Obama Must Sideline Bill Before Making Hillary SoS

[Erin Elizabeth]

I was looking around on a Google news search and found this opinion piece:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/11/19/2008-11-19_barack_obama_must_sideline_bill_clinton_.html

Barack Obama might already have made his first big mistake. If it is true, as reports say, he has offered Hillary Clinton the secretary of state job without first unmasking Bubba's business ties and restricting new ones, Obama is rushing into a thicket of Clinton conflicts that eventually will embarrass him.

It is a gross understatement to say Bill Clinton's paid speeches and international fund-raising present potential conflicts of interest with the foreign policy Secretary Hillary would be shaping. There is nothing "potential" about the conflicts.

They already exist and will multiply unless Obama gives Bubba a stark choice: your globe-trotting career or your wife's. The status quo, the tired 2-for-1 Clinton plan, should be a nonstarter, unless Obama is prepared to let Hillary mix large parts of America's foreign policy with Bill's $500 million business and foundation empire.

If Obama has any doubts about the trouble he would be getting into without full disclosure and clear restrictions, he need only look at yesterday's New York Times. It reported that Bill Clinton endorsed his wife for the State job - from Kuwait. He was there making a paid speech, the Times said, noting he made a staggering $10 million from speaking fees last year alone.

How much Clinton has taken from foreign governments and donors, and what he did in exchange, is a mystery because the former President resists full disclosure. Obama made an issue of that against Hillary during the campaign; he can't very well ignore it if she is the secretary of state. All the more so because he is asking extensive personal questions of those who want lesser jobs in his White House.

(Me: which is yet another reason I don't believe this has really been offered to her!)

One notorious case of Bill Clinton's conflicts concerns his dealings with the despotic ruler of Kazakhstan. Clinton traveled to that Central Asian nation in 2005 with a Canadian businessman who was seeking uranium-mining contracts from its government. Soon after what The Times described as a midnight banquet with Kazakhstan's president, the businessman got the windfall contracts while Clinton bestowed on the Kazakh ruler a propaganda coup by lauding his democratic leadership.

That contradicted Washington's position and even that of Sen. Clinton, that Kazakhstan had suppressed political dissent and abused human rights. Within months, the Canadian businessman, Frank Giustra, donated $31 million to Clinton's foundation.

There is some surprise in Obama's willingness to get mixed up with Clinton Inc., given how he faulted their sloppy ethics. With much of the primary focused on her vote for the Iraq invasion, the move to hire her has set off howling from anti-war activists on the Democratic left.

For my ears, the howling is a plus because it reflects that Hillary is more of a centrist than Obama. She famously scolded him for saying he would meet without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea. And though she later caved in to anti-war pressure, she initially rejected a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

Those policy distinctions, along with her general seriousness about serious issues, are what make her a good choice. Actually, she is a great choice compared with others on Obama's short list.

The only reason to name John Kerry or Bill Richardson would be to reward their campaign support. But a cushy ambassadorship is standard payback for political support. No cabinet position should be used that way, certainly not the State Department.

Besides, Obama has to be intrigued that having her out of the Senate, and often out of the country, would diminish the chance Hillary would become the shop steward for grievances against him. By working for him, she effectively would be taking herself out of presidential politics until 2016, when she would turn 69.

Those are reasons why the choice makes sense. But first there is the challenge of defusing the Bubba bomb that could ruin everything.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Goodwin has hated the Clintons for years.

In Foreign Policy, Bubba's a real asset.

[Deep13]

2. I think Obama is strong enough to live with an active Bill Clinton. nt

[rvablue]

3. One thing everyone needs to SERIOUSLY keep in mind while listening to those in the media

dissecting everything Bill does and how it has to be reigned in and how it could look bad for Obama, blah, blah, blah, blah......

IS:

Did the media go through this hand-wringing and worry and concern when our CURRENT president's father, also a former president who independantly traveled, met with foreign leaders and raised money?

NO. They never said a damn word about, not at the beginning and not now at the horrible, horrible end.

Now, maybe the MSM's meme of the day re:Bill fits into the way you want things to go b/c you personally don't want Hillary as SoS.

But we had all better wake up to the fact that everyone from talking heads, to columnists to serious journalists, are drumming this into our heads day and night. And we all might to want to ask ourselves why???????

Why wasn't it a "conflict of interest" or worrisome that Bush, Sr. sat on the board of Carlyle when little Bushies became the CiC???????????

[Erin Elizabeth]

4. We aren't Republicans.

[rvablue]

6. EE, I know we aren't Republicans and I don't advocate playing by

their corrupt and hypocritical rules.

My post was about the Media and why all of a sudden this issue is SOOOOOO important to them.

It really should be food for thought.
I wasn't suggesting that Bill shouldn't be vetted.
But why didn't it matter one single iota to any media outlet when the president's father was out doing the same exact thing....no, no...worse!

[QC]

5. Michael Goodwin????? n/t

[xchrom]

7. you must really doubt obama's ability to make a decision. nt