About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Gerth grasps for evidence to support book's claim of longtime plan for Hillary Clinton presidency

June 11, 2007 7:35 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

40 Comments

On the June 10 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co.), about the claim in their book that, in the 1970s, Bill and Hillary Clinton developed a 20-year "secret pact of ambition" -- which initially included a Bill Clinton presidency and was allegedly expanded after he assumed the presidency in 1993 to include "eight years as president for him, then eight years for" Hillary Clinton. Russert noted that the purported source for Gerth and Van Natta's allegation regarding the updated "plan" -- historian Taylor Branch -- had labeled the authors' claim "preposterous." In his response, Gerth first cited Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who he said relayed to him a conversation the two said they had with Branch in 1993 in which Branch purportedly disclosed the alleged plan for both Clintons to become president. Gerth then invoked former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, the authors' source for the Clintons' original "plan": "I think, more interestingly and more surprisingly, the ambition of the Clintons going back to when they were in their 20s and the 20-year project that Leon Panetta remembers Bill Clinton describing to him." But when Russert challenged Gerth by noting that the "project" Panetta purportedly described to the authors "was never about Hillary," Gerth answered: "No, but Bill Clinton, of course, at that point in the 1970s, even before they married, was talking about that Hillary Clinton, that she could be president but she had to subordinate her plans, of course, to his coming to Arkansas."

However, this anecdote -- a similar version of which appears in Bill Clinton's autobiography, My Life (Knopf, 2004) -- in no way supports Gerth and Van Natta's disputed claim that, after Bill Clinton became president in 1993, the Clintons revised their "20-year project" to include eight years as president for Hillary.

In My Life, Bill Clinton wrote that "I thought coming to Arkansas with me would end the prospect of a political career for her":

I was happy to be going home to the prospect of interesting work, but I still didn't know what to do about Hillary, or what was best for her. I had always believed she had as much (or more) potential to succeed in politics as I did, and I wanted her to have the chance. Back then, I wanted it for her more than she did, and I thought coming to Arkansas with me would end the prospect of a political career for her. I didn't want to do that, but I didn't want to give her up, either. [Page 201]

As Media Matters noted, in a June 4 appearance on ABC's Good Morning America, Gerth and Van Natta dodged questions about Branch's reported dismissal of their claim in the book of an updated "20-year project,", with Gerth simply responding that the first allegation -- that the Clintons devised a "plan" in the 1970s that included a Bill Clinton presidency -- "has not been refuted." Additionally, while Van Natta defended the first claim in a June 4 post on the Huffington Post weblog, he ignored the dispute surrounding the second allegation (that the purported "20-year project" had been expanded to include a two-term presidency for Hillary Clinton).

In the prologue of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta write:

More than three decades ago, in the earliest days of their romance, Bill and Hillary struck a plan, one that would become both the foundation and the engine of their relationship. They agreed to work together to revolutionize the Democratic Party and ultimately make the White House their home.14 Once their "twenty-year project" was realized, with Bill's victory in 1992, their plan became even more ambitious: eight years as president for him, then eight years for her.15 Their audacious pact has remained a secret until now.

While their plan was hatched together, Hillary had her own ideas about what it would take to achieve victory. She concluded that if she had any chance of winning the ultimate prize of her life, she would need to pursue it her way. That meant, among other things, carefully crafting a persona and a narrative to present to the American public that knew both so much and so little about her. [Page 9]

Associated endnotes:

14. Interviews with Leon Panetta and former Clinton administration official in 2006.

15. Author interviews with Ann Crittenden and John Henry in 2007.

Later in the book, Gerth and Van Natta write:

By the summer of 1993, the ways of Washington, sometimes called Potomac fever, had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary.

Branch described the plan to two Washington friends, John Henry and Ann Crittenden, over a barbeque dinner at a rodeo in Aspen, Colorado, that summer.71 The president would frequently talk with Branch, a well-respected historian and author, about his place in history, and shortly after he was elected president, Branch said, Bill asked him to begin recording "diary sessions"72 as part of an oral-history project.

