Bill Clinton on The Huffington Post

Mark Joseph: Secretary of State Clinton? I Just Don't Get It

2008-11-22T02:16:04Z

For the life of me I just don't understand why a) President-elect Obama would want to choose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and b) she would accept the post.

Why would Obama want to tarnish his brand new administration with the Clinton soap opera of Monica, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Marc Rich and company when he could start fresh with an entirely new team? And why would he want a mortal enemy like Hillary who is probably at this very moment plotting her comeback strategy for 2012, inside his administration, leaking to the press and undermining him? I thought he put the Clintons away for good. He seems too smart to do something like this.

Then again I don't understand Hillary's reasons either. Why would she want to take the post of Secretary of State, not exactly traditionally a stepping-stone position to the Presidency when she could stay in the Senate, knock off Harry Reid and become Majority Leader and be in good shape either for a rematch against Obama in 2012 or a run at Joe Biden in 2016.

Hey, they can get hitched if they want to, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Joe Peyronnin: Senator Clinton Again

2008-11-21T16:08:46Z

At long last it appears that Senator Hillary Clinton will be President-elect Barack Obama's Secretary of State. The announcement will apparently be made after Thanksgiving, along with the names of the rest of Obama's national security team.

So now it falls to New York Governor David Paterson to appoint a replacement. And, of course, a lot of lobbying is going on behind the scenes for this plum assignment. The governor has taken his own name out of the running, but the state's aggressive attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, is a strong candidate.

Governor Paterson, if you haven't done so already, give William Jefferson Clinton a call and see if he's interested. It is not unprecedented. Two former presidents have served in the U.S. Congress in the past. Former President John Quincy Adams spent 17 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and President Andrew Johnson served as a U.S. Senator.

President Clinton is one of the most powerful and admired politicians in the United States. His presidency was largely very successful; the country prospered and during his two terms America was widely respected around the world.

With the U.S. economy in the tank and our troops fighting two wars, there is plenty of work to be done. Clinton is exceptionally knowledgeable on most issues, passionate and he has unmatched experience, including as a state governor. And he will have more time because, with Hillary's appointment as secretary of state, Bill will have to curtail his outside speaking and fund-raising. And the Clinton's can buy a second home in Foggy Bottom, just a short hop from Reagan Airport and the New York shuttle.

Yes, Bill is a bit of a maverick and he likes to speak his mind. But he may be more constrained as a senator than as a private citizen. And senators are independent operators, so he will have plenty of flexibility. Can you imagine both Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Bill Clinton serving the same state in the same chamber? My hunch is Clinton would try not to do anything that undermines or embarrasses his wife in the world's greatest deliberative body (like South Carolina), nor with the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet he would be a powerful force and voice to assist in positive change for America.

The Clinton Senate seat is up again in two years. If Bill Clinton does not like the job he can always step aside. But this is "an all hands on deck" time in our nation's history, to quote Obama. This country needs all the heavy-hitters it can muster on the front lines fully engaged. The country needs ideas, innovation, imagination and people who can deal with the complicated and challenging issues facing America today.

President-elect Barack Obama is confident, intelligent and secure enough to handle strong-willed people. Bill Clinton is a smart, savvy and superbly experienced leader. And America needs all the help it can get.

Bill Clinton's Future Speeches To Be Vetted In Deal

2008-11-21T14:47:18Z

Ex-President Bill Clinton will have to submit for approval his overseas travel itineraries and the prepared text of his speeches to Barack Obama's White House as a condition for his wife becoming secretary of state, the Daily News has learned.

With her husband agreeing to the short leash, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is on the fast track to becoming the nation's top diplomat. Obama's formal announcement is due after Thanksgiving, sources have said.

Bill's Lucrative Speaking Engagements Create Potential Conflicts For Hillary

2008-11-20T22:59:14Z

It would be interesting to know how the average New York voter would respond when told that during the past three years their Senator and her spouse personally received $2.1 million from such major banks as Goldman Sachs ($800,000), Lehman Bros. ($300, 000), Citigroup ($425,000) and Deutsche Bank ($300,000).

