The New York Post and Citizens United’s executive vice president say Republican administrations magnanimously hire liberal Democrats to fill positions in their Cabinet departments. Someone should educate them that this is not accurate.
Hillary Clinton’s current campaign manager kept a list of people who were not to receive State Department jobs being doled out — just as the new secretary of state entered the Obama administration — The Post has exclusively learned.
“We are beginning the process of separating people we may want to hire from people we do not want to hire at all,” Robby Mook, the wunderkind 36-year-old campaign manager, wrote in an email to various Clinton officials. The email was sent Feb. 23, 2009, just two weeks after Clinton assumed the job as secretary of state.
“Below is a list of people we are proposing NOT to hire (the ‘no-offer’ list), along with the name of the person who submitted their resume,” Mook added.
Mook’s email was released by Citizens United, the conservative group that obtained the message through a Freedom of Information Act request from the State Department.
The email was sent to Clinton confidants Minyon Moore and Tamzera Luzzatto, as well as close Clinton aides and State Department officials Cheryl Mills, Capricia Marshall and Huma Abedin, among others. Tina Flournoy, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, was on the email chain as well.
— Clinton’s campaign manager kept blacklist of potential hires, Daniel Halper, The New York Post, yesterday.
This, folks, is labeled “News Exclusive”. Just so you won’t confuse it with, say, “Non-Newsworthy Information, Because It Falls Into the Category of ‘Staffing the New Administration’s Cabinet Departments in Accordance With the Election Results’”.
The article does point out that Mook was not working for Clinton. Uh-oh. Specifically, it says:
At the time, Mook does not appear to have been employed by Clinton. He had worked on Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid and then managed the campaign for Jeanne Shaheen, the New Hampshire Democratic senator. A few months after the email was sent, Mook went to work for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
It also appears that Mook, unlike Mr. Halper and his editors, knows the difference between Civil Service positions and, y’know, positions that are not Civil Service positions, wanted to be fair and not mistake a non-enemy for an enemy who as an enemy had the audacity to submit a resume and job application for a non-Civil Service position. So he wrote in that email:
WE RECOGNIZE THERE MAY BE MISTAKES IN THIS LIST, which is why we are circulating it for comments. If you believe someone on this list should be considered for a position, please send their name to email@example.com. If you do not send to firstname.lastname@example.org, we cannot guarantee that we will get the information processed,” Mook implored.
“Please keep in mind when editing this list that we have over 1,300 applications and less than 180 jobs to slot — we must be selective. Pretend you work for the Harvard admissions department,” the email concluded.
But don’t think Mr. Halper is an incompetent journalist. He’s clearly not, since he does know an illegal political blacklist when he sees one, and also has the contact information of Citizens United executive vice president Michael Boos and can get a good quote from him conflating the decision to reject employment applications of ideologically or politically unfriendly applicants for jobs normally filled in White House administrations by people who are friendly to the administration ideologically or politically with Richard Nixon’s Enemies List listing the names of unfriendly journalists and others whose tax returns should be reviewed by the I.R.S. and who should have dossiers about them opened at the F.B.I. and the C.I.A.
In an appropriately breathless tone, he writes:
The names on the blacklist were redacted upon their release from the State Department to Citizens United.
The blacklist. Got it? And he follows that with the money quote, writing:
Hillary Clinton’s similarities to Richard Nixon are more striking than anyone could have imagined,” Michael Boos, Citizens United executive vice president, told The Post. “Now we’ve learned she even maintained a secretive blacklist while heading the State Department. The American people deserve to know who is on that list,” Boos added.
I’m sort of relieved about this, now that the polls are tightening. At least we can be sure that if Trump wins the election he’ll stop soliciting and accepting advice from Robert Mercer, his daughter Rebeka, John Rakolta Jr., Sheldon Adelson, and the other far-right billionaires whom Trump is accepting advice from and making tacit promises to in exchange for their extensive financial support for his campaign. Including during meetings in The Hamptons. Which is strange, considering that according to the news media no major-party presidential nominee this year other than Clinton is allowed to enter for the purpose of seeking campaign contributions.
I guess Trump is violating those municipal ordinances, and is attending fundraisers there—as are a few of his billionaire donors, who are violating the ordinance sections proscribing contributing to the delinquency of a presidential candidate not named Hillary Clinton.
At least according to the Washington Post’s terrific Matea Gold, who reported on this, in-depth, all the way back on Sept. 1. And whose reporting no one but me noticed. Certainly the Clinton campaign didn’t.