Branch had just come from one of those sessions, a marathon late-night chat with Bill at the White House, where the two men had talked as they stood on the back balcony, looking toward the Washington Monument. Now in the cool mountains of Colorado, Branch told his friends about the Clintons' presidential plans. The bold goal of sixteen years in the White House took Henry's breath away. "I was shocked," he said. 73 [Pages 128-129]

Associated endnotes:

71. Author interviews with John Henry and Ann Crittenden in 2007. Branch, in an interview with one of the authors in 2007, said, "I don't remember" the conversation but "I'm not denying it." He acknowledged that he knows Henry and Crittenden and that he has been to Aspen many times. But Branch declined to discuss Hillary or Bill, saying it was "stupid" to do so in light of the fact that he was writing his own book on Bill's presidency.

72. Julie Bosman, "Historian Plans Book from Chats with Clinton," New York Times, March 22, 2007, El; author interview with Taylor Branch in 2007. Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, says the oral history project began in late 1993. (Clinton, My Life, ii.)

73. Author interview with John Henry in 2007.

From the June 10 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: And we're back with the authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Welcome both. Let's go right to it. One of the important parts of this book is this notion of a grand design by Bill and Hillary Clinton to each serve two terms in the White House. This is the way you write about it: "By the summer of 1993 the ways of Washington ... had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary."

You know what's happened now. This is The Washington Post reporting on this: "The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when bill left office. They cite two people," former Times reporter "Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons still planned two terms in the White House for Bill, later two for Hillary. Contacted last night Branch said that 'the story is preposterous,' [and that] 'I never heard either Clinton talk about a "plan" for them both to become President.' " What do you say?

GERTH: Well, Tim, I interviewed Ann Crittenden and John Henry, and they both separately recalled a barbecue dinner in Aspen, Colorado, in 1993 at a rodeo with Taylor Branch, and they were remembering him saying that he had just come from the White House -- he's a historian and had begun talking with President Clinton -- and he told them about -- that Bill Clinton was going to serve eight years and then, at some point, Hillary was going to do eight years in the White House. I later contacted Taylor Branch, asked him if he remembered the dinner in aspen. He said he didn't, but he said he wouldn't deny it. Then he later, when the book came out, he said it was preposterous. I think I would add Taylor is a respected historian, but he himself has admitted that when it comes to Bill Clinton, he can't be objective.

So, there are two people, you know -- Ann Crittenden is an award winning journalist -- two people who say yea, and Taylor Branch says nay. I think, more interestingly and more surprisingly, the ambition of the Clintons going back to when they were in their 20s and the 20-year project that Leon Panetta remembers Bill Clinton describing to him.

RUSSERT: Well, Panetta said Bill Clinton running for president, but it was never about Hillary.

GERTH: No, but Bill Clinton, of course, at that point in the 1970s, even before they married, was talking about that Hillary Clinton, that she could be president but she had to subordinate her plans, of course, to his coming to Arkansas.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (June 11, 2007 8:46 pm ET)
         

      The sad thing is that MMFA attempted to get the article by Jeff Gerth on the New York Times yanked before Clinton went on the air.

      The New York Times did their research and determined that MMFA was  wrong.

      MMFA: four years ago, you were a legit organization (legit socialist organization), now you are just a hit group for Hillary.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (June 11, 2007 8:59 pm ET)
           

        Let's see a link proving your opinion, please.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (June 11, 2007 9:41 pm ET)
           

        I would not go that far, I see as more concerning MMFA constant promoting of Keith Olbermann.  That to me hurts the credibility of MMFA not a valid reason to pick apart a blatant bias book. The Olbermann partnership is bad.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 11, 2007 9:14 pm ET)
         

      You'er probably not holding your breath Snoopy. CopiousDB seems new. though the final accusation seems familiar. No, it was a Hillaryspinzone last time.

      Me I'm just waiting for the mothership to come by to update my Hillary's Drone software.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Graydogs (June 11, 2007 10:10 pm ET)
           

        Copious has been on other threads dropping in links to his web site, and blog spot.

        I believe he may have gotten his info about Gerth and Media Matters trying to yank the article from an Accuracy in the Media article from May 31st, by Cliff Kincaid. "Media Are Key to Hillary Victory" Like his web site, it's all a bunch of right wing blather. All the article is missing is the "chart" BO used to show the money coming to MMFA from Soros.....only this article says the money is also coming from Senator Clinton's campaign.

        BTW.....THIS ARTICLE is very informative if you really want to see what Copious really feels about Media Matters. I find it difficult to believe that he EVER agreed with MMFA.

