Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHAT CHANGE LOOKS LIKE.
My reporting has been similar to that of Jon Cohn. Everyone I've spoken to in the administration has expressed total shock over Daschle's withdrawal. As recently as last night, they were counting votes and felt certain the nomination was on track for a bumpy but comfortable confirmation. This morning, Daschle dropped out. Conversations have not featured the sort of surprise you usually get from flacks and sources: Feigned ignorance delivered with the glossy professionalism of expertly-crafted spin. This is the sort of surprise where they're subdued on the phone. Where they pause for a long time, and then sort of sigh. Where they have no "B" list, not even off-the-record. Where they ask you if Marc Ambinder reports that Daschle was wounded by the press coverage. George Stephanopoulos says Daschle lacked the stomach for the coming fight. Others tell me he concluded there was no way he could be effective in the months to come. Everyone emphasizes the emotional asymmetry of his situation: He wasn't prepared to fight because he wasn't prepared for the assault. He was surprised.
Surprised.
But why was he surprised? He'd cashed the checks for the speeches to the insurance industry. He'd advised UnitedHealth Group. He wasn't a victim of some heretofore unknown side effect of Ambien ("may promote ethically ambiguous but surprisingly lucrative activities"). He was a savvy political operator playing according to well-established rules. His mistake was not realizing that the rules had changed. But then, it's not clear that anyone realized the rules had changed. Not even the man who changed them.
In recent days, there's been an effort to paint Daschle as one of Washington's most corrupt creatures. Jack Abramoff with an electoral history. But so far as sell-outs go, Daschle's sins were almost modest. His path frequently diverged from money. He never registered as a lobbyist or did any lobbying, even though you get paid more to ensure access than offer advice. He spent huge chunks of time working with the Center for American Progress and writing a technical book on health reform. None of that proved lucrative (his book advance was $22,000; poor for a political pundit, much less a former Senate majority leader). He endorsed Obama in February of 2007, when Clinton was far ahead in the polls. If she'd won -- and most thought she would -- his access to the White House would be close to nonexistent, and his value to clients would be greatly diminished.
But nor did Daschle prove a political ascetic. He sat on boards and advised industry. He gave paid speeches to pharmaceutical groups and offered advice to insurance companies. He made money. And he did all this over the past two years -- two years during which Obama was running for president and Daschle was not only advising him but positioning himself for a central role on health reform.
In this, he was typical. He could have foregone that income. The $220,000 he made from the health industry was a small fraction of his income. He didn't need it. He just didn't think to refuse it. And why would he? This was Washington. You don't get penalized for doing what everyone else does. The Bush administration was so riddled with conflicts of interest -- literally hundreds of them -- that someone made a crossword puzzle out of the industry ties.
Daschle was doomed not by atypical corruption but by normal, even modest, conflicts of interest. But this time, in this administration, due to an odd confluence of circumstances, that was enough to scuttle his nomination. Part of the reason was Timothy Geithner and Nancy Killefer, both of whom also had "tax issues." Individual errors became a collective problem. Daschle received extra scrutiny. That was when most of his ties to the health industry emerged. The other factor, however, was words. Obama's words.
There is no evidence that Obama wanted Daschle to withdraw his nomination. There is no evidence that Daschle's paid speeches or consulting gigs crossed Obama's ethical lines. As recently as last night, Obama was asked if he stood behind Daschle. "Absolutely," he replied.
But if Daschle's actions were forgivable in the eyes of President Obama, they still stood in sharp contrast to the rhetoric of candidate Obama. And that turned out to matter. In explaining his decision to withdraw, Daschle pointed to two New York Times articles. One was an editorial that concluded, "Mr. Daschle is another in a long line of politicians who move cozily between government and industry...[and] could potentially throw a cloud over health care reform." The other was a front page news story that said "Obama's ethics rules face an early test" and noted that "Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case." It was this coverage -- not a word from Obama or an attack by the Republicans -- that drove Daschle to withdraw his nomination. And this coverage would not have existed had Obama not run the campaign he did.
There was always something studiedly vague about Obama's insistence that he would battle a culture in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” Obama could not remake Washington anew. His administration would certainly face unwanted scandal and welcome proficient rogues.
But it turns out that Obama's words, well, mattered. They made it harder to ignore scandal, as the Bush administration had done. The endlessly long vetting forms forcing deep tax and income transparency, which in turn uncovered embarrassments that would never have emerged under past regimes. This has made for a more troubled transition, but will probably also result in a cleaner administration. For all the embarrassments, this, in a concrete sense, is what change looks like. It's not an administration that decides to be clean so much as one that has little choice in the matter.
COMMENTS (67)
Right.
