to use a Charlie Rose phrase-that today’s youth don't read, and know little of history. That's obvious.
""Sending in a guy with the charm of Darth Vader to talk to Democratic Committee members seems kind of dopey,""
And why would a slave be any different than his dominatrix?
````````````````````````````
Re: (An Airing...) - info@katrinaalliance.org
1992
The Whitewater Development Corp is dissolved, leaving Bill and Hillary Clinton with a loss of more than $40,000.
January 1994
Attorney General Janet Reno appoints Robert Fiske Jr. as the independent counsel in charge of investigating financial irregularities in the dealings of the Whitewater property company. The Clintons, and their business partners, James and Susan McDougal, are implicated.
August 1994
Fiske is replaced by the more conservative Kenneth Starr as the independent counsel investigating the Whitewater scandal.
July 1995
Monica Lewinsky graduates from Lewis and Clark College, and joins the White House staff as an unpaid intern.
November 1995
Ms Lewinsky accepts a paid job at the White House office of legislative affairs and, two days later, sexual contact between Ms Lewinsky and President Clinton begins. The affair continues, sporadically, for the next 18 months.
April 1996
Ms Lewinsky leaves the White House for public affairs post at the Pentagon.
May 1996
The first Whitewater trial ends with the conviction of the McDougals for fraud. A Senate hearing ends inconclusively a month later.
February 1997
Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel investigating the Whitewater scandal, announces he will step down from the investigation. He then changes his mind and continues his investigations.
May 1997
According to the Starr report released in September 1998, President Clinton tells Ms Lewinsky the affair is at an end. Just days later the Supreme Court reject Mr Clinton's claim that as President he should have immunity from civil cases. This ruling allows the Paula Jones harassment case to proceed against him.
August 1997
Linda Tripp is reported in Newsweek magazine as having seen White House staffer Kathleen Willey emerging from the Oval Office looking dishevelled but happy, and with her lipstick smeared. Mr Clinton's attorney, Robert Bennett, claims Ms Tripp is "not to be believed."
September 1997
Ms Tripp begins to tape her telephone conversations with Ms Lewinsky, who remains in touch with the President.
December 17, 1997
Ms Lewinsky is subpoenaed by lawyers for Paula Jones.
December 26, 1997
Ms Lewinsky leaves the Pentagon.
January 5, 1998
President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have what proves to be their last telephone conversation. January 7, 1998
In a sworn affidavit, Monica Lewinsky denies having an affair with Mr Clinton, in an attempt to avoid testifying in the sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones against President Clinton.
January 12, 1998
Tripp dismisses her lawyers, allegedly because they were "too close to the White House." She then contacts Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's office, offering him 20 hours of taped conversations between herself and Lewinsky.
January 13, 1998
Ms Tripp is kitted-out with a hidden microphone by FBI agents for further conversations with Ms Lewinsky.
January 16, 1998
Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approves the Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
January 17, 1998
President Clinton, testifying under oath to lawyers in the Jones harassment case, denies having had an affair with Ms Lewinsky. He reportedly acknowledges having had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, a charge he previously denied.
January 19, 1998
Monica Lewinsky's name and the rumours linking her with Clinton are published on the Drudge report internet site. Drudge reveals that Newsweek obtained tapes of the Lewinsky-Tripp conversations but pulled their publication after pressure from Starr, who insisted his investigation would be jeopardised.
January 21, 1998
The Washington Post reports Lewinsky's allegations. President Clinton denies the charges in vague terms. There is no improper relationship," he tells a TV interviewer.
January 26, 1998
"I want you to listen to me. I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. I never told a single person to lie, not a single time, never," an angry President Clinton declares to an invited media audience at the White House.
January 29, 1998
President Clinton posts his highest ever opinion poll rating. Gallup for CNN find 67 per cent of Americans approve of the President (up five per cent from his previous best); just 28 per cent disapprove. Ms Lewinsky is only believed by 13 per cent of Americans.
March 13, 1998
Paula Jones' lawyers in the sexual harassment suit against Clinton publish much of their evidence, one of the many breaches of the judicial gagging order on this case.
March 15, 1998
Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer and key witness in the Jones harassment case, makes her first public comments about an alleged incident in 1991 when Mr Clinton is said to have fondled her against her will.
April 1, 1998
The Paula Jones harassment case against the President is dismissed by the judge before it goes to trial.
June 2, 1998
The possibility of a new immunity deal being struck between Ms Lewinsky and Prosecutor Starr is raised as Lewinsky's main lawyer, William Ginsburg is replaced by two well-known Washington criminal defence lawyers, Jacob Stein and Plato Cacheris. Both cleared former White House employees of corruption in the 1980s.
