January 10, 2002

8:33 AM

The editor of CBS Marketwatch predicts that Enron is not Bush's Whitewater; it's worse. "Don't expect to see either Bush or Vice President Cheney directly linked to the financial shenanigans that brought Enron down. They won't be.... Enron won't bring down Bush.... But it will be a major thorn in his side through the rest of this presidential term, and it might even play a role in the next election, depending on what comes out." (via Drudge)
posted by pmurray63 (31 comments total)

But Enron, the symbol of how big business and big politics sometimes conspire to fix the game, is just starting to dawn on the national consciousness.

If this is the result of them fixing the game they need to do a better job.
posted by revbrian at 8:41 AM on January 10, 2002

Don't expect to see either Bush or Vice President Cheney directly linked to the financial shenanigans that brought Enron down. They won't be. This is not about finding a smoking gun, as much as some Democrats might wish it were.

Yeah right. This is going to be all we hear about in the next two elections. The way has officially been paved for Hillary Clinton to have a decent shot at the presidency, in my opinion.

I am constantly amazed at how much money corporations give to candidates, and candidates justify it by saying they need as much money as possible to buy TV ads. I think the whole electorate would benefit if most of the campaigning was done in print and on the web, where actual thought occurs.

Keep in mind, however, that Enron donated a few hundred thousand to the Democratic party, as well, so both parties are culpable in this. It just goes to show how bankrupt our entire system is.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:46 AM on January 10, 2002

insomnyuk: Enron donated to Democrats when they realized trouble was on the horizon, which is contemptible, and donated prior to going on Commerce Dept. trade junkets during the Clinton administration. Certainly neither party can claim the high ground in campaign finance. However, Enron unquestionably has given more money to Republicans, and had a closer connection to those in the White House now than anyone else in government, really. Enron is on the list of top contributors of the 1990s to the GOP. It's not on the Democrats list, and the Dems receive less money overall. (A bit of trivia: Note that MCI-WorldCom is on both lists.)
posted by raysmj at 9:12 AM on January 10, 2002

The way has officially been paved for Hillary Clinton to have a decent shot at the presidency, in my opinion.

seriously, insomnyuk, do you really believe this? hillary clinton has so many negatives, the biggest one being that she is actively hated by a huge portion of the voting public. she hardly distinguised herself as the people's choice in her senate race against a wet-behind-the-ears candidate.

if i were a republican, i'd be absolutely thrilled at the prospect of mrs. clinton as the democratic candidate.
posted by lescour at 9:16 AM on January 10, 2002

Remember when Bush was waxing about his campaign finance reform? The irony! I wonder if that, in part at least, was an attempt of his to distance himself from the debauchery.
posted by Modem Ovary at 9:20 AM on January 10, 2002

This almost makes me want to bring back the Independent Counsel statute. Almost.
posted by Rastafari at 10:04 AM on January 10, 2002

The amazing thing for me, these days, is how quick the Conservatives are to call any dissent sent their way as partisan, as if the unprecedented degree of conservative defiance during the Clinton administration never happened.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
posted by BentPenguin at 10:10 AM on January 10, 2002

Remember how, a few months ago, Enron was being held up as an example of vigorous corporate competition, proof that the free market works? SURPRISE! They're a bunch of crooks.

Much as I would like to see Ken Lay do time, I'm not holding my breath.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:21 AM on January 10, 2002

CBS Marketwatch would definitely know collapse when they see it.

Marketwatch's 3-year chart

Not that I'm a bitter shareholder, or anything.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:36 AM on January 10, 2002

..she hardly distinguised herself as the people's choice in her senate race against a wet-behind-the-ears candidate.

Uh, she won, didn't she?She was supposed to lose by 20 points.I ain't a big Hil fan either, but she kicked some serious ass when no one expected her to, including that of the sainted Rudy.

Meanwhile, the hooligans have got nothing going for them but a fake, corrupt President and a fantasy Hilliary Clinton Presidential campaign.

The interesting thing about the Enron thing is watching how the media have held back.If Bush were Clinton, calls of "Enrongate" would be everywhere.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:43 AM on January 10, 2002

>>>"The interesting thing about the Enron thing is watching how the media have held back.If Bush were Clinton, calls of "Enrongate" would be everywhere."<<<

I think that's more an effect of the War on People Who Hate Freedom, and news organizations don't want to be seen as unsupportive. Had the Sept. 11 attacks not occurred, i suspect the media would've been devouring this from the get go.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:24 AM on January 10, 2002

There is a long history behind how the coporations of America began to get to the place where they are today, and how our govt has not only lost control over them but enjoys so much largesse from them that they clearly have little intention of reverting back to a govt of and by and for the people. Nader was of course on top of this but failed in my estimation to suggest how exactly he would bring about change which he so ably noted was needed.
posted by Postroad at 11:52 AM on January 10, 2002

For those interested, I have a lot of Enron links - and hey, I called it "Enrongate". Of course, I'm not exactly The National Press :)
posted by owillis at 12:02 PM on January 10, 2002

As for Hillary: If 50 million or so can vote for Al Gore, they can vote for Hillary. Even after Sept. 11. Plus, the Democratic Party (or is it the DNC) is run by Terrence McAulliffe, good friend and ally of the Clintons. I'm just saying I think she'll run.