Posted by: Charles Breznev | February 4, 2009 12:23 AM
You nailed it, Ezra. As a stand-alone issue,Daschle might have survived. But the scrutiny that was ramping up since Geithner, caught him and may catch yet others in the transparency net. I am so disappointed that we have lost time over this. Daschle spent a lot of time in the past 3 months getting ready for this job, analyzing the agencies, choosing people to help him--and now much of that knowledge may be lost. At best, the health reform process will be somewhat delayed,and delay may be its death. It's more than a personal tragedy. It could turn out to be a national one.
Posted by: Linda B | February 4, 2009 12:36 AM
So the question is, will these new rules be applied universally by the press? Or only to Obama's administration (or, potentially, future Democratic administrations)?
Silly question, I suppose.
Posted by: Milind | February 4, 2009 12:43 AM
Oh, come on. This wasn't about Obama's rhetoric, but about his insistence on nominating tax cheats. They realized this morning that winning this fight might do more damage than Daschle's withdrawal, so he withdrew.
I'm not sure I follow the "embarrassments" point. Obama's vetting found that his proposed nominees were tax cheats, and yet he nominated them. I'm not sure why that's a credit to Obama. In any case, I don't believe that embarrassing tax problems are a new issue. See, e.g., Zoe Baird.
Posted by: Thomas | February 4, 2009 12:44 AM
Ezra, have you heard any comments about whether the conversation Senator Kyl had with Daschle on Monday evening contributed to Daschle's decision to withdraw?
Posted by: hardheaded liberal | February 4, 2009 1:01 AM
Thomas: I hope I wasn't unclear. This doesn't reflect well on Obama per se. He didn't pull Daschle back. He didn't think the vetting results voided the nomination. But he's being constrained by his own rhetoric. He said so much about change that he's not being permitted to totally ignore it, or maybe he's not willing to, or maybe both.
HL: I think it had no impact. As far as we know, Daschle had full Democratic support and some Republican support (Stephanopoulos elaborates on this in the linked piece). It's possible all the reporting on this is wrong, but it seems unlikely.
Posted by: Ezra | February 4, 2009 1:05 AM
This is progress. Now if only Obama would withdraw William Lynn, the nominee for deputy secretary at the Pentagon, who was granted a silly "waiver" to the Obama rule against lobbyists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903226.html
Obama invests in his public trust and credibility every time he stands by his ethics pledges. If he breaks the rule when it suits him, he damages himself.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | February 4, 2009 1:11 AM
Ezra's good argument in this post is a positive take on the story. What it misses is the fact that public essentially had two expectations from Obama:
- ethically clean team
- as well as efficiency in setting up that team.
Obama has lost here on account of efficiency; he lost on 'execution' - building a right team in right time frame.
Couple of things White House may want to do now:
- publically appoint a care taker for Health Agencies and halt the frantic search of replacement (the chatter of B candidate has to stop to find right people in the end);
- declare all the pending positions which will be filled with a renewed vetting process;
- appoint some heavy weights (some renowned retired judges?) to Podesta group to complete the transition and
- declare that Stimulus Bill and TARP 2 will be the only top priorities for a while.
Whatever Team he has currently in place, Obama can work off for a while. Let a thorough process of vetting set in, now that pretense of 'doing it fast' can not be carried any further.
Posted by: Umesh Patil | February 4, 2009 1:26 AM
So we believe that Daschle made the decision on his own, without being strong-armed, and that had he not, he probably would have made it through the "bumpy but comfortable confirmation"? I'm genuinely asking. If so, then I don't see why this gives us any reason for hope, or to believe that this is a new era. A lot of other guys might have decided to go through with it; just because Daschle decided not to, what does that say about any systemic changes in Washington? It certainly says nothing good about Obama's priorities, and if Daschle did drop out on his own, that drop-out no more gives Obama a message about any larger-scale change than it gives us. So why should we believe that the replacement will be much better?
Posted by: JD | February 4, 2009 1:26 AM
I disagree, Ezra. This is eerily similar to what happened to the Carter & Clinton administrations. When you randomly chuck people off the bus for "the appearance of impropriety" and for unknowing (as opposed to knowing, wilful) violations of the law, nothing good happens. Daschle is *not* being taken down because of his connections to lobbyists & special interests. He's being taken down because he's a Democrat. more later (not to be mysterious, an excerpt from John Dean's 1983 book Lost Honor). And why are we hearing nothing about Christie Todd Whitman, who was easily confirmed by these very same senators?
