I guess we now know the source of Robert Novak's reported 'rumor' last month.
The Hill reports:
New Hampshire power player Billy Shaheen stepped down as national co-chairman of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign just a day after bringing up Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) drug use in an interview with a reporter.This wouldn't be any worse than what Republicans would do with another go 'round at Hillary 'Rose law firm' Clinton (or 'murderer of Vince Foster', or 'cattle futures' or 'White House travel office' or 'killer of Kathleen Willey's cat', etc., etc., etc.).
Shaheen, whose wife, former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is running against Sen. John Sununu (R), told The Washington Post Wednesday that Democrats should consider how Republicans might use Obama’s admission of past drug use against him in a general election.
“It'll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” Shaheen said in the interview.
In the firestorm that followed, Shaheen said the comments were not authorized by the campaign, and Clinton said she personally apologized to Obama, promising not to engage in personal attacks for the remainder of the campaign.
Obama’s campaign immediately seized on Shaheen’s comments Wednesday and turned them into a fundraising plea.
“This race took a sharply negative turn yesterday,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in an e-mail to supporters. “With recent polls giving Barack the lead in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and just three weeks left before the Iowa caucuses, the attacks on Barack’s character that Hillary Clinton has called ‘the fun part’ of this campaign have reached a new low.”
In his statement as released by the Clinton campaign, Shaheen said he wanted “to reiterate that I deeply regret my comments yesterday and say again that they were in no way authorized by Sen. Clinton or the Clinton campaign.”
“Sen. Clinton has been running a positive campaign focused on the issues that matter to America’s families,” Shaheen said in his statement. “She is the best qualified to be the next president of the United States because she can lead starting on day one. I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down as the co-chair of the Hillary for President campaign. This election is too important and we must all get back to electing the best-qualified candidate who has the record of making change happen in this country. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.”
Each day that passes, I am less likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. At the beginning of her campaign, as much as I loathe what Bush-Cheney and Republicans have done to this country, I couldn't imagine ever voting for Hillary.
What comes of Bill Shaheen's "stepping down" (versus Hillary's not firing him) is that when the sleaziness dies down a few weeks down the road, he'll rejoin her campaign.
I've never been enamoured of Jeanne Shaheen; not as a leader, not as a politician, nor now of her spouse's ethics. A 'moderate Democrat' (which has come to mean 'Republican who has infiltrated the Democratic party), the only Democratic policies she claims are pro-gay rights (not much of a political risk in New Hampshire, the state the Sopranos' gay mobster, Vito, hid out in from Tony Soprano's homophobic crew) and pro-choice (moot these days, after years of Republicans gutting women's access to abortion). After losing the Senate race to John Sununu in 2004, Shaheen became one of the entitled losers we're seeing so frequently nowadays - As if another chance is owed to them.
I'm in complete agreement with Chris Bowers:
Shaheen is one of the many, many Democrats who first helped lead the party into simultaneous minority and pro-war status back in 2002-2003, but who is now capitalizing on the favorable electoral stage that was prepared mainly by the progressive movement during four years of intense guerilla warfare against conservatism from 2003-2006. While the Jean Shaheen's and Rahm Emanual's of the party were supporting things like the Bush tax cuts, the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and legislation to support Terry Schaivo, it was the netroots who were doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in opposition to Republicans. I feel like they are capitalizing on what we rightfully earned, and both dissing us and preparing to destroy all of our work in the process. They are pretenders to the new Democratic majority.What good is winning with just any Democrat (Hillary, Obama, et al) if all that happens is politics and policies worthy of Republicans?