The money -- honoraria payments to former President Clinton -- demonstrate that the conflicts between Bill Clinton's multi-million dollar financial entanglements and his wife's possible selection as Secretary of State are just as relevant in the case of the elected office Hillary Clinton currently holds, raising to front and center the same glaring conflicts of interest that have gone largely overlooked during Hillary's eight years in the Senate.

Sources close to the Clintons sought to justify the ex-president's speaking fees by noting that wealthy spouses of other Senators, including the wives of John Kerry of Massachusetts and John McCain of Arizona, have multi-million dollar fortunes, often invested in the stocks of companies that stand to gain or lose as a result of tax and regulatory decisions made by Congress.

Still, the Clintons' situation has some particularly egregious aspects. The New York Senator has been as much the beneficiary as her husband of the up to $10 million a year in honoraria Bill has earned. Almost all of the Clintons' assets are held jointly, and they file a joint income tax return.

The potential for conflict of interest in this situation is most easily visible in the case of major legislation presently under consideration in Washington. If Hillary stays in the Senate, the most pressing issue will be the financial crisis. She has already voted for the $700 billion bailout bill, which is likely to be only the first step in federal attempts to pull the economy out of its nosedive.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Senator Clinton has not only received campaign contributions from the investment and securities industries -- industries with huge stakes in the outcome of measures almost certain to be taken up in 2009-10 -- but Bill and Hillary together have also taken as personal income, for their own use, millions of dollars paid to Bill in the form of honoraria, running from $125,000 to $325,000 for a single speech to interest groups directly affected by his wife's legislative position. The Clintons are not alone in the practice, but they have raised the stakes to unprecedented heights. In 2006, for example, Joe Lieberman's wife spoke to the Jewish Community Relations Council in Philadelphia, the Jewish Federation of Central Alabama, and the Junior League of Dayton making a total of $34,000 --- chump change compared to the $10,232,000 (yes, that's ten million+) Bill Clinton made in honoraria the same year.

Looking just at the finance industry over the past three years, in 2007 three major investment banking firms -- Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. and Citigroup - already on center stage in the financial downturn, each paid Bill Clinton $150,000, for a total of $450,000, for single speeches to company officials and their guests. The year before that, 2006, the Mortgage Bankers Association, Citigroup and Lehman paid Clinton a total of $600,000. In 2005, Deutsche Bank paid $300,000 for two speeches; Goldman Sachs paid $525,000 for three appearances in Paris, Greensboro, Ga. and Kiawah Island, S.Car. In 2004, Bill Clinton's honoraria included $250,000 from Citigroup and $125,000 from Goldman Sachs.

This $2.25 million does not include payments to Bill Clinton from such closely-related firms as Swedish industrial holding company Investor AB ($325,000), Dutch real estate investment company OVG Rotterdam ($250,000); U.S. real estate developer Cushman and Wakefield ($300,000); General Motors ($200,000) which is pleading for a piece of the bailout; the National Apartment Association ($150.000); the National Association of Realtors ($125,000); the Standard Bank of South Africa ($150,000); and the National Multi-Housing Council ($150,000).

The involvement of the financial and real estate sectors in domestic politics is immense, no matter which way you look at it. So far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the investment and securities industry has given a total of $53 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates; and real estate has put up $51.1 million. The courts have ruled that these contributions do not, except under highly unusual circumstances, constitute bribes or illegal gratuities; instead, they are simply part of the business of serving in public office.

Philippe Reines, Senator Clinton's spokesman, responded to an inquiry regarding any potential conflict of interest between her large income from honoraria paid to her husband by the industries which are subject to regulation (or largesse) noted that the Senator "files an annual personal financial disclosure, which delineates every penny President Clinton receives from speaking, as well as every general income source. The whole point of requiring the 535 members to do that annually is to provide transparency." Asked whether the millions of dollars in direct payments from finance and real estate companies to Bill Clinton pose an ethical dilemma for Senator Clinton when she votes on measures such as the $700 billion bailout bill, which provides subsidies to the same firms which pay her husband, Reines said the "example of the bailout is misleading, in that every member who voted for it benefits in some way from saving the financial system from collapse - unless they keep their life's worth in gold ingots."