Posted by: roublen | February 4, 2009 1:33 AM
daschle could have fought. But he folded. he ran away with his tail behind his legs after the friggin NYTimes editorial board said some mean things about him.
the real takeaway from this mess isn't taxes or a new era of responsibility or whatever. it's that tom daschle is a spineless coward. but i guess we already knew that--how many blowjobs did he give bush as majority leader? If you can't even fight for yourself, you sure as hell can't fight for universal health care. good riddance, you pink-eyeglass wearing chickenshit!!!!!!!!11!!!!
you can probably tell i'm really, really angry and frustrated and pissed off right now. i don't think the magnitude of this disaster can be overestimated. Obama needs to go someplace by himself and take stock of exactly what chain of decisions lead to this result. What made him think that daschle was the guy to fix health care in the first place. because he just proved that he was not.
look, nobody expects a perfect administration. it's just like the president said on TV tonight: he's gonna make mistakes. okay. that's not the real test. the real test is whether he can adapt to and learn from those mistakes. the fate of health care reform is hanging in the balance.
i'm hopeful but after today my faith is really tested.
Posted by: raft | February 4, 2009 1:57 AM
man, fuck all of you goo-goo liberals. if this comment's over the line please delete it but it is my sincere feeling.
this isn't about some stupid, meaningless, ethics rule, okay? This is about UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. get your fucking priorities in order. LBJ was one of the most corrupt sonofabitchs in the history of american politics. stolen elections, auctioning off votes, the whole shit. but he got us civil rights and medicare.
please, just think about that.
Posted by: raft | February 4, 2009 2:13 AM
If anyone thinks that Daschle wasn't going to be confirmed, they have another thing coming. When was the last time the Senate shat on one of their own like that? Hell, even dumbass Cornyn voted for Hillary after his stupid little stunt. Senators treat other Senators(and even ex-Senators) in such a way that us minions never would. They look out for each other that way. Why do you think it is such an exclusive "club"?
Posted by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle | February 4, 2009 2:19 AM
But it turns out that Obama's words, well, mattered. They made it harder to ignore scandal, as the Bush administration had done.
Except it appears the administration will find it easy to ignore Bush's scandals.
LBJ was one of the most corrupt sonofabitchs in the history of american politics. stolen elections, auctioning off votes, the whole shit. but he got us civil rights and medicare.
Racist!
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 2:52 AM
When was the last time the Senate shat on one of their own like that?
What? Remember John Tower?
Posted by: mealworm | February 4, 2009 4:57 AM
I disagree with your conclusion that it was Obama's words that made the media scrutinize and judge Obama's nominitations when they never glanced at Bush's.
They were going to do that anyway. They did it to Clinton, they didn't do it to Bush. It has nothing to do with Obama. This is just what the media does do Democrats. And it's just what the media doesn't do to Republicans. They're nothing more than a pack of high school bullies, and they will eat the weak, and get on their knees for the bully who is stronger than they are. And that's just how it is.
And while I didn't want Daschle and am not sorry he's gone, this is not the last damage the media will do, to Republican applause, to the Obama presidency. And just when a Republican is elected again, they will start soul-searhing; gee maybe we were too tough. And then they will fall to their knees again, and slavishly kiss republican ass, in that special way that only a conquered bully can kiss it. They'll be tongue.
Posted by: Catherine | February 4, 2009 5:15 AM
There had been many ethically troubled nominations before Daschle: Richardson, Geithner, and let's not forget Holder and the pardons, and Clinton herself, with endless conflicts of interest. The New York Times thing did it, and it was the boss who told Daschle to go. For whatever reason, the administration thought they could get people through who in former times would not have been appointed. They were vetted, but the results of the vetting were overlooked. The more interesting question is why the Times took the position it did, not why the Obama administration responded to it. This nomination was not brought down by the republicans, but by the Times.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 6:10 AM
I think there's both too much and too little being thrown into the mix here: too much dark muttering about larger political forces in play, and too little examination of just how extensive the Daschle as DC Insider elements are part of this.
I think this is simpler than people make it out to be: you could make a case with Geithner, that one tax problem was isolated; when you're up to three different stories of tax issues... there's a problem. If Daschle had gotten through - and I agree he was getting an enormous amount of deference as a Senator - he;d have been badly damaged. And I think the Times simply reflected the obvious: at some point, and Daschle was the point, you have to ask... do the words about ethical, law abiding behavior matter, or don't they? If they do... no Daschle.
More to the point, I think Ezra is minimizing, for a number of reasons, the extent of Daschle's corporate work, as wellas the money involved. Daschle's made a lot of money; his (second) wife has made yet more money as a lobbyist. He traded, basically, on the importance of his Senatorial seniority and his connections to get legal and consulting work in DC. If that's not a basic, obvious example of the "DC revolving door", I'm not sure what is. Again, either we're trying to end the revolving door... or we're not.