The problem with this CBS Marketwatch article is that it's an editorial. Further, the Justice Department is opening an investigation about Enron, so not all the facts are out.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:10 PM on January 10, 2002

Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation today, as they contributed to his senate campaign.
posted by owillis at 12:24 PM on January 10, 2002

I don't see a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign as realistic for 2004. The kind of revulsion she inspires in many mainstream conservatives (a portion of which are required for a presidential win) simply has to be seen to be believed. The right wing has been very successful at hanging upon her all the perceived sins of "The Sixties" and the counterculture, etc.

Give her about ten years of uneventful service in the senate, a matronly makeover, and Jesus Christ himself on Larry King telling people to vote for her and it MIGHT happen.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:30 PM on January 10, 2002

Agreed. I like Hillary, but the conservative/swing voters are sort of like "A first lady who doesn't just make cookies and look lovingly at her husband? She has a brain? Aaaargh!"

Hillary '04 is not likely at all.
posted by owillis at 12:37 PM on January 10, 2002

That is an unfair characterization of conservation/swing voters, owillis.
posted by gyc at 12:49 PM on January 10, 2002

things sure are heating up today. stay tuned!
posted by saralovering at 12:56 PM on January 10, 2002

That is an unfair characterization of conservation/swing voters, owillis

Do you really think so? America likes its first ladies docile and doting (Jackie O, Barbara Bush) and not assertive (Hillary, Nancy Reagan). Hillary's highest approval rating came when she was most in the position of "put-upon wife" (Monicagate).
posted by owillis at 12:57 PM on January 10, 2002

saralovering: Documents are missing now? Wow... if it turns out that the investigators find 18 minutes of silence on a tape recording, I will officially pee myself silly.
posted by hincandenza at 1:16 PM on January 10, 2002

Owillis: I think the reason they like First Ladies that way is because the First Lady is not elected to form public policy or enforce the law.

Hillary's National Healthcare plan, for example, was the first example of this unwelcome meddling, from a meddlesome she-devil. Yeah. That and the fact that she and Bill were power-sharing (in my opinion) made it that much worse. Theirs is a marriage of convenience, and to many conservatives, Hillary was an interloper, the power behind the throne, the Jezebel to Bill's Ahab, so to speak.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:23 PM on January 10, 2002

ain't a big Hil fan either, but she kicked some serious ass when no one expected her to, including that of the sainted Rudy.

She didn't kick Giuliani's ass; cancer did. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton getting nominated for president, much less winning, unless circumstances are so bleak in 2004 for the Democrats that they've given up hope (see also "Mondale campaign, 1984").
posted by rcade at 1:39 PM on January 10, 2002

Hillary's National Healthcare plan, for example, was the first example of this unwelcome meddling, from a meddlesome she-devil.

Meddlesome she-devil? Glad to see that people are still as graceless as ever when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Why is it better for the nation that the first lady be a useless figurehead trotted out only on safe issues like adult literacy and "Chew Your Vegetables Week"? Hillary had an opportunity, however brief, to be a participant in the administration. Isn't it curious how right-wingers continue to fixate on that, when Liddy Dole or Wendy Gramm would have done the same thing if given the chance?
posted by rcade at 1:43 PM on January 10, 2002

rcade: i was being sarcastic. I guess I'm not that good at it.
posted by insomnyuk at 2:05 PM on January 10, 2002

Hey, Nancy Reagan was president for eight years. :)
posted by owillis at 4:42 PM on January 10, 2002

No kidding, owillis- while I'm not a huge Clinton fan, the constant slanderous remarks about "marriage of convenience" et al is absolute mudslinging garbage as far as I'm concerned. Why should we believe that Poppy's marriage to Bar' (the electable "cookie-baking grandmother" figure that Hillary could and should never be) any less a marriage of convenience, especially considering George had a mistress? Or that Nancy didn't grab as much- or more- power as Hillary ever did?

As Bill Maher has aptly and ironically noted, the Clinton's marriage is one of the best examples of right-wingers "family values" in action: despite their problems and Bill's infidelities, they've worked it out and stayed together. Notably, this is something neither Newt Gingrich or His Holy Reagan Emperor Ronnie I, among many others cut from the conservative cloth, can boast of in their own lives.
posted by hincandenza at 6:16 PM on January 10, 2002

amen, hincandenza!
posted by mac at 6:54 PM on January 10, 2002

My one and only beef with Hillary was that she was acting as if she was elected co-president alongside with her husband. If she wanted to become that involved with policy and government, perhaps she should've ran as Bill's running mate. If, for example, Elizabeth Dole were to be president, I wouldn't want Bob act like he was elected too, even though he might be immensely qualified.
posted by gyc at 10:27 PM on January 10, 2002

But gyc, I'd bet neither you nor the obsessed right-wing would suggest that, if Bob did take an active role in government, the Dole's marriage was of merely one of political convenience, or that Bob was the worst kind of "unwelcome... meddlesome he-devil". I don't know personally what you felt about Hillary, but most Hil-haters want to re-paint with a revisionist brush their feelings, statements, and actions during the last administrationg, but the reality remains that they hated Hillary and Bill Clinton with a passion that went way beyond even strong political or ideological disagreements.
posted by hincandenza at 12:39 AM on January 11, 2002

i was being sarcastic. I guess I'm not that good at it.

Don't ignore the strong possibility that I'm stupid.
posted by rcade at 7:20 AM on January 11, 2002