Clinton Camp Waiting On Obama, Source Says

2008-11-20T18:08:12Z

Advisers to Bill and Hillary Clinton believe they've given the Obama transition team much if not all of the all the information on Bill's post-presidency they will be asking for, and see the Clinton camp as now being in a holding pattern, waiting on a formal offer of the State Department gig to Hillary from Obama, a source close to the negotiations tells us.

The source adds that it's always possible that more requests for info about Bill could be made, which the Clinton team would willingly furnish if asked, but says that it looks as if the vast majority of the Obama camp's desires have been met. Multiple news outlets have reported that Hillary has not made up her mind whether to take the gig, and the source confirms this.

Norman Solomon: Obama, Bill Clinton and the Media "Center"

2008-11-20T17:37:52Z

It's been 16 years since a Democrat moved into the White House. Now, the fog of memory and the spin of media are teaming up to explain that Barack Obama must hew to "the center" if he knows what's good for his presidency.

"Many political observers," the San Francisco Chronicle reported days ago, say that Obama "must tack toward the political mainstream to avoid miscalculations made by President Bill Clinton, who veered left and fired up the 1994 Republican backlash." This storyline provides a kind of political morality play: The new president tried to govern from the left, and Democrats lost control of Congress just two years later.

But, if facts matter, the narrative is a real head-scratcher.

During the 1992 election year, Clinton had campaigned for the White House under the mantra "Putting People First." But as economic analyst Doug Henwood was to comment, President-elect Clinton swiftly morphed into the champion of an austerity plan that could have been called "Putting Bondholders First."

From the outset, President Clinton made clear his commitments to the corporate centers of economic power by choosing such officials as Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, trade representative Mickey Kantor and Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

Soon after becoming president, Clinton abandoned his few initial stances that might qualify as "left." He quickly deserted his brief position for gay rights in the military. Under fire for his nomination of progressive law professor Lani Guinier to be assistant attorney general for civil rights, Clinton tossed her overboard.

In sharp contrast, the new president fought like hell for the corporate-beloved trade agreement known as NAFTA. And he spread his wings as a deficit hawk, while his campaign's pledges of "public investment" fell to earth with paltry line items. Less than five months into his presidency, Newsweek lauded Clinton's "shift to the right" and urged him to show "the backbone" to stay there.

But none of that has stopped the media's clucking about the Clinton administration's early "lurch to the left." The myth never died, though it was quickly ripe for debunking.

In real time, one of the most astute debunkers was Barbara Ehrenreich. As the only writer from the left with a regular column in a major U.S. newsmagazine (she later got the boot), Ehrenreich wrote a Time piece in mid-June 1993 that directly addressed the nascent mythology. The incoming president's leftward lurch was "a neat parable," she noted, "but it never happened."

Ehrenreich added: "The lurch to the left is like the 'stab in the back' invented by right-wing Germans after World War One: an instant myth designed to discredit all one's political enemies in one fell swoop. ... Maybe it's been so long that we've forgotten what 'left' is and how to tell it from right. At the simplest, most ecumenical level, to be on the left means to take the side of the underdog, whoever that may be: the meek, the poor and, generally speaking, the 'least among us,' as a well-known representative of the left position put it a couple of millenniums ago."

More than 15 years after Barbara Ehrenreich wrote those words, the tall tale of President Clinton's lurch to the left is still in the air. Warning Democratic politicians against being "liberal" or moving "left" remains a time-honored -- even compulsive -- media ritual. But as Barack Obama fills key economic posts in his administration, the left-leery and corporate-friendly press is likely to be quite content.

Sam Greenfield: I was Thinking...

2008-11-20T17:08:29Z

1) If you are asking for a loan, don't fly in by private jet to firm things up.

2) Anyone who threatens President-elect Obama's life should be sent to jail and after release, wear an ankle bracelet while cleaning the toilets of an African American church.