Finally, I think - and I've said before - that the real problem here is that the Daschle was too big and amalgamated too much power into one role; I think the real lesson here is that finding "another Daschle" is why the B list looks... well, B. You don't need another Dachle... you need a Secretary of HHS who will handle all of HHS, not just a healthcare reform proposal; and you need a health policy advisor... who will do more than just craft an insurance bill. Obama, ultimately is right, and I admire him for being direct: this was his mistake... but I hope he sees the mistake for what it is, beyond just Tom Daschle: that he needs to find two people for two roles... and structure this differently. Doing the same thing, next time... will likely bring similar srcutiny, and still more questions.
Posted by: weboy | February 4, 2009 6:38 AM
With everybody foaming with outrage at undeserved bonuses getting paid with taxpayer money, let me ask: is that worse than not paying the taxes in the first place?
Posted by: SqueakyRat | February 4, 2009 6:49 AM
Why does everyone think this has to do with a media bias against democrats? Maybe this is the result of myself and thousands of others like me, who have never given to a campaign, have never written to a congressman, who jumped on Obama's ship of change, and are expecting him to take us there! His campaign has awakened a sleeping giant of grassroots supporters who are not willing to let Washington get away with doing things the same gd corrupt way. WE ELECTED HIM and he owes us CHANGE. I'd like to think that when thousands of us called our congressmen to complain about Daschle, someone was listening. Is that naive?
Posted by: whisperinghope | February 4, 2009 7:04 AM
raft,
Do you honestly feel the future of health care hangs on Tom Daschle? What are Daschle's great brass-balled triumphs as majority leader? Keeping us out of Iraq? Oops.
Sorry, but as far as go qualifications for the job, Daschle is a dime a dozen. Like Bill Richardson, his appointment was essentially a reward for campaign support. He'll be replaced by someone who is equally good or better. In fact, now that Obama has dispatched his campaign political obligations, he can just pick the best health care honcho out there.
I'm hearing a lot of knee-jerk Clintonian over the Daschle affair, screeching about the vast right-wing conspiracy. All of a sudden, Daschle is the second coming of FDR and we must defend him, ethics be damned. Come on. He's just a regular Washington pol, and is not that important. Daschle did this to himself, and Republicans barely had to say anything. The advise and consent system nabbed him fair and square, and once it became clear what Daschle had done, he had to go.
You know, I voted for Bill Clinton two times, and then obediently went to the mat for him during the Republican pursuit of him over Whitewater and related lies and sliminess. No way I was going to let those Republicans get "my guy". But now I regret that kneejerk, partisan reaction. Bill Clinton ended up crapping all over hsi second term, and we should have cut him loose and said "good riddance." We would have gotten Gore in his place as President. Gore would have accomplished more without the distractions, and would have been re-elected in 2000.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | February 4, 2009 7:42 AM
thank you, whisperinghope.
watching him select rick warren, hillary clinton, timothy geithner, eric holder and tom daschle was not change we can believe in....not what our earnest donations and hard work were supposed to buy us.
it is foolish to bite the hand that feeds you.
daschle did the right thing.
i wish the others would have, and i think they added a tainting on this administration when there were other people that were as qualified and could have brought new life into his administration. now we are stuck with them.
just my opinion, but i think howard dean would be the best person for this job now.
he is respected and credible among democrats, can bring people together, he is actually a doctor and he could withstand the vetting.( one thinks so, anyway.)
Posted by: jacqueline | February 4, 2009 7:46 AM
Obama, obviously, had two options: either pull the Daschle nomination, or pull off a Bush-esque "I'm going to stand my ground on this and there's nothing you can do about it!" fight. Whether the latter strategy was a good idea or not is moot because Obama simply doesn't have the instinct for it.
raft, I think, invests too much in Daschle-- I don't think his presence or non-presence is indispensable to getting health care reform passed. However, at some point Obama is going to have to stand his ground and put up a fight to get some legislation through, and he's just indicated that there are times when he's willing to fold.
Posted by: Tyro | February 4, 2009 7:53 AM
Most of the nominees with obvious ethical problems got through. I don't think you can say he folds often. But he couldn't allow his administration to be tagged as one whose appointees claim different rules for themselves than for ordinary people. In stating that as the reason, he stated the right one. The tax issues in particular would come back to bite him once he makes the inevitable decision to raise taxes. It's not just vetting -- it also has to be responding to what is discovered during the vetting.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 8:02 AM
I agree with Jacqueline that Dean's being a doctor is a huge credential. Part of the problem with Hillary's massive plan to overhaul the healthcare system was the gall and presumption of someone with zero medical expertise doing this. These plans must be done by people with economic and medical expertise -- not just by self appointed meddlers.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 8:10 AM
Change doesn't nominate Daschle in the first place. Daschle dropped out not because he was running afoul of this new culture but because he is not a fighter. Whatever pugnacity he once had atrophied in his almost 20 years in the Senate.