        Monday May 28t "Media Matters for Intellectually Lazy Americans"

         http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/05/media-matters-for-intellectually-lazy.html

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (June 11, 2007 9:25 pm ET)
         

      COPIOUS:

      So, you liked MMFA better when it was starting up, and wasn't having near the impact on national news and discussions as it's having now, with O'Reilly and Savage and so many others getting their knickers in a twist about this "smear website" which "smears" by quoting them verbatim.

      And to make this comment on this thread, I guess you mean to take the side of Gerth and Van Natta, and feel that MMFA is not making any point by showing that this book, which claims to be "objective" and "real reporting" but is in fact a hit piece containing information that is unconfirmed if not openly denied by the purported SOURCES.

      Wow. If you're to make such a sweeping assertion about this website, you should have picked a thread that does not show so clearly that the Rightwing Media is not "LEGIT", and MMFA's claims are proper. Hanging your hat on Gerth's debunked assertions only makes you look foolish. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (June 11, 2007 9:59 pm ET)
           

        Media Matter used to be about reporting real misinformation about objective facts.

        While it was pro socialist, at least I could repspect an opposing view.

        Now, it literally just attacks Conservative opinion that it dislikes.  Why might you ask?  For the same reason you liberals cry about Big Oil...because MMFA is in the pockets of big money from wealthy people/organizations.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (June 11, 2007 10:33 pm ET)
             

          Pro socialist. OK, you have officially lost all touch with reality. Please increase your medication before ATTEMPTING to make an actual coherent post.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (June 12, 2007 7:49 pm ET)
               

            Go to Youtube and type in "Myth of the Liberal Media."  You'll get a MMFA video made about 5 years ago with only open socialists pushing their agenda.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by vontrapp (June 12, 2007 12:13 am ET)
             

          "For the same reason you liberals cry about Big Oil...because MMFA is in the pockets of big money from wealthy people/organizations"

          You have really got to be able to see the irony in such a statement. I hope you can anyways.

          By the by, PROVE your assertion that MMFA is in the pockets of wealthy people. Otherwise you've got not a single leg to stand on and are making baseless accusations.

          Afterwards, you can make me PROVE that Big Oil is in the pockets of... well... Big Oil.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by laserpotato (June 12, 2007 10:17 am ET)
             

          "Media Matter used to be about reporting real misinformation about objective facts."

          And guess what...it still does! In fact, that's all it does.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (June 11, 2007 9:56 pm ET)
         

      mmfa and Olbermann will be busy tomorrow.

      Gerth and Van Natta were interviewed by O'Reilly tonite...and provided more fodder for the on-going catfight.

      To paraphrase...O'Reilly described mmfa as a leftwing smear site and asked the authors for their reaction to mmfa's criticism of their book...they responded with a figurative "dope slap", saying that they don't read mmfa and that they have been interviewed by dozens of reporters concerning their book...and none of the reporters thought that mmfa had any significance.

      Yikes... 

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (June 11, 2007 10:05 pm ET)
           

        I can predict now

        Olbermann names O'Reilly worst person in the world , blah blah blah blah. 

        Its getting old.  Faster than the Indy 500.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by AmericanMutt (June 12, 2007 10:25 am ET)
             

          more likely Keith will name the authors as worse for publishing lies, spin and BS to make a few bucks, unless Billdo injected some of his typical hate speech which you seem to love so much . But hey, you just hate Keith so your opinion is already known and dismissed.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (June 11, 2007 10:09 pm ET)
         

      Media Matters (very little), it's all about protecting Hillary....all the time.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (June 11, 2007 10:11 pm ET)
         

      Has any of this improved the GOP's prospects in 2008? That would be the GOAL, of course, of the books and the interviews and the rehashing of old debunked scandals and the invention of third-hand quotes to be the BASIS of a new book.

      But is any of it getting traction? The GOP is on last-ditch life support, and their man Bush is doing everything possible to assure the boat sinks faster (to mix a metaphor). This latest round of Rightwing attack politics has the appearance, not of a struggle to regain health, but involuntary nerve twitches after the plug has been pulled. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by steve expat (June 11, 2007 10:20 pm ET)
         

      MMFA is now defending Hillary for things that don't even matter. Isn't it obvious that Bill and Hillary Clinton made a decision early on to pursue politics at a high level?  That's what people do when they are trying to succeed in politics or anything else - they make a decision to pursue it.  Does it make a difference whether they held their pinkies together and said a few magic words.  It's getting silly with this website.  They are defending anything and everything about Hillary Clinton.   Soon they'll be going after critics of fashion.  Something like:

      Gerth and Vanetto falsely claim that Hillary Clinton's blouse is indigo when it is actually robin egg blue. 

