Clinton-Obama Hollywood Brawl
By Kate Phillips
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
The Clinton campaign has gone into overdrive over remarks Hollywood mogul David Geffen made about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former (definitely former now) pal Bill Clinton to Maureen Dowd in her column today.
Jamie Rector/European Pressphoto Agency; Chris Keane/Reuters And the Clinton campaign is taking aim not just at Mr. Geffen, but at one of Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — Senator Barack Obama, whose fund-raising blitz in Hollywood raked in $1.3 million last night at receptions co-sponsored by Mr. Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg.
While Ms. Dowd’s column is available only to Times-Select subscribers, here are a few choice Geffen quotes that the Clinton campaign calls “personal attacks” on the senator and the former president:
“Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.
“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”
Of Mr. Clinton, and whether there’s Clinton fatigue these days, as Ms. Dowd writes, Mr. Geffen continued:
“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary is the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”
And of Mrs. Clinton’s war stance and campaign so far: “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”
The Clinton campaign shot back today, saying the Obama campaign should denounce Mr. Geffen’s remarks. Howard Wolfson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s top advisers said in a statement:
While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign’s finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.
If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.
While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama’s principal fundraiser.
Uh, we’re taking bets that Mr. Obama will not return the Hollywood star-studded cash he drew this week. As for whether he or his campaign will respond, stay tuned.
Update: Well, the Obama campaign responds rapidly, and we’d add, pretty much just as sharply. From Robert Gibbs, the campaign’s communications director:
We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters.
It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.
It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because ’he’s black.’”
###
South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford said an African American couldn’t be elected: “It’s a slim possibility for him to get the nomination, but then everybody else is doomed,” Ford said. “Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose because he’s black and he’s top of the ticket. We’d lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything. I’m a gambling man. I love Obama,” Ford said. “But I’m not going to kill myself.” (AP, 2/13/07)
Clinton Thanked Sen. Robert Ford For His Support. At a South Carolina rally, Clinton recognized Ford’s presence in the audience and she thanked him for his support. [New York Times, 2/19/07]
E-mail this
87 comments so far...
1.February 21st,
2007
11:45 am A little ridiculous. Geffen’s remarks - while not favorable of Mrs. Clinton - were not “vicious attacks.” Get over it. You’re running for president. If you want to demand the resignation of everyone who says anything remotely critical, you’d better get started because that is going to be a long list no matter who you are.
— Posted by Rick
2.February 21st,
2007
11:51 am The comments made by Mr. Geffen were his opinion, and the ones made by Sen. Ford were his. My opinion is that Mr. Geffen needs a big dose of reality therapy, no matter how clever he may be in other matters. All of the dems need to get real at this point. The current day U.S. electorate includes many voters who live outside California and New York, some of which seldom or never see Hollywood films.
— Posted by Susan Janik
3.February 21st,
2007
11:56 am SENATOR OBAMA SAYS THEY(HIS CAMPAIGN)WILL NOT RESPOND TO A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CLINTONS AND A PAST SUPPORTER AND IN THE SAME BREATH DUMPS ON THE CLINTONS SAME OLD SAME OLD A BREATH OF FRESH AIR MY HAT
— Posted by MICHAEL J STACK
4.February 21st,
2007
11:59 am Wow, one has to wonder whether Hillary Clinton has employed Karl Rove, or whether she just subscribes to the same tactics. I suspect the latter.
” not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family…” Thanks Mr. Geffen, I couldn’t of said it better myself!
— Posted by Glen Manna
5.February 21st,
2007
12:00 pm Clinton fatique?
I already have Campaign 2008 fatigue.
I wish they would all spare us this garbage, save the money and put off all campaigning until the fall.
I do agree that dredging up Bill Clinton’s past behavior will likely help the Republicans, and I think Obama’s lack of experience will gain him fewer fans than people think.
We may end up with another Republican president in what seems to be already the makings of the most expensive presidential campaign.
— Posted by Stuart
6.February 21st,
2007
12:05 pm Aside from opinions, the fact of the matter is that Sen. Obama is an inexperienced, freshman Senator. Sen. Clinton is not. Dems need to decide which will serve our nation better, experience or inexperience, in this complicated time in our nation’s history. If the average person needed to have a complicated surgery, and had a choice between an experienced or inexperienced physician, the choice would be obvious to most.