I don't see a big conspiracy against Daschle but the media certainly love stories about the supposed hypocrisy of Democrats - Gore's large house and Edwards' expensive haircuts - but cares little about systematic Republican corruption.
Posted by: get a grip | February 4, 2009 8:17 AM
what is Daschle's conflict of interest here? He was paid by them in the past to speak about health care or whatever. What does that have to do with his incentives going forward? It's not like he's under a contract with them. He doesn't own any insurance businesses. They paid him some money that he earned by giving a speech. What is dirty about that?
Posted by: Ano | February 4, 2009 8:30 AM
Daschle wasn't unusually corrupt for the Village, just routinely so. So I'm not unhappy about the result and am a little amused/disgusted that Ezra thinks slopping at the health industry trough for the last 4 years yielded "modest" conflicts of interest for the incoming health czar.
Posted by: scott | February 4, 2009 8:53 AM
The idea that getting universal health care "depended" on a guy who turns out to have been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the health care / industrial complex is just laughable. When moderates put forth stupid shit like that, their attempts to point fingers at liberals just make them look even stupider. Although you have to be pretty dense in the first place to think that the status quo and the same old players are what this country needs right now.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 4, 2009 9:11 AM
watching him select rick warren, hillary clinton, timothy geithner, eric holder and tom daschle was not change we can believe in....not what our earnest donations and hard work were supposed to buy us.
it is foolish to bite the hand that feeds you.
daschle did the right thing.
i wish the others would have
um, Clinton did nothing wrong - in fact, lived up to an even more rigorous vetting - but LOVE how you include her in that list LOL
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 9:16 AM
These plans must be done by people with economic and medical expertise -- not just by self appointed meddlers.
Yeah, hate that meddling trying to get me healthcare.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 9:19 AM
It's all well and good for us to want our leaders to be Saints, but if we miss a chance at national health care because the person who is quite clearly the best person for getting all players at the table to agree on something got his feelings hurt, it'll be a damn shame.
One of the things that Daschle will have gotten in his years "slopping at the health industry trough" will be relationships with key players in industry. And for all the fantasies about legislating the insurance industry out of existence, if key players in health care come out against reform, don't bet against them killing it (You can already hear the ads: "Can we afford it right now?"). Daschle's relationships in the industry could have mitigated that.
Posted by: TW Andrews | February 4, 2009 9:21 AM
I do think that Daschle is basically irreplaceable. No one else had the insider experience in both the Senate and in health reform communities. And while the speeches to the insurance industry gave him an ethical cloud, they also gave him credibility with that group which would have been enormously valuable.
All of that said, this was quickly developing into a Clinton-esque scandal storm. Sticking with Daschle now might have thrown Obama's whole first term into chaos. (Although note that this "corruption" theme isn't over thanks to Richardson and the DGA -- we'll be hearing about that for at least a few weeks).
But lets take a moment to understand what we've lost. There were three people who had a really high probability of getting something done on healthcare early in this Administration: Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, and Max Baucus. Depending on how Kennedy's health holds up in the next few months, it's VERY likely that our whole effort to reform American healthcare now rests on Max Baucus.
That's not a happy scenario for progressives.
Finally, let's remember that this is supposedly the year when Democratic stars align. If we don't pass healthcare reform in 2009, I think there is a very high chance it will be another 10 years before we get to try again.
Posted by: NS | February 4, 2009 9:51 AM
Anything that puts a monkey wrench in the plans for socialist health care is a good thing. Government has screwed up health care enough already.
Posted by: Not a Socialist | February 4, 2009 10:05 AM
Clinton "lived up to" a rigorous vetting in the same way Daschle initially did. It was out there, with a majority saying "so what?" Eventually the defiance crumbled in his case. It still remains that the Clintons have untold number of documented ethical lapses, and have profited off public service as no one has before or since. But in her case the "so what?" still stands.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 10:13 AM
Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ, Daschle has got to be the biggest pussy in the country, I swear to God.
He was "wounded" by the press coverage? He wasn't "prepared for the assault"? For fuck's sake, the NY Times writes an editorial against you and in the space of a few hours you just fucking fold? No wonder the guy was such a dismal leader in the Senate.
Good riddance. I find it absolutely incredible that Daschle would have been able to get anything done at all.
Posted by: jeebus | February 4, 2009 10:14 AM
LBJ ...got us civil rights and medicare.
And Vietnam!