       Get a life MMFA.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by AmericanMutt (June 12, 2007 10:29 am ET)
           

        let's add it up. 2 old white guys print a book (after getting a big advance) and all they include is warmed over rumors, false allegations and hatred of women. so because it is about Hillary it should be allowed to go unrefuted? Only then MMFA will get your approval I guess. Now if such a book is  printed about a candidate YOU like, if MMFA were to take the same advice from you, you would then accuse them of 'hating' your candidate.

         

        Hypocrisy thy name is Steve... 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by flhinton9099 (June 11, 2007 10:20 pm ET)
         

      So why do you neocons visit liberal blogs and sites?  You have nothing to add to the discussion but right-wing talking points and propaganda.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Roger7 (June 11, 2007 11:48 pm ET)
           

        So why do you neocons visit liberal blogs and sites?

         

        Because many conservatives enjoy reading/hearing as many viewpoints as possible, and they enjoy talking to people with whom they disagree.

        You don't want to hear any opinions that differ from yours, nor do you want to debate people who aren't far-lefties.

        If you did, you wouldn't have asked why we're here. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (June 12, 2007 6:48 am ET)
             

          that's pretty amusing considering the hero of the conservative movement, rush limbaugh, has only conservative politicians and guests, and tells his dittoheads not to listen to anyone but him and don't read the newspaper cause he will tell you everything you need to know.

           

          Report Abuse
        • Author by neondesert (June 12, 2007 11:46 am ET)
             

          Because many conservatives enjoy reading/hearing as many viewpoints as possible(1), and they enjoy talking to people with whom they disagree(2).

          You don't want to hear any opinions that differ from yours, nor do you want to debate people who aren't far-lefties.(3)

          (1) limpaugh, hannity, savage, o'reilly, gibson, coulter, beck, boortz, hewitt, gallagher, malkin, ingraham, hume, kristol, gingrich, liddy, north, farah, krauthammer, sowell, podhoretz, frum, levin, lopez, hinderaker... and others as time permits.

          (2)"to", not "with".  There should be no implication that these "many conservatives" expect, welcome, or even acknowledge informed analysis or additional facts which are contrary to their established opinions.

          (3) The dividing line between "right" and "left" was established in 1994 and is generally known as the "Weiner line", after it's embodiment, Michael "Savage" Weiner whose ideologies represent a fulcrum upon which all other ideologies seem balanced.  Because the ideological mass to the right of the Weiner line is so dense, and the ideological mass to the left of the Weiner line is spread out over a much larger area, the Weiner line can be graphically depicted as a single vertical line which exists approximately 3/16ths of the distance from the right end of a finite horizontal line representing the spectrum of political ideology.  Therefore, "far" left is defined as any ideology which has more than 2% of separation leftward from Mr. "Savage" Weiner.  Further explanation of this ideological balance can be obtained from Fox News network.  For accompanying charts in glorious color, send correspondence directly to Mr. Bill O'Reilly.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 12, 2007 10:26 am ET)
           

        I think it is a good thing to have conservatives here.  I wouldn't come here if everyone thought alike.

        I don't know who he was quoting, but my dad used to always tell me, "Any place you find where people all think alike, no one thinks much at all."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by flhinton9099 (June 11, 2007 10:26 pm ET)
         

      I agree with Tex.  This is just a last ditch hit piece on Hillary Clinton, whom many consider the presumptive Democratic nominee.  As far as I'm concerned the race isn't over yet.  We don't know who will win the Democratic nomination.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 12, 2007 1:20 am ET)
         

      Roger babes we'll argue with anyboby who puts up a real argument. we have some of a conservative nature who post regularly. Most of them have some respect on site. Unlike you they are willing to actually argue. Some are here just to jerk our chains. We jerk back. It is a conversation of sorts. They make points they are acknowlegded. They're here for the duration.  Compared to them you're a wimp.