— Posted by Susan Janik
7.February 21st,
2007
12:05 pm Thank you Mr. Geffen for stating the obvious and thank you Mr. Gibbs for not backing down and responding strongly and rapidly. This just further strengthens my respect for Mr. Obama–he is not afraid to return fire and does not back down to the Clinton machine.
— Posted by j. garcia
8.February 21st,
2007
12:07 pm I strongly supported Bill Clinton’s Presidency even when his personal conduct was in question, and I admire and respect Hillary, but Geffen is right with respect to polarization. And I am saddened by the Clinton’s continued glossing over of the Iraq vote and now the failure to call Senator Ford on his racist comments. I don’t know who I’ll support when the voting begins, but it’s looking less like Hillary and more like Obama or Richardson.
— Posted by Dave
9.February 21st,
2007
12:12 pm I think Clinton is a wonderful nominee for the president because she does have a lot of ambition and thats what this country needs. However it is different that she is running because she is a female but everyone should still give her a try because Bush is not doing the best job holding it together. Obama is black but his vaules are just important as anyone else’s so americans should do some research on these two before we judge them on their color of their skin and their sex.
— Posted by Jessica woods
10.February 21st,
2007
12:18 pm PLEASE!! Neither Obama nor Clinten should be nominated. We Democrats need to win the next Presidency. We can do it EASILY if we do not interject unecessary side issues (Woman or Black President) into the campaign. There are plenty of other excellent candidate to choose from.
— Posted by Bernard F. erlanger
11.February 21st,
2007
12:19 pm I agree with Stuart (#5). Spare us all this adolescent chatter. The Times says, “All the News That Fit to Print”; this stuff isn’t.
— Posted by Michael
12.February 21st,
2007
12:23 pm There’s something wrong with these people that run for president before they reach puberty. Dubya was running for president the day he was born. He didn’t know but his granddaddy knew it and his daddy knew it. Hillary ain’t much different.
No more royals. I like Rudi. This guy put his life on the line fighting the mafia, and won. There should be a hard test of accomplishment before people run for office.
Running a shredder can be submitted, but I don’t think it counts for much.
— Posted by bcdavis
13.February 21st,
2007
12:23 pm I think this could mark the beginning of the end for Clinton’s campaign - if she is going to play the moral equailvance card about campaign finance, she would need to return significant amounts of captial.
I also note Obama’s rapid response seems quite sharp and effective, especiallly in light of the L.A. Time story, PM Howard’s comments and Fox News. I hope they continue this habit of speaking softly but carrying a big stick with regards to tactics. If Clinton is tough, its nothing compared to impassioned conversatives that mobilize with capital, precision and amorality.
— Posted by Sanjeev
14.February 21st,
2007
12:24 pm It seems to me that David Geffen’s nastiest remarks were aimed at Bill rather than Hillary; she doesn’t come off as presidential in her reaction. On the other hand, Robert Ford’s comment is poisonous, and she should have distanced herself from it. By not doing so, she just lost my support.
God save us from a Hillary Clinton John McCain choice.
— Posted by Richard
15.February 21st,
2007
12:26 pm I am no political wizard. Front runners are typically attacked from the rear and show me one politician who has not committed an error- let he or she cast the first stone. Hillary and Obama are cutting each other apart as the republicans look on the sidelines waiting for their moment. I do not believe this country is ready for a woman to be president nor a man of african-american descent. So why not kiss and make up before there is a lot of bad blood and dead bodies in the closet. Hillary( Bill) for President and Obama for VP. He will get an opportunity to gain the experience he supposedly needs and go for the presidency after Hillary has done her duty(2 terms). Otherwise they both can self destruct destroying each other and any possibility of regaining power. Creating a shoo-in for the republican party. Republican countdown 9,8,7,6,5….
— Posted by Moses Boone
16.February 21st,
2007
12:26 pm Well you can’t really legislate a time when presidential campaigns can begin–they can always begin “unofficially.” It’s really the Media that drives it all. The Media decides that the public should consider only certain candidates, the “top tier,” because of their fundraising ability, stature, star quality, or poll numbers. Smart people realize that poll numbers taken now do not necessarily reflect the reality of the 08 results. It’s all just one big Reality Show for the Greatest Job on Earth. But some commentators have actually recommended that the Media give equal time to all the candidates so that the public can really make an informed choice based on individual qualities and stances rather than poll numbers or who gets the most publicity.
The whole thing is a big American Political Idol. It’s quite demeaning, but I can’t deny it’s pure entertainment for political junkies like me and Chris Matthews.
— Posted by David Satinoff
17.February 21st,
2007
12:28 pm People need to stop talking about experience as it were necessarily a good thing. It was the experience of Cheney, Rumsfield,Bush,and all those neo-cons just waiting to try and change the world by military force that got us into the Middle East mess in which we now find ourselves. Experience does not necessarily equal competence. Just ask the people in Iraq and the American families who have lost loved ones due to the “experience” of those in this administration. As for Mrs. Clinton, she needs to get over herself and understand that she does not get the nomination by decree and that we don’t need her permission to express our opinions however insulting she may find them.
— Posted by j. garcia
18.February 21st,
2007
12:29 pm Mr. Geffen was dead-on in his critique of Hillary and Bill. I will never forgive Bill when he did not attempt to engage the US and the United Nations in stopping the murder of nearly 1 million people in Rawanda. I am tired of Dixie-Crats, Moderate/Conservative Democrats, Blue Democrats; let them defect and join the Republican Party like Strom did. Hillary plays the middle to the point a person does not know what she stands for, if anything.
— Posted by Aquil
19.February 21st,
2007
12:30 pm While David Geffen’s comment about being sick of seeing James Carville on TV is humorous, it also is very pointed. I like Carville and always considered him the most astute of the Clinton spokespeople. However, another 8 year Clinton term, would be 16 years of Clintons woven through 12 years of Bushes. Hillary is not interesting to listen to. She is Bill without even a trace of ad-lib. Everything she says has been heard before in a better packaging. Obama may not be the nominee, but, he is popular right now as much for what he is not as for what he is. There was a rumor (movement?) over the weekend, that Eliot Spitzer would nominate Bill to fill out Hill’s Senate term were she to become President. These types of things make many people cringe. Hillary does not need Bill anymore as a political prop. She is better standing alone. The vision of the two of them returning to the White House again is one that bothers many more past Clinton supporters then just David Geffen.
— Posted by Patrick Duffy
20.February 21st,
2007
12:32 pm Yeah, Obama wants to “transform politics”, and to do so he has his campaign finance chair trash his main opponent. Transform this, sir.
— Posted by TerryB
21.February 21st,
2007
12:33 pm Here we go again. What will it take for the Democrats (particularly the filthy rich ones and the preternaturally ambitious ones) to make peace early in the campaign season, choose a candidate who can win and the stick with him/her until the finish line is safely crossed? The Repubs should be reeling right now. Instead, they’re snickering.
— Posted by Eddie
22.February 21st,
2007
12:35 pm This is yet another smokescreen.Prepared by the spin doctors and distributed by the media.We need to elect a person of wisdom,creativity and fearlessness.This personality cult called an election is no better than a television sitcom.We all have to suffer for its ignorance.It is all sizzle and no steak.
— Posted by Richard
23.February 21st,
2007
12:36 pm If another repub wins, I’m moving to Canada or anywhere other than Haiti. But, it even that would be a tough decision. No, unless Manson wins the ticket, there won’t be another elephant defecating on the US citizenry.
An Obama-Richardson ticket would bring any repub duo to their conservative knees, and get america back on track.
— Posted by Herb
24.February 21st,
2007
12:36 pm We’ve been duped into thinking that the citizen’s role in politics is to make scant predictions and then side with the least worst. While I applaud Obama’s campaign for not letting itself be bullied by a Hillary’s massive machine, the real issue, I think, is not who we believe COULD win but who SHOULD win. The citizen’s role is not to sit in smoke filled rooms with their computer but rather to go out and make a political reality out of what they believe in. This is what Obama understands.
— Posted by Noah G
25.February 21st,
2007
12:38 pm I also disagree with the tone of some of the writers on this blog. I think a free marketplace of ideas is great - it is the news that fit to print.
Politics and personalities, for good or bad decide on: treaties of war and peace, on the paths to energy security, on mitigating the demographic timebomb our grandchildern may inhiert with regards to fiscal and entilement issues. They will decide on the nature of the judicial system, internet privacy; on the role of the state with regards to regulating the environment and so on. On obvisous to most readers i am sure but no harm reminding.
I like Rudi. I like Obama. I love Hagel. It would be great to have a Obama/Hagel candidacy or Rudi/Obama candidancy. People that inspire a sense of optimism in their language, tone and actions.
— Posted by Sanjeev
26.February 21st,
2007
12:39 pm Geffen,Clinton and Obama need to cool it. The country desperately needs a leader who can restore the world’s faith in America. I suspect that neither candidate can fill that role if they engage in negative tirades. The primary campaign will let us pick that leader and make that person President unless this negatism gives us another Republican failure.
— Posted by charlie harris
27.February 21st,
2007
12:40 pm I disagree with Stuart. I have not seen one viable Republican candidate with enough clout to generate support from their base AND charisma to draw support from the moderates. Giulianni, McCain, Romney all have serious political achilles heals to contend with. On the other hand Obama’s ‘lack of experience’ may actually turn out to be a bonus especially when you consider the argument that all of these EXPERIENCED politicians (Dems included) are the ones that got us into Iraq in the first place. I think, in the end, most people will agree that a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidential era is not what this country needs. And Obama, so far, represents the best candidate out there (on both sides) to stear this country in a positive direction.
— Posted by Steve
28.February 21st,
2007
12:41 pm Re: the post by Dave. Dave, sorry, but polarization?? Get real. If Sen. Obama is the dem nominee, sadly, I’m sure we’ll see some colasally ugly polarization then. People other than those that live along the U.S. seaboards or in large cities, vote too.
— Posted by Susan Janik
29.February 21st,
2007
12:43 pm Sit back and watch the fireworks! A vote for a Democrat or Republican isn’t a vote at all. Everyone should be well aware that what politicians do now is speak loudly and carry no stick at all.
Both Obama and Clinton play for the same team as Bush. A non-binding resolution on the war in Iraq? Give me a break, even with overwhelming opposition to the surge, the Dems aren’t taking action. Just talking.
I’m moving to Mexico until someone who will do something decides to join the race.
— Posted by Jordan
30.February 21st,
2007
12:46 pm Hillary and Barack should demand their campaign staffs play nice for the sake of the Democratic Party. Barack would be an excellent way to balance the ticket if Hillary has him as her Vice Presidential candidate. It would also give him time to gain experience and run in ‘12 or ‘16. Hillary should also have Bill fill her senatorial seat to keep him busy.
— Posted by Randy
31.February 21st,
2007
12:46 pm Hundreds of millions will be spent to elect a person to an office that pays hundreds of thousands. Why would a ‘rationally’ behaving person want to expend these resources in getting the job? Love of country? Public service? These people, every one of them, offer themselves and are being tested to be the next face on the ‘Coke’ or ‘Pepsi’ bottle label that is Republicans or Democrats. But the object is still to sell more ‘Coke’ or more ‘Pepsi’ so that either corporation can be in charge and reap the assorted windfalls of being in charge. Ever thus in politics? Maybe so. Anyone currently a ‘breath of fresh air’? Yeah, right. Enjoy!
— Posted by Michael
32.February 21st,
2007
12:47 pm 1) Such an easy escalation of less-than-appropriate statements so early in the campaign - and from within the Democratic party - does not bode well for the long road ahead. This is sad. Someone needs to take the higher (and more difficult) road if they want voters to take their audacity of hope to change politics seriously. And take it quickly!
2) I sincerely love both candidates and former President Clinton. But Clinton cheated on his wife from the highest office in our nation - I believe he deserves any criticism he receives.
— Posted by CB
33.February 21st,
2007
12:47 pm oh - and gwb had experience? look where we are!!!!!! pathetic!!!
— Posted by carol
34.February 21st,
2007
12:48 pm Geffen’s brings up valid issues, about the polarizing effect that the Clintons have had in this country (current or former). Geffen verbalizes another valid point when he adds that the neo-cons will not use this polarization until a nomination takes place. Ms. Clinton needs to face the music: her ambition and her controversy make her unviable as a candidate for the presidency. And I say that having voted for her. I love the Clintons, but they need to move on and continue the good work they are doing in their current sphere.
On that same note, Obama needs to face the fact that his inexperience and race (even if we don’t want it to be true) will be a hinderance for a presidential run.
We need to start looking for candidates that will win, winning is the point.