Posted by: Herschel | February 4, 2009 10:17 AM
It's a strange sort of liberal who finds the NYT intimidating.
Jacqueline: RE: Clinton and Holder - I don't see any reason to think them unqualified, either in liberal or in competence terms. Geithner seems to know his field well, so we'll have to see how he goes. I didn't think Daschle was much of a leader in his time, and he had some positions eg. on marriage, that I found illiberal at best. Rick Warren was a pick for the sake of showing goodwill to all Americans, not an index of progressive attitude by Obama. Overall, you seem to have a rather strange approach to what Obama should be expected to do. He wants to bring people together, as he has said, as a means of achieving change. You can't do that by rejecting the part of the US population that is not liberal or progressive and shutting them out. Bring them into the fold and try and find areas of agreement and you might get some change that will last.
Posted by: morzer | February 4, 2009 11:19 AM
That was all very lyrical, Ezra, but the stripped-down version is also instructive: Obama was moderately self-righteous during the campaign and insufferably self-righteous during his first two weeks in office. Hoisting himself on his own petard will hopefully bring him back down to earth a bit, allowing him to govern like and ordinary mortal.
As rookie mistakes go, this isn't so bad. It's not the Bay of Pigs or Waco or 9/11. For those of us who became convinced that he was the best choice for the job, given that we had to choose from, you know, politicians, a moderate comeuppance seems like the best of all possible worlds.
Posted by: TheRadicalModerate | February 4, 2009 11:20 AM
It still remains that the Clintons have untold number of documented ethical lapses, and have profited off public service as no one has before or since.
Document HRC's away!
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 11:31 AM
Webboy: that he needs to find two people for two roles... and structure this differently.
Daschle was over-promoted as the savior. He's never been anything but a very weak leader. That Obama saw him as mentor and savior is a flaw in Obama, but one that he may correct.
When a pol raises expectations among normally uninvolved citizens, a higher standard must be observed, not just talked about.
Obama has been weakened, but with GOP attacks and media being blind to GOP dis-ethics and hypersensitive to Dem. problems, that was inevitable.
The key thing now is that health care reform itself hasn't been damaged yet, only the potential 'savior' before he did anything.
My question is broader: will Obama's obsession with bipartisanship lead to an ineffectual, rolled over, term of office. The GOP and media ARE NOT going to play by Obama's rules. Will he learn that early or too late?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | February 4, 2009 12:00 PM
This is a bunch of self-congratulatory nonsense. The mythology features Candidate Obama, bearer of hope and dreams, constraining President Obama, who has to navigate the harsh reality of Washington, within ethical and moral boundaries that are just so much more awesome than any previous administration.
So there's Daschle, who some people recognized as an industry hack, described by Ezra Klein as an unfortunate victim of these high ethical standards. Daschle wasn't extraordinarily corrupt! No, he was just sort of run-of-the-mill corrupt.
It's a nice rhetorical trick, on the one hand excusing Daschle's corruption by claiming it's no worse than standard Washington behavior. But on the other hand, it allows Klein to acknowledge that Daschle is corrupt, and that we live in a different time (tm) in which Candidate Obama has appealed to our better angles.
And then it also does the nice trick of explaining how President Obama is really kind of awesome in that he is bound by the campaign rhetoric, but not emasculated by it.
1. Tom Daschle is corrupt.
2. Barack Obama is a garden variety politician, to wit.
3. This administration, for all its supposed expertise, can't even pass the stimulus bill that it wants (it has to lard it up with tax breaks for the Republicans) when it has 59!!! votes in the Senate.
Here's what I say: Candidate Obama won by blowing smoke up a lot of peoples' asses. People have taken that rhetoric very seriously. Republicans have also pretended to take it seriously. That rhetoric has the effect of tying President Obama's hands. That rhetoric will prevent Obama, in spite of his enormous electoral advantages, from achieving his agenda.
Consequently: President Obama will serve four years, and for a generation people will refer back to the underrated presidency of one Barack Obama (a la Carter).
Posted by: Joe Strummer | February 4, 2009 12:22 PM
I love the theory that Daschle's "relationships" with the health-care industry (ie, he depended on them for his livelihood) would make for more effective reform. I see a guy who's very comfortable taking their money and defending their interests, not one who's likely to do anything significant to challenge them for the benefit of the public at large. Who's being naive here about how the world works?
Posted by: scott | February 4, 2009 12:25 PM
"But it turns out that Obama's words, well, mattered. They made it harder to ignore scandal, as the Bush administration had done."
No mention of the plain fact that the press NEVER hold republicans to their words. All of a sudden the media has "magically" remembered their "duty".