June 30, 1998
Ms Tripp begins giving evidence to the Washington grand jury investigating President Clinton's alleged cover-up of the affair. Polls show that only one in 10 Americans view her sympathetically.
July 28, 1998
Ms Lewinsky's lawyers announce that an immunity deal has been struck with independent counsel Starr. For Ms Lewinsky's "full and truthful testimony", she will receive transactional immunity a legal blanket which means nothing she says can be used against her. She is questioned by the grand jury over the next 15 days.
July 29, 1998
President Clinton decides to testify voluntarily before the prosecutor over the allegations that he committed perjury in covering up a sexual affair with Ms Lewinsky.
August 3, 1998
Clinton is asked for a blood sample for DNA testing.
August 17, 1998
Bill Clinton testifies in the grand jury, acknowledging "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms Lewinsky. But he insists the evidence he gave to the Jones case in January suit had been accurate.
September 8, 1998
Attorney-general Janet Reno announces a 90-day inquiry into whether Bill Clinton helped to plan a $44 million Democratic Party "issue ad" that breached election campaign spending laws.
September 9, 1998
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr releases his report to Congress. It has 11 possible grounds for impeachment. The House votes to make the 445-page report public.
September 11, 1998
Congress makes the report public.
September 18, 1998
Republicans vote to release the videotape of Mr Clinton's grand jury testimony in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
September 21, 1998
The tape is released and broadcast on American cable channels across the country.
October 2, 1998
More evidence from Mr Starr's investigation is released, including the transcript of taped telephone conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp that triggered the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in January.
October 5, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.
October 6, 1998
Erskine Bowles, the White House chief of staff, confirms he will leave his post at the end of the week. With senior policy advisor Rahm Emmanuel and press secretary Mike McCurry are also leaving. All three insist they have not resigned for political reasons.
October 8, 1998
The House of Representatives vote for impeachment proceedings to begin against Clinton. The House judiciary committee will be given wide powers to draw up detailed charges against Mr Clinton, based on 11 allegations by the independent counsel Kenneth Starr in his report on the Monica Lewinsky affair.
October 14, 1998
The House judiciary committee chairman Henry Hyde announces the impeachment inquiry will concentrate its focus on two core charges: that Mr Clinton lied under oath and attempted to obstruct justice.
October 17, 1998
Lawyers for Paula Jones make their final demand $1 million as part of a $2 million settlement in the sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Mr Clinton's lawyers have refused to pay more than $700,000.
November 13, 1998
Paula Jones drops her sexual harassment appeal against President Clinton in return for $850,000. The President makes no apology or admission of guilt.
November 19, 1998
Prosecutor Kenneth Starr offers his testimony to the House of Representatives judiciary committee. In a 132-minute address, Mr Starr alleges that President Clinton engaged in "an unlawful effort to thwart the judicial process". Meanwhile, on a trip to Tokyo, Mr Clinton is harangued on Japanese television for his infidelity by a Japanese housewife.
November 31, 1998
Tom Hanks, one of Hollywood's biggest - and wholesome - stars, publicly speaks of his regret at giving financial support to President Clinton's legal defence fund.
December 1, 1998
The House of Representatives judiciary committee widens the scope of its inquiry to include the election campaign fundraising issue. The Republicans use their majority on the committee to subpoena senior law enforcement officers, including the FBI director Louis Freeh, to broadening the impeachment inquiry into a dispute over President Clinton's campaign fundraising.
December 11, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee approves three articles of impeachment on a 21-16 party line vote, passing them to the full House of Representatives. The three articles accuse Clinton of lying to a grand jury, committing perjury by denying he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and obstructing justice. Clinton declares himself "profoundly sorry" and willing to accept censure.
December 12, 1998
The committee approves a fourth article of impeachment on a party-line vote, accusing Clinton of abusing power in a direct parallel to Watergate-era language.
December 17, 1998
A last-minute stay of execution is offered to President Clinton as the Congress vote is postponed until the latest Gulf crisis is resolved and US military action against Iraq ends.
December 19, 1998
President Clinton is impeached as the Republican controlled House approves two of the four proposed articles of impeachment by narrow partisan majorities: 228-206 and 221-212. Mr Clinton is sent for trial in the Senate.
Mr Clinton resists calls to resign, pledging to fight to remain in the White House until "the last hour of the last day of my term".
Newly-appointed House of Representatives leader Bob Livingston announces he will step down because of Hustler magazine's revelations that he had had extramarital affairs. He also pledges to resign his legislative seat entirely in six months.
December 20, 1998
President Clinton's advisers begin secret consultations with Senate Republicans on possible compromise deals, in which the president would be censured and perhaps fined, thus avoiding a trial which some experts say could last for up to six months.