      So how many conservative sites could I get away with what you do here. Per your description most of them should be ok with it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ChessGuy (June 12, 2007 9:02 am ET)
         

      Is it me or are the NeoNuts coming out of the woodwork every time a new Hillary article is posted? Well that and the gratuitious, why is this here post for every KO article and 1/2 the others. Like is mentioned above, some are valid and give good argument, the seagulls are just here for entertainment value.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (June 12, 2007 11:15 am ET)
         

      Biographies should strive to be accurate.  It's hard for even a well researched book, though, to pull back the curtain on another person's life.  It usually is done best when the subject is no longer living and the issues are irrelevant.  Then the biographer can (not always is) objective.

      Most authors wind up projecting their own opinions onto the person thay're writing about.  That seems to be the case here.  The snippets I've read from the book seem to be personal opinion and also reflect a male bias about a strong woman and her character. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 12, 2007 12:49 pm ET)
         

      I don't think Hillary should run. I think her negatives are so high that Democratic hopes would be better placed in a less controversial person. I also don't like some of her positions on issues. I lived in upstate New York for the last few decades so I know her and New York politics.

      There's no evidence of a long term plan between the Clinton's. We can hope that the two people who were sources for the authors' statement that Bill and Hillary had a long term plan for Hillary were being as honest as they could be. They might be liars too, but let's assume they were telling the truth.

      The authors should have gone to the source and gotten it from him directly before they published it. They didn't get his sign-off on that story, but they still went with it.

      Now, after the book is published, the original source of that comment about the Clinton's aspirations for Hillary has called that allegation "preposterous".

      Authors who were trying to create a factual book about Hillary would acknowledge that mistake. These authors are trying to cover up that mistake by failing to acknowledge it!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sagra (June 12, 2007 1:33 pm ET)
         

      The whole "secret plan" angle is just so God-awful stupid.  People hate Hillary because they've hung out in their little cesspits with other Clinton Haters for the past decade and passed around rumors of their bad character like a big ole pipe full of Freeper crack.  None of it's based on anything factual. 

      Really, it's just sad that they think their masturbatory fantasies about "secret 20-year plans" are real... or that any hopes and dreams the Clintons might have shared could possibly be more sinister than Barbara Bush dandling baby Jeb on her knee and considering his potential.

      I probably won't vote for Hillary in the primary anyway, but I certainly think the mental gymnastics of the Hillary haters club qualifies as conservative misinformation in the media.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by unhipcat (June 12, 2007 1:50 pm ET)
         

      So what? Hillary supposedly thought early in life about being president. And that's a bad thing? You'd prefer a doofus waking up in his mid-50s,  buying a "ranch" (what does he grow on that arid dirt, anyway?) and claiming he's going to be the "first CEO president"? We see how well that "plan" has worked out for everyone. ... and while I'm at it, does anyone honestly believe Gomer ever cranked up a chain saw before a TV crew was standing in front of him?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sagra (June 12, 2007 3:00 pm ET)
           

        Plus there was the whole "I'll show Daddy" vibe that was major-league creepy.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by unhipcat (June 12, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
         

      Sorry. I meant sobering up, not waking up.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by LarryE (June 12, 2007 4:21 pm ET)
         

      You know what gets me about this whole business? I don't care!

      I understand a concern over a media feeding frenzy that looks to turn every triviality about (usually) a Democrat into an  "OMIGOD!" front-page exclusive, but on the "revelation" itself? Just how trivial can a triviality be?

      So both Bill and Hillary Clinton were politically ambitious? Oh! Oh! How shall we ever cope? What oh what shall we do?

      Oh my, I think I'm getting the vapors.... 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 13, 2007 12:34 am ET)
           

        If it were true. Larry, it would mean that Bill didn't want to fix Healthcare in the USA. It would mean that he wanted a platform to show off Hillary, trying to prep her for being President.

        If it were true, it would mean that she didn't really want to be a US Senator from New York. It would mean that she only was using New York as an end to a means. It would mean that everything she chose to do while Senator was only a ploy to get voters to like her, and none of it can be trusted as her being a good and faithful public servant.

        It'd be the same message they've been trying to paint about Hillary for years. Supposedly she's really a wild-eyed liberal, and she's been pretending to be a moderate to fool people. Just wait until she gets into office, and boy won't we be surprised they warn us.

        That's why this is such a big deal to some of them, including these two authors. They are trying to unfairly smear her. One of her strengths is that she truly is a moderate. More people will vote for a moderate than will vote for a wild-eyed liberal. They have to try to fight against that, so they continually try to paint her as a deceitful liberal wearing moderate clothing.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.