Fuck them
Posted by: sherifffruitfly | February 4, 2009 1:20 PM
re - clinton and holder. i dont see any reason to see them as unqualified, either in liberal or ethical terms."
well, respectfully, i do.
life is just not about skillsets.
hillary clinton was not vetted thoroughly. with the clinton's conflicts of interest and their discretionary release of financial information, she got the job based on favoritism and royalty, in my opinion.
i dont think she was particularly qualified to be secretary of state, and with her constituency, i dont see her as the best possible person to be negotiating in the israeli/palestinian situation....except that israel might take a bitter pill from her that they would not accept from others, and that her ego will propel her into having to forge good things, for her own sense of self.
if she were not hillary clinton, i dont believe she would have passed the vetting. but she is american royalty.
and regarding holder, the pardon he gave, in my opinion, was pure politics.
it wasnt a small thing.
it wasnt just a momentary lapse of conscience. it was a defining moment.
a commenter once wrote here, you cant shake hands with the devil, and then say you were only kidding.
except for these folks. they got away with it. (remains to be seen...i think their credibility is clouded.)
now we have their karma in the highest eschelons of government.
Posted by: jacqueline | February 4, 2009 2:09 PM
You're all reading a great deal into this. It's not Obama's campaign rhetoric, it's simply that in our economic climate, tax-cheating chauffeured lobbyists don't go over that well with the public. As for Obama, he's done nothing noble here, hasn't made good on his rhetoric, he's just cut his losses.
Posted by: Asher | February 4, 2009 2:10 PM
"hillary clinton was not vetted thoroughly"
bwa hah hah hah!
citations please
words matter
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 2:20 PM
Tyro: "raft, I think, invests too much in Daschle-- I don't think his presence or non-presence is indispensable to getting health care reform passed. However, at some point Obama is going to have to stand his ground and put up a fight to get some legislation through, and he's just indicated that there are times when he's willing to fold."
since i've calmed down a bit, this is what i was trying to say.
daschle was *not* the right guy for the job. He proved that yesterday. But that ultimately reflects on the president's judgment. Now months of planning are in total disarray and the administration's whole strategy for health care probably needs to be rethought.
health care may still be salvageable, but the real opportunity cost is where we'd be if Obama hadn't fucked up back in November. i hope the president realizes that and adjusts accordingly.
Posted by: raft | February 4, 2009 2:50 PM
The list of Hillary's ethical problems is so long it would be dreary to repeat it. One of my favorites is that her brother made half a million selling pardons. But let's go back to the beginning, just for fun. Do you notice that she never boasts about being on the Watergate committee, despite its being quite a resume enhancement for a 27 year old? After the death of Sam Dash and the bequeathing of his papers to some institution, it was revealed that Watergate attorney Zeifman fired her, the explanation being that she lied and was "unethical." She was one of only 3 people he refused to write recommendations for in his then 17 year career, he said. Look up her profit in cattle futures. Anyone familiar w/market knows her doing that on her own would be impossible. These were all documented events during her husband's administration. She was under frequent investigation then. You will answer: so what.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 2:59 PM
this could be an amusing parlor game.and one of my favorite reminiscences about our new secretary of state, was her trusted confidante and choice as her chief campaign strategist, MARK PENN.
but... perhaps you have already forgotten.
remember, he was the chief executive officer of burson marsteller, representing sovereign wealth funds in at least two emirates....while penn was running her campaign,HILLARY WAS RENEWING HER CALL FOR AGGRESSIVE MEASURES TO REIGN IN SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS OWNED BY OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES and calling for greater transparency.
if you see nothing wrong with that, and that is the kind of leadership for secretary of state you have come to enjoy,then you too, need to read the unabridged version of the tales of pinnochio.
bwaaa ha ha to you.
Posted by: jacqueline | February 4, 2009 3:19 PM
Hillary stole my bike
Posted by: shorter Clintophobes | February 4, 2009 3:24 PM
and ran over my puppy with it hee hee
Let's see, anon (2:59) reaches back 30 years and then goes for the guilty hubby again (yawn), and the clinton-obsessed jacqueline looks at calls for transparency as unethical? so Obama's are too, I guess?
if that's the best you got, you got squat
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 3:51 PM
Lining her pockets with the sale of pardons, taking public property out of the White House when she left, using the pardon power to free FALN terrorists to curry favor with Puerto Ricans in New York, viciously defending her husband and even playing the role of procurer and madam (see Bernstein's book, and that book was mildly sympathetic to her!) -- these things don't go back 30 years. But the reaction to the Clintons demonstrates once again that they, and ONLY THEY, can get away with this stuff. Others who have tried are destroyed. See Eliot Spitzer, Richardson (selling influence? after Clinton? you gotta be kidding) And what about the utter mess she made of the Clinton healthcare initiative?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 8:51 PM
Perhaps nauseating bullshit like this contributed to the high expectations that Daschle simply could not meet:
"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence."
