Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Vanity Fair: White House Civil War (Gore vs. H. Clinton)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 01:52 PM
Original message
Vanity Fair: White House Civil War (Gore vs. H. Clinton)

White House Civil War
Promised real power as Bill Clinton's vice president, Al Gore found he had a rival for that role: the First Lady. And when Hillary decided to run for the Senate, a tense competition got ugly. In an excerpt from her new book about the Clinton White House years, the author reveals how conflicting agendas—the triangle of a scandal-ridden lame-duck president, the wife he'd betrayed, and his designated successor—sapped Gore's 2000 campaign as the bond between two couples dissolved into distrust, anger, and resentment.

by Sally Bedell Smith November 2007

Excerpted from For Love of Politics—Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years, by Sally Bedell Smith, to be published this month by Random House, Inc.; © 2007 by the author.



During the 1992 campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton took several successful bus trips with vice-presidential candidate Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, where they bonded to such an extent that Tipper called Hillary her "long-lost sister." "If there is a subject under the sun that we haven't discussed, I don't know what it might be," said Al. So it seemed fitting that the four of them again boarded a bus three days before Bill Clinton's inauguration, this time for a 120-mile ride from Charlottesville, Virginia, to Washington, re-enacting the trip that Thomas Jefferson had made in 1801.

After conducting an interview with Bill and Hillary, NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw lingered while the two couples sat around a table in the kitchenette in the front of the bus. "It struck me like a college-dorm bull session rather than an incoming administration," Brokaw recalled. "Hillary was not leading, but she was like a junior partner. It was Gore to Bill Clinton, and Hillary was gracefully part of the conversation."

Eight days later, Bill appointed Hillary head of the health-care task force, which was charged with developing a plan to re-structure the health-insurance system. The move took nearly all his top officials by surprise, including Al Gore. Bill had invested Gore with considerable responsibility, but his failure to confide in his vice president was a telling sign of the real pecking order.

Bill and Hillary's joint decision-making at the beginning of his presidency was as overt as it would ever be in the White House. "He would say, 'Hillary thinks this. What do you think?'" said White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum. "They really were a partnership. She was the absolutely necessary person he had to have to bounce things up against, and he was that for her. I sensed a tremendous need for each other. They didn't have to see each other, but they would talk continually every day." In deference to her continuing role as Bill's "closer," staff members called Hillary "the Supreme Court." "We would always say, 'Has the Supreme Court been consulted?'" recalled Dee Dee Myers, the president's press secretary for two years, now a V.F. contributing editor. Whenever Bill said, "Let me think about it," aides knew he intended to call Hillary.

Gore was the one most affected by Bill's reliance on his wife. It was a given in the White House, as Chief of Staff Mack McLarty said, that everyone would "just have to get used to" the fact that Hillary, along with Bill and Gore, had to "sign off on big decisions." But having what Clinton domestic-policy adviser Bruce Reed called "three forces to be reckoned with" added yet another layer of perplexity and rivalry to the West Wing, where advisers and Cabinet officers knew they could lobby either the First Lady or the vice president to reverse decisions by the president. David Gergen, counselor to the president in 1993 and 1994, called the "three-headed system" a "rolling disaster."

The early conventional wisdom about the relationship between the president and vice president shifted from adoring descriptions of generational bonding to the prevailing media view that Gore's influence would "inevitably diminish" now that his "Dudley Do-Right" image was no longer necessary to take the curse off "Slick Willie." An account in The New York Times Magazine shortly before the inauguration set out the new interpretation, noting that "Al Gore hasn't yet realized there is going to be a co-presidency but he's not going to be part of the co," and that, according to the Clintons' close friend and adviser Susan Thomases, Gore "would have to adjust to a smaller role." The article came out of the blue, and the Gore camp detected the veiled handiwork of Hillary in its slant. It was an open secret that some of Hillary's advisers, Thomases in particular, nurtured dreams that Hillary, not Gore, would follow Bill in the presidency. "There are a great many people talking very seriously about her succeeding him," Betsey Wright, Bill's chief of staff in Arkansas, admitted during her former boss's first year as president.

much more...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BonnieJW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Very interesting.
I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist, but what if Bill and Hill had a hand in bush stealing the election in 2000? What if they WANTED this country to have a president so incompetent, so moronic, so odious (stop me, please), that Hillary could come bursting onto the campaign for pres, reminding everyone of the good old Bill days? And everyone would just remember Al as the guy who lost. They probably didn't count on Al Gore turning into a superhero over the last six years. Because if Al decides to run, this country will turn to him. He represents hope for the future while Hill represents another corporatist administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I don't know about them helping to steal the 2000 election, but I do
know it seems as if they did as little as possible to get Kerry elected. I think they had this all planned out, and a Dem in office in 2004 would have messed with their plans. Hillary even went out of her way to sabotage Kerry:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Right. Republicans are innocent. Got it. Clintons guilty.
Kerry wanted the Clintons to campaign with him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. No one was talking about rethugs, we were discussing this article.
I suggest you find another thread if you find this so offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. If Kerry had won in 2004
He would have been re-nominated in 2008 and then his vice president (Edwards) would have had the upper hand in 2012. The first time Hillary would have had a chance would be 2016 if Edwards lost and 2020 if he won. Hillary would be way too old by then. Having Kerry lose in 2004 was Hillary's only chance to run for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Exactly!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thank you for your concern.
Your suggestion is so unbelievably despicable you should question your affiliations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Corporatist means fascist.
Why don't you have the guts to use the real words in your lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Please, My Head Hurts Enough Already
I can't put any more tinfoil on it or my neck will snap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. David Gergen is considered a reliable source?
"Early conventional wisdom" can always be guaranteed to tell the truth of a thing, too. And it's nice that the Thomases thought a woman who had never been elected to anything could run for president on the basis of having been married to someone who was. Goodness, whatever happened to Susan Thomases?

BTW, does this mean that Gore never asked Tipper for her opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. They boasted
Edited on Wed Oct-03-07 08:47 PM by PATRICK
of the "two for one" presidency.

Anyone care to speculate what the irrepressible Bill will be doing this time? It will be matchless in comparison to any former presidential spouse.

he will supplant the VP as being an outreach on foreign policy. being "away from home" will be part of his role so his shadow will fall over there so as not to fall over Hillary here. His contacts ARE invaluable and a foreign policy partnership unlike any that has existed. It can be compared to JFK and RFK partnering.

I will leave it to others whether this is great or terrible, and how the media will handle this. It just is as inevitable as night following day that the presidency is going to fall out this way. Bill will not be in charge or guaranteeing policy. He will not get to speak as one holding office.

This historic anomaly deserves a huge discussion. What will be missing, of course, is the actual Veep whose traditional irrelevancy will reassert itself into something much less than a presidential spouse. The conjectural Bill First Husband once was in charge and cannot possibly help soaring like an eagle once more. When the actual power center, Hillary is threatened, does this hurt or mortally wound the administration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC