They’ve Started: Clinton II Crew Lines Up Early (Ed Koch supports Hillary for President!)

Last fall, Democratic insiders were whispering that Roger Altman would be John Kerry’s Treasury Secretary.

Of course, Mr. Altman’s prospects were dampened somewhat when Mr. Kerry failed to live up to his end of the bargain in November. But gossip springs eternal, and now those in the know (or who think of themselves as such) have reason to speculate about Mr. Altman’s ambitions again.

The onetime Clinton administration official—he was Bill Clinton’s deputy Treasury Secretary—is being mentioned again as a possible Treasury Secretary in the next Clinton administration. That would be the one headed by presumed 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. A few weeks before Mr. Kerry’s defeat, Mr. Altman made the maximum $4,000 contribution to the New York Senator’s 2006 re-election campaign.

It’s hardly a secret that Presidential campaigns begin a lot earlier than they used to—can we talk about 2012 yet?—and that’s especially the case when a famous woman who represents New York is considered a likely candidate. Never mind that George W. Bush’s second term is but a few months old. Speculation about 2008 already has begun everywhere from the salons of the Upper East Side to the trenches of blogs like DailyKos.

Mrs. Clinton, who began raising money in earnest for her re-election only after Mr. Kerry’s defeat in November, is drawing support from a decidedly national combination of celebrities, ordinary citizens and favor seekers. Most of her closest supporters have already contributed the legal maximum to her campaign, so the latest campaign-finance report—which shows that she raised just over $1 million in the final months of 2004—offers the first glimpse of what her status as the country’s pre-eminent Democrat will mean.

And many contributors are looking well beyond Mrs. Clinton’s 2006 re-election campaign.

"I’m a supporter of her, not only for the Senate …. I’m supporting her for President," said former Mayor Ed Koch. "Whatever she wants to do with [the money], I’m helping her build her treasury for either of those."

Mrs. Clinton is a New York Senator with a seat on the powerful Armed Services Committee, and so New Yorkers as well as officials from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin made their expected appearance on the rolls of contributors. But Mrs. Clinton is not an ordinary Senator, and so money flowed in from around the country, and from everyone from an Air Force colonel in Maryland to former talk-show host Phil Donahue to the chairman of Sony USA, Howard Stringer. Two weeks after the election, a top fund-raiser and close friend of Senator Kerry, Alan Solomont, and his wife each gave $2,000 to Mrs. Clinton. In December, a check came in from former Manhattan prosecutor Linda Fairstein, a near-miss for the Attorney General’s job under President Clinton (er, that would be the Senator’s husband). And Richard Holbrooke, the perpetual Democratic Secretary of State hopeful, gave the maximum to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign months earlier.

"I’m supporting her for re-election to the Senate, and that’s what she’s asked me to do—nothing more and nothing less," Mr. Solomont said, adding that Mr. Kerry would be present at a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in Boston this spring.

"Senator Clinton is grateful for the generous support she receives and continues to wake up everyday doing the best job she can for the people of New York," said Patti Solis Doyle, a Clinton advisor.

The tone of the Senator’s fund-raising appeals, however, has been a bit starker. For Republicans, Hillary-hating has been a financial gold mine, and in an unusual act of political jujitsu, Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising appeals are all about fighting back against the Hillary haters.

"Have you picked up the paper lately or clicked on a cable channel to find someone saying the most outrageous things about Hillary Rodham Clinton? We have! It really steams us that some people would twist the truth or use such hateful language to attack a Senator who is working hard to make life better for the people of New York and the nation," reads one appeal on the section of her Web site that exhorts her followers to become "Hillraisers" by raising money from their friends. "By becoming a HILLRAISER, you can fight back against the politics of personal destruction."

All this organizing is nominally directed toward Mrs. Clinton’s coming re-election campaign, which could prove formidable if the Republicans find a challenger. The party seems to have fixed its hopes on Edward Cox, a Manhattan lawyer who is Richard Nixon’s son-in-law.

But for the wealthy donors and political operatives who make up New York’s political class—and who will gather at a large-scale fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton at the Hudson Theater on March 21—2006 is a convenient way to support Mrs. Clinton without the kind of commitment that organizing for a Presidential campaign would demand.

"People can support that re-election effort without making a judgment about what either she or they will do later," said a prominent New York Democratic fund-raiser.

But it’s hard to approach Mrs. Clinton without considering the question of "later." Her husband—whose role in Mrs. Clinton’s political life sometimes seems to be the trial-balloon-floater in chief—recently put her Presidential prospects back in the headlines.

"I don’t know if she’ll run or not," Mr. Clinton told a Japanese television network, according to the Associated Press. "She would make an excellent President, and I would always try to help her."

In fact, at least one employee of his Harlem-based William J. Clinton Foundation already has. On Oct. 17, while Mr. Kerry was stumbling his way toward the Election Day finish line, the foundation’s domestic-policy advisor, Clyde Williams, dropped $500 into Mrs. Clinton’s war chest.