— Posted by babette
35.February 21st,
2007
12:49 pm can’t we stop following all of the made-up dem-drama and see what the republicans are fighting about? they, have, afterall, had control of the white house for about eight years now. and, at this pace, they will have control for at least another four. it’s february 2007. we should be worried about (1) ending the war, and (2) what else this administration is going to do to bring our country back to a peaceful state. we should not be worried about hilbama.
— Posted by mj
36.February 21st,
2007
12:49 pm THANK YOU MR. GEFFEN!
His remarks were dead on. No wonder they touched a nerve in the Hillary camp. Right now the campain coverage is Royalty vs. Charisma. When is the media going to cover experienced candidates like Dodd, Byden, Vilsak, and Richardson? For all the coverage Obama has got because he is Black, why hasn’t Richardson gotten more attention for being Hispanic? They represent a bigger voting bloc these days.
— Posted by Aaron
37.February 21st,
2007
12:50 pm How many times do I have to read or hear about Obama’s lack of experience. 6 years ago Hillary was unemployed! She then won her senate seat in the tough red state of “New York”. While serving in this seat she then voted “yea” on the war resolution in which she still thinks was the right vote. If you dont like her vote she now basically says you should go to hell. Her “experience” is one that I would like to forget!
— Posted by william
38.February 21st,
2007
12:53 pm Be leery of the person placing the wedge to prop open the door, the crack may not be enough to see clearly through. You know people throw around the notion that politics in this country is a changing, but the hard truth, as we see play out everyday, is that just beneath the surface is the same heart that is undeterred in its determination to continue to divide this country. Whether Clinton is polarizing, or Obama is black and inexperienced, is irrelevant since both are obvious facts. I’m interested in determining who has a better shot of getting the job done, effectively. It’s not about surgery and only wanting to go under the knife with a proven surgeon because, as we all know, someone has to be the first…
Ford’s statement is akin to Trent Lott’s “foot-in-the-mouth” remark that cost him the leadership in the Senate. Some people don’t care to follow the conversation as it is occurring because that would be too progressive. So they hold on tightly to what they know has served their interest the best. Our attention should be focused on the redeployment of our troops, lessening our tax burdens, shoring up our educational system, and creating universal healthcare. Whichever candidate presents plausible initiatives to address these issues will get my vote. This is what should matter to the voters.
— Posted by Shernard Robinson
39.February 21st,
2007
12:53 pm Barack Obama has made is campaign platform all about putting an end to dirty politics. If he doesn’t speak out against David Geffen AND Maureen Dowd, and it appears he isn’t going to, then Barack Obama will have this hanging over him every time he takes the stage and starts his rant about dirty politics.
Maybe he should change his speeches to say that dirty politics is okay as long it brings a million bucks to his campaign.
Go get him Hillary! You gave him a chance to do the right thing and he didn’t. Knock him out.
— Posted by Margaret Reid
40.February 21st,
2007
12:56 pm Let’s play nice in the sandbox. Don’t you just know the Republicans are salivating as the Dems do their dirty work for them.
We will unite behind one candidate and will get that fantastic nominee elected as the next President of the United States. Hopefully, it will be President Hillary Clinton and Vice President Barack Obama!
— Posted by David Ferry
41.February 21st,
2007
12:57 pm This is all ridiculous. Nothing in this dispute affects real people. Most of the nation doesn’t care whose communication director said what about which candidate. People care about the war, the economy, and other real issues.
Perhaps we wouldn’t have such a cynical electorate if reporters focused less on the theatrics of politics and more on candidates’ positions. Yeah, the theatrics are fun, but they’re not what’s important.
— Posted by Jeff
42.February 21st,
2007
12:58 pm Senator Clinton’s (or her handlers’) efforts to cover all bases will only continue to demonstrate her naked, narcissistic ambition. Alas, in the Senate she could be serving New York and the nation very competently and creatively in her second term, to which she was just reelected.
I would like to predict, but can only hope, that Senator Obama will keep his powder dry, garnering money and receiving sweat equity from the huge growing numbers of likely voters who are becoming aware of his great competence, eloquence, candor, and integrity. Others, with the possible exception of Bill Richardson, should wither away. This time, integrity and “talking sense to the American people” (Adlai Stevenson’s plea) must trump money, conventional wisdom, and the bullying of the electorate by the main stream media.
— Posted by charltonr |