Down the road, when an Establishment Republican is nominated as the party’s offering for president—Paul Ryan, say—we progressive Democrats will be able to take comfort in knowing that his cabinet heads won’t discriminate against progressive Democrats in staffing their departments. Maybe I’ll apply.
Okay, look. I bow to few other progressive Democrats in the intensity of anger at Bill and Hillary Clinton for, beginning in 2013, commandeering the mechanism by which the party chooses its presidential nominee and foisting upon us a standard bearer whose husband received exorbitant secret payments from companies with interests potentially touching upon normal State Department concerns when she was Secretary of State.
And I’ve wondered from time to time in the last few months how many of those Establishment folks who were Ready for Hillary back in 2013, 2015 and the first five months of 2015 feel regret. Or maybe even remorse. Partly because our party now has a presidential nominee who along with her husband was unwilling to choose between great riches and power of another presidency, rejecting mere ordinary riches and opting instead for far more than that, risking so much for so many of the rest of us when they decided to muscle other potential candidates, and actual candidate Bernie Sanders, out of their way because they not only wanted extraordinary wealth but also the White House or a second time. And partly because we have a presidential nominee whose idea of a terrific campaign strategy in 2016 is to court endorsements from Henry Kissinger and Meg Whitman, on the apparent theory that the more uber-Establishment celebrities who endorse you the better this particular election cycle. At least if they’re Republican.
And partly because we have a nominee who thinks that the way to effectively attack her opponent is to constantly remind people of what they already know about him and haven’t forgotten, and be sure not to tell them about the stuff they don’t already know about him but really should learn of. Like that he’s soliciting policy promises—er, policy advice—from the Mercers and his other billionaire donors. And that the Mercers live in … the Hamptons.
And who thinks it’s a good idea to spend most of her time at the height of the campaign season cocooning with her extremely wealthy friends, and with the extremely wealthy friends of those friends, none of whom will sit out this election or vote for her opponent or a third party candidate. And who wouldn’t be caught dead actually campaigning on her policy proposals to rallies or audiences whose votes she thinks she has but may actually not have. They’re not mainstream Republicans, so why bother to address them, right?
I can’t stand Hillary Clinton. But I’m absolutely sure that her domestic-policy proposals, if actually enacted, would make a significant difference to a lot of people—in a good way—and that this country would be a meaningfully better place. And I won’t even mention Supreme Court and lower federal court nominees—although I will ask whom the Mercers would recommend for appoint to the Court and to the courts. Anyone who favors overturning Citizens United? Or who thinks people who don’t have driver’s licenses or passports should be allowed to vote? Or who favors plaintiffs’ access to federal court in consumer cases, employment cases, habeas corpus cases, or constitutional-rights cases that don’t concern religious freedom (loosely defined), gun ownership rights, or reverse discrimination by state universities or some such? Didn’t think so.
I do acknowledge that her cabinet members probably would discriminate against job applicants who may be hostile ideologically or politically to Clinton or to the cabinet member. But if so, there’s always the option of impeachment. Just as there was for Nixon.
Clinton is saddled with a political media that can’t distinguish between normal, expected and trivial special, often meaningless, access, and even appropriate favoritism, on the one hand, and meaningful pay-to-play. Or maybe a political media that thinks that the propriety of what has gone on in the respective professional lives of Clinton and Trump, and what promises to go on in a Clinton, or instead in a Trump, administration depends not on what is likely to go on but rather on whether it will be going on in a Clinton or instead a Trump administration. The Clinton Foundation is just a distraction, in my opinion. Bill Clinton’s half-million-dollar payments here for this no-actual-work activity, a whole million and then some for that no-actual-work activity–those are problems. But they’re problems that fade into the landscape, or should, in comparison to Trump’s appalling, breathtaking decades-long career of breathtaking immoral greed.
These two men are stunningly, pervertedly greedy. But Bill Clinton’s greed probably didn’t directly hurt anyone. by contrast, Trump’s very business model was, to a dismaying extent, to hurt people, some deliberately, some as casual collateral damage. Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton is a sociopath. Donald Trump is. Yet it is the Clintons’ pattern of greed that the news media details and obsesses about, upon the pretext that these constitute conflicts of interest. A few do, most don’t, and none reaches anywhere near the level of casual, deliberate harm to others and clear violations of law that Trump’s very modus operandi has caused and has constituted.