Between her star power, her husband’s—"If you say no to Hillary, you’re saying no to Bill, and that’s not easy," said a prominent city Democrat—and her place atop the national polls, Mrs. Clinton is among the easiest sells for political fund-raisers.

"It’s pretty easy, because I don’t think there’s another candidate," said Toni Goodale, a Democratic fund-raiser.

Other names on Mrs. Clinton’s filing include Mary Meeker, the Morgan Stanley technologies analyst; Barnes and Noble chief executive Leonard Riggio; the designer Donna Karan; and Richard Roth, who produced the 1986 cult classic Blue Velvet.

This first round of post-election fund-raising, according to Clinton aides, is just the beginning of a massive push for a campaign that is expected to cost tens of millions of dollars, and in which a strong Republican candidate could raise untold sums on the Internet.

Mrs. Clinton’s potential rivals don’t seem to mind her front-runner status, which has often turned out to be a liability. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, considering his own Presidential run, appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, happy to share his position that "she is likely to be the nominee" and would be "incredibly hard to beat."

But neither media buzz nor national polls necessarily translate into votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, as Howard Dean learned last year, and Democrats both pro- and anti-Clinton are watching the party’s new dynamic with curiosity over what it will mean for Mrs. Clinton, should she seek the nomination.

On one hand, the traditional bases of support—from the donors in Manhattan and Hollywood to the older liberal advocacy groups—have longstanding ties to Mrs. Clinton.

But the Clintons have lost the last two major fights they picked: stopping Mr. Kerry and stopping Dr. Dean. Last winter, their apparent tacit blessing got Gen. Wesley Clark’s bid for the Presidency off the ground, but he soon fell back to earth. And this year, their longtime aide Harold Ickes was first floated as the Democratic National Committee chairman, then floated as a deputy and finally withdrew, to emerge in a kingmaker’s role only after Dr. Dean had sewn up the job on his own.

All this has produced a growing unease among some of the party’s traditional power brokers, particularly the big-dollar donors accustomed to a quiet hand early in the selection process. One prominent city Democrat speculated gloomily that his cadre might be losing their influence.

"All the traditional players are going to line up for Hillary, and the conventional power structure will line up for Hillary," he said. "Who cares?"

I was just going to link to the Altman/Clinton history.

We should all start (if we haven't started) bookmarking for future reference:

WHITE HOUSE ETHICS (Senate - February 28, 1994)

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, imagine this: Ronald Reagan, as Governor of California, becomes a 50-50 partner in a real estate deal with the owner of a California savings and loan. The S&L goes under, is seized by Federal regulators, and a series of criminal and civil investigations is initiated by Federal regulators.

Governor Reagan becomes President Reagan. He appoints a close personal friend and top campaign official, Jim Baker, to head the independent agency charged with overseeing the S&L industry and with bringing civil and criminal actions against S&L wrongdoers.

Press reports suggest that the President may be indirectly implicated in a civil suit brought against the California S&L by the supposedly independent Federal agency. As the expiration date for the civil statute of limitations approaches, Mr. Baker meets at the White House with Ed Meese, Mike Deaver, and other White House political officials to discuss the status of the agency's investigation. The White House meeting is shrouded in secrecy, only to be revealed weeks later because of congressional prodding.

Of course, Mr. President, this is all fiction. But, it is fair to say that if these events had indeed occurred during the Reagan administration, the expressions of outrage in the press, and on the floors of the Senate and House, the clamor for congressional hearings, would have shot off the political Richter Scale.

Last Thursday, Roger Altman, a college classmate of President Clinton and the acting CEO of the supposedly independent Resolution Thrust Corporation, revealed for the first time that he sought out a meeting with White House officials, allegedly to offer a heads up on the so-called Madison Guaranty statute of limitations issue. According to Mr. Altman's own account, he did not even seek a meeting with David Kendall, President Clinton's personal attorney, but rather with White House political officials--Bernard Nussbaum, Harold Ickes, and Margaret Williams, the chief of staff for the First Lady.

With the exception of the New York Times and the Washington Times, and today the Washington Post, the press reaction to the Altman revelation--and the glaring conflict of interest it describes--has been muted at best. In fact, USA Today reported that the Altman meeting was `minor' and there was probably `nothing improper' about it. Apparently, Mr. Altman did not buy into this benign description, since he finally recused himself from the Madison matter last Friday.

Mr. President, Mr. Altman's shocking revelation underscores the need for full congressional hearings on the Madison-Whitewater affair. As the New York Times editorialized yesterday:

Senator Donald Riegle, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, needs to step up his committee's oversight activities * * * Opposition leaders are right when they say that a Republican White House that so recklessly meddled in the Justice Department, the R.T.C. and other agencies would be shelled with endless congressional investigations.