December 21, 1998
In the wake of his impeachment, President Clinton's approval level with the voters leaps 10 points to a personal all-time high of 73 per cent in a Gallup poll. Sixty-eight per cent believe the Senate should not convict Mr Clinton in the pending impeachment trial, while support for resignation falls to 30 per cent. Other polls confirm the trend.
December 29, 1998
With continuing uncertainty over the length and form of the Senate trial against President Clinton, Republican senators offer Mr Clinton the possibility of a fast-track hearing lasting only a few days if Mr Clinton accepts the evidence against him.
January 6, 1999
In an indication of how divided the Senate remains over the trial of President Clinton, Conservative Republican senators attempt to derail the bipartisan deal to bring a swift end to Mr Clinton's impeachment trial.
January 7, 1999
The Senate formally begins the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton on two charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
There remains complete disagreement on the procedure that will follow. A private senators meeting to debate the unresolved argument about whether witnesses - and if so who and how many - should be called is cancelled.
Bill Clinton was a wonderful President!! The USA was in a much better place during the Clinton Administration. Please realize that the politics of the defamation of his character and humanity were primarily the republican apparatus!! They would not stop until they disgusted the country with their pornographic politics-Karl Rove, and his boy George the W Bush have created a mess! We're lucky Hillary is willing to clean it up!!I hope you do your part to clean up our mess!!
Yes, I have listened to her. I suggest you do as well. Here is her campaign strategy from way back in NH. Keith Olbermann called her on it. We already have 1 president who claim the terrorists can strike us at every turn, using FEAR OF ATTACK to deprive us of our civil liberties. I surely dont want another president who will use FEAR TO SCARE UP VOTES.
But you listen to her: Listen to her in her own voice try to scare up votes in NH. It worked. She won there. But at what cost. GWB did the same, look what it cost us for the politics of FEAR
But Keith shows her in all her glory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
Many of my friends had wanted to consider voting for Sen Obama but the media is not doing its job in following up with him about many questions that they (and I ) and other voters have on the following:
-Times UK investigation 2/26/08 article –did British Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi really lend millions of $ to Barack Obama’s fundraiser weeks before Mansion land deal in Chicago?-
-What is the true relationship (if any exists) between Mr Auchi, Mr. Rezko and Sen. Obama?
-How much $ does Sen. Obama receive from various industry sectors –not lobbyists? How does HE define a Lobbyist?
--How much does he receive from in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union,trade association, or other group? I understand that these people may lobby but their contributions are grouped in the totals (acc to a recent article posted in CJR)for the various industries they represent, along with contributions from other employees in the sector, their relatives, whatever PAC money has been raised, and donations from trade and professional associations.
-On what basis did the politically controversial former advisor to former president Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski endorse Sen. Obama last summer, for president?
-Some claim that it was Brezinski’s misguided actions (during the 1960’s and ‘70’s in Afghanistan/Soviet Union conflict) that led to the present day military strength buildup of Osama Bin Ladin’s –including others- terrorist groups. Any comments from Sen. Obama about this?
-On what basis did Sen. Obama select Brzezinski to serve as a foreign policy advisor for him?
-During this weeks’ debate-Sen. Obama brought up his Terri Schiavo experience as one in which he regrets supporting the unanimously-arrived at decision of the Senate. How does he feel about the way in which the decision was arrived at (Voice votes because 97 Senators were out of town and only 3 were on the floor during the vote)
-What does Se. Obama think about the fact that the law which was "unanimously" approved by Voice Vote was a violation of the separation of powers. Many historians and constitutional lawyers argued that Congress had exceeded its powers by substituting its judgment for that of the courts and directing the courts . Judge Stanley Francis Birch Agreed.
-Who decided that there would be no formal record of this vote and what does Sen. Obama think about this? Does he view it as going against his position of supporting transparency and accountability in government? Why or why not?
-Sen Obama sponsored a bill in February 2007 which defined a legal structure to prosecute State Dept. contractor crimes in US courts. There is a good possibility it will not pass until the next pres. takes power. Even if it passes, there are serious unresolved questions about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The US Embassy in Iraq is slated to become the largest embassy in the world. If Sen. Obama as president maintains that embassy (and its army of diplomats and US personnel going in and out of the Green Zone) a significant armed force will be required for protection. That job is presently being contracted out to private contractors including Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy. Based upon the wording of the sponsored bill (which is considered weak in the area of providing accountability measures ) some legal experts and Justice Department officials claim that the new president may be forced to continue using these “unaccountable” forces in Iraq. What is Sen. Obama’s opinion of this statement?
wow gold