(Ezra Klein, January 3, 2008)
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | February 4, 2009 9:02 PM
ugh, I remember that, FH...that was some GOOD hopium, I guess
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2009 9:37 PM
Daschle was done in because he was a tax cheat. Geithner should have been. Rangel should be. Why can't a lot of Democrats get it through their heads that their elites cheat just as much or more than Republican elites. Why can't little people throw out all the bums.
Posted by: Elmer_Stoup | February 4, 2009 10:08 PM
BTW, can someone tell me the names of all those corrupt Bush appointees several of you keep referring to? I remember Republicans Abramoff and Cunningham, but they were not Bush appointees.
Posted by: Elmer_Stoup | February 4, 2009 10:18 PM
"But the reaction to the Clintons demonstrates once again that they, and ONLY THEY, can get away with this stuff." "This stuff" being Bill's and not Hillary's.
Let me see if I have this right: the media which has savaged the Clintons for 15 yrs (including during her pres.campaign), decides, ALONG WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, to give Hillary a break given no one else in the vetting process?
Yeah, that's logical.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2009 1:57 AM
The Clintons have always had a huge following of worshipers. They are a pair. They have always claimed to be such, except when it is inconvenient. They have always had a slavish group of followers to nip at the heels of anyone who would question them. No one else has that. Daschle doesn't. No one has ever been able to get away with what they did. In the words of Investor's Business Daily, "running a fire sale on U.S. defense technology", selling it off to China in return for campaign contributions.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2009 4:01 AM
you speak in generalities about "the Clintons" while continuing to ignore the past election cycle in which everything-Clinton went under a critical microscope -remember, she called for Obama's assassination? - which turned out to be much ado about nothing, just like the investigations from the 90's.
Again, she passed the vetting that others could not. And I don't think Chris Matthews, Campbell Brown, etc would have allowed it IF they had anything with which to stop her.
Look, I get that the first few weeks of the Obama administration have been disappointing to some progressives, but this need to go to HRC for scapegoating is absurd when these disappointments have, to date, been all domestic and of Obama's doing.
When his largest conttributions were coming from Wall St., did you think there'd be no payback?
Posted by: chris hitchens, is that you? | February 5, 2009 7:05 AM
I repeat: It doesn't matter that everything they did went under a "critical microscope" because there were consequences for none of it. Daschle did nothing compared to them -- nor did Geithner, et. al. I'm not scapegoating them. I'm just saying that their getting away with everything has led many, including this administration, to think that nothing will stick to anyone else. Chris Matthews? He was quickly brought to heel by the Clinton dog pack (bow wow you are in it!). So was Shuster. Campbell Brown is a ditz and airhead. They don't care about her. How is he paying back Wall Street?? Cutting their bonuses?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2009 8:07 AM
"everything clinton went under a critical microscope"
and thank goodness for that...otherwise she might have been our president.
at least, she is only our secretary of state.
you can continue to sing the praises of the clintons and interpret their record however you like.
having watched both of them over the years, i feel they represent many of the sordid aspects of government today...... in my opinion.they ushered in the era that we are trying to live through now, and their power continues to be corrosive.
you can continue to defend and praise them. i also dont care for the music of mozart, and it is equally fair to disagree about that too.
there are as many ways to see the world, as there are people in it...and changing someone's mind is often like tilting at windmills.
Posted by: jacqueline | February 5, 2009 8:32 AM
"Campbell Brown is a ditz and airhead."
Now that I can see the sexism behind your agitation, all else becomes clearer.
Jacqueline, unfortunately, because you refused to put Obama under the microscope earlier, you are stuck with his "corrupt" appointments/decisions now.
Live and learn I suppose.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2009 9:32 AM
I'm just saying that their getting away with everything has led many, including this administration, to think that nothing will stick to anyone else.
That's really letting BO off the hook for his own actions, dontchathink?
i.e. Because I thought someone else got away with stealing, I thought I'd try it?
Posted by: fh | February 5, 2009 9:36 AM
"live and learn, i suppose."
dear anonymous
where this conversation begins and ends for me....
work for things that you believe in, so that you can live with yourself.
try in a humble way to make a difference, knowing that we are in an imperfect and uncertain world that holds much love, light, darkness and suffering.
Posted by: jacqueline | February 5, 2009 10:12 AM
we're in agreement there, jacqueline
Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2009 10:49 AM
wishes of peace
in these troubled times.
Posted by: jacqueline | February 5, 2009 11:50 AM