That is the end of the quote. It is the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be made part of the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

From the New York Times, Feb. 27, 1994

[FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, FEB. 27, 1994]

Slovenly White House Ethics

President Clinton and his helpers keep saying they have nothing to hide on Whitewater. So some evil genie must be making them act as if they do. The latest affront is the boneheaded conclave convened by Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman to give a `heads up' to three White House officials about the Resolution Trust Corporation inquiry into a savings and loan association connected to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Altman said he wanted to brief Bernard Nussbaum, the White House counsel, Harold Ickes, the deputy chief of staff, and Margaret Williams, the First Lady's chief of staff, on when the statute of limitations would run out on the R.T.C. investigation of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.

That is an interesting question and not unrelated to other questions that Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee and other reasonably curious Americans would like to have answered. Here are four:

1. Was Madison used to convert Clinton campaign funds to personal funds for the then Governor?

2. Did a regulator appointed by Governor Clinton go easy on Madison because it was owned by the Clinton's political ally, James McDougal, who was also the Clintons' business partner in the Whitewater Development Company?

3. Did the Clintons pay the same amount of money for their half share of Whitewater that Mr. McDougal paid for his? This question is important because it bears on whether Mr. Clinton, while Governor, received gifts or claimed undeserved tax deductions in connection with Whitewater.

4. Did Mrs. Clinton's law firm behave properly in its dealings with Madison and bank regulators?

Given that such questions are now before a special counsel and the R.T.C., a meeting between Mr. Altman and top White House aides was improper on its face. It could never have taken place in a White House that had even a rudimentary respect for the common-sense rules on conflict of interest. The Clinton team has taken the nation back to the sham ethics of the early Reagan Administration. That crowd believed conflicts of interest could not exist since they could not conceive of letting any law or rule of propriety interfere with the political and financial interests of the President or his buddies.

The stated reason for this meeting will not wash. Information on the statute of limitations could be had from the newspapers or a brief memo from the R.T.C. legal staff. Senator Alfonse D'Amato and Representative Jim Leach therefore have reason to suspect that the goal of the meeting was to control political damage or compromise the R.T.C.'s investigation. Who knows what the White House has learned about the R.T.C. findings? After all, it was only through Mr. D'Amato's efforts that the Government released an R.T.C. document suggesting that Mrs. Clinton's law firm had failed at proper disclosure of its dealings with Madison.

In response to bad publicity, Mr. Altman has recused himself from the R.T.C. inquiry on Whitewater. His R.T.C. deputy should now take over all his duties at the agency until a permanent director is appointed. Senator Donald Riegle, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, needs to step up his committee's oversight activities. Other Democrats like Senator John Kerry need to cease their myopic defense of Mr. Clinton on a matter about which neither the Senator nor the public has been fully informed.

Opposition leaders are right when they say that a Republican White House that so recklessly meddled in the Justice Department, the R.T.C. and other agencies would be shelled with endless Congressional investigations. It is time for the Democratic Congressional leaders, Thomas Foley and George Mitchell, to try to educate this White House about the normal protocols of governance. Explaining what Representative Leach meant when he said `arm's length' would be a start.

Clinton aides behave as if their President had deep deposits of public trust. In fact, that account was pretty slim when Mr. Clinton got to Washington, and it is just about tapped out now.

[Page: S2020]

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the bottom line is: The American people now know about Mr. Altman's unseemly meeting with White House officials precisely because Banking Committee Republicans used the opportunity of an RTC oversight hearing to ask Madison-related questions. If there had been no hearing, it is unlikely this information would have surfaced any time soon. And it is clear that Mr. Altman recused himself only because of the negative publicity his meeting inspired.

The Altman revelation also raises other important questions: Did Mr. Altman have any contacts with the FDIC while the FDIC's legal division was preparing its conflicts-of-interest opinion regarding the Rose law firm? If so, what were the nature of these contacts? Has Mr. Altman had any discussions with Webster Hubbell, a former partner of the Rose law firm and now Associate Attorney General, regarding the RTC's criminal referrals on Madison and the RTC's pending civil investigation? And has Mr. Hubbell himself had any contacts with officials at the FDIC, the RTC, or the White House about any element of the Madison-Whitewater affair?

Why did White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum meet with Mr. Altman in the first place? Surely, he was aware of the impropriety of such a meeting. He had a lot of experience in the Watergate hearings. Has Mr. Nussbaum been in touch with the RTC, the FDIC, or the Justice Department about Madison-Whitewater?

Mr. President, you know you are heading in the right direction when tough questions are responded to not with substantive answers, but with personal attacks. Unfortunately, David Wilhelm, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, took this low-road approach when he fired off a letter last Friday personally attacking the integrity of Senator D'Amato, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee.

If Mr. Wilhelm believes these bullying tactics will somehow intimidate congressional Republicans, I have some bad news for him: They will not. We will continue to ask the tough questions until the American people get the full accounting of Whitewater that they deserve.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.