We, for our part—those of us who support this Democratic nominee, extremely grudgingly or otherwise—are saddled with a candidate who is running a god-awful campaign, apparently thanks mainly to campaign decisions by the candidate herself and her husband, both of whom mistake the 2016 campaign cycle for the 1988 one.
Those old enough to remember the 1988 campaign will get my drift. It’s a double entendre.
Between this and the generally embarrassing way that Jill Stein has been acting recently…
There really is no good candidate in this election. Unbelievable that we can’t find one competent adult to run for president that doesn’t have a family history of bad governance.
I think it’s absolutely critical to stop thinking about this particular candidate’s past and present, and think only–only–about such things as the specifics of who Trump’s actual puppeteers are–Rebekah Mercer, mainly; I read a really important article about her and her agenda last night, and although I can’t remember where it was published I’ll look for it and provide the link.
And about such things as appointments: NOT just to the Supreme Court, and not even just to the entire federal bench, but also to the NLRB, to the SEC, to the Justice Dept., to the EPA, to the … etc., etc.,
And here’s something amazing: Trump keeps selling himself, surprisingly successfully, as someone who has bought politicians throughout his business career and therefore knows how to end the rigging of the system. And who knows: maybe he does know how. But he’s making clear that, as per Rebekah and Robert Mercer’s wishes and, separately, THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT, he will guarantee the very long life of the rigged campaign-finance system. He’s promised to appoint the likes of Antonin Scalia the the Supreme Court, absolutely guaranteeing that Citizens United will remain intact and will be put on steroids the next time some campaign finance legislation is enacted–during or after a Trump administration–the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional.
Freedom, y’know. Liberty.
Yet Clinton and her campaign can’t trouble themselves to, like, mention this.
Great campaign, Hillary!
Clinton, of course, considers this way above the heads of the little folk–the ones who don’t live or summer in the Hamptons or the Cape. So only if it begins to look like she’s losing the election is there any chance that she would, maybe, mention these things on the campaign trail or in TV interviews.
And even then, probably not. Her idea of a Hail Mary is much more likely to be … more of the same. “Look at all the Establishment Republicans who have endorsed me, blue-collar folks in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa!” Henry Kissinger to the rescue.
apparently i am no better at double entendre than i am at irony.
don’t misunderstand, i enjoy your rants about Hillary and agree with them and hope the people learn from them.
but i think you may be missing the point about the Hillary campaign. if she camaigns on telling people what they already know about Trump and wins then she can’t be held to anything she said about policy. Moreover there is nothing to be gained by telling people what they don’t already know. It just confuses them and gives the bad guys an opportunity to create a distracting rebuttal. a rule of american politics is “keep it simple, keep it stupid.”
meanwhile i hope you keep trying to “tell the people” from what you know. i tried to tell them something about what i knew and have pretty much given up.
“And who wouldn’t be caught dead actually campaigning on her policy proposals to rallies or audiences whose votes she thinks she has but may actually not have. They’re not mainstream Republicans, so why bother to address them, right?”
Well, best as I can tell after clicking the links, her Sept. schedule includes two actual campaign events at which she will speak, both of them today. Private fundraisers don’t count. Nor do speeches by Tim Kaine, his wife, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Debbie Stabenow, or, really, anyone but Hillary Clinton.
And her August schedule included a single actual public campaign speech, I believe.
So I agree: mother,,,,!
One day you will realize that Bernie Sanders lost the primary and move on with your life.
In terms of future events, you should have the link where it plainly states:
“Fundraisers are scheduled a month in advance while public events are only scheduled a few days in advance .The list below will be heavy with fundraisers due to this fact “.
In terms of August, she had more than 10.
So she went through the primaries and the convention and took a little time off, so that somehow means she is only interested in “mainstream republicans”.
I have heard a steady stream of such posts from you since the primary ended. Cheap shots for various reasons that soon turn into non stories, yet somehow I have seen no apology from you from your incorrect criticisms.
Remember the “she is only running as a woman” meme?
There are many others.
Perhaps we should get beyond personalities. The Democratic Party is pro-choice, pro union, and pro environment. The Republican Party is anti choice, anti union and anti environment. Just on those three issues, there is simply a world of difference.
Hillary Clinton is a typical Democratic presidential candidate, in the lineage of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerrey and Barack Obama. Her voting record in the Senate places her squarely in the mainstream of Democratic politicians.
Principles before personalities.