3) Clinton should stay in the senate and Bill should lecture on the road -- a win-win.

4) The picture of every child killed by an illegal firearm should be mounted in the lobby of the N.R.A.

5) How different would the world be if RFK had become president. If Al Gore had not been cheated. If John Kerry knew how to campaign. If George Bush fell off the wagon. If Dick Cheney had an attack of conscience.

6) Every Republican windbag is asking the auto unions for a giveback, but no message to the CEOs to cut THEIR gazillion dollar income. Hmmmm.

7) Somebody should tell Rudy Giuliani that no one really wants to vote for him, they are actually voting against someone else.

8) The government should help poor kids go to school,the malnourished eat, the sick get treatment, in fact everyone who needs help, real help should be able to ask the government for it and get it. Instead of the government helping the filthy rich, the filthy rich should surrender part of their wealth to make the US a better country, and anyone who disagrees with that is a selfish pig.

9) If Rush Limbaugh had graduated from college, maybe he wouldn't hate the educated so much. Maybe if he hadn't flopped at three marriages,he wouldn't have said the things he said about cancer victim Elizabeth Edwards. Maybe.

10) If you voted for Bush and don't regret it, you should have to take an entrance exam to vote again. When stupid people get suckered by self-serving know nothings, we all suffer. Enough.

11) It is 2008, can Washingtonians stop calling their NFL team the most racist nickname in all of sports?

12) How many soldiers would be in Iraq if the Middle East had no oil whatsoever?

13) A barrel, a pound of meat, Ann Coulter and Dick Morris. Once again, a win-win.

Michael Carmichael: Remanent Rivalry: Obama and Clinton

2008-11-20T12:05:12Z

Amidst the rising tide of reports, leaks and speculation that President-elect Barack Obama will offer the key Cabinet position of Secretary of State to Senator Hillary Clinton, pundits have detected remanent rivalry between their two houses.

Most of the current rash of speculation centers on claims that top political operatives in the Clinton camp have launched the transparent and clumsy gambit of "strategic leaks" designed to "box" in the President-elect and compel him to appoint his former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

A report in the New York Times revealed the rising tension between the two political families. Unidentified sources in the Obama Transition Team that is led by former Clinton Chief-of-Staff, John Podesta, are now charging that the Clintons and their retinue are maneuvering to force the President-elect to appoint Senator Clinton.

A growing chorus of pundits predicts that the aggressive maneuvering by the Clintons and their staff presages a potentially troubling tension between the former rivals that could evolve into a complicated relationship between the White House and Foggy Bottom in the Obama administration.

During the campaign for the Democratic nomination, deep fissures emerged between the foreign policy visions of Senators Clinton and Obama. Driven by her need to defend her vote in favor of the Iraq War and her stalwart support of funding for the unpopular war, Senator Clinton adopted a relatively conservative position on foreign policy. In stark contrast to his rival, Senator Obama brandished his opposition to the Iraq War to define his more progressive posture on US foreign policy.

While both candidates argued their cases, the distinctions between the two became much sharper. Senator Obama stated that he would break with the non-negotiation policy of the Bush White House and authorize diplomatic contacts with Iran, Syria and North Korea, while Senator Clinton ridiculed the notion of diplomacy with rival states as, "irresponsible and frankly naive."

While both candidates stated their agreement on the need to end the war, Senator Obama proposed a timetable for US withdrawal while Senator Clinton favored the open-ended approach of the Bush-Cheney administration. The contrast between their positions was starkly revealed when Senator Obama withdrew from co-sponsoring the Feingold-Reid Bill that did not specify the end date for withdrawal while Senator Clinton was a prominent co-sponsor of the bill.

Senator Obama's insistence on a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq and his call for a change in the mindset that led to the war became the focus of a great deal of analysis. The Atlantic Monthly proclaimed that the Senator from Illinois had articulated his "Obama Doctrine," that represented, "the most sweeping, liberal foreign-policy critique that we have heard from a serious presidential contender in decades."

In the primary campaign, the progressive wing supported Senator Obama while the Reagan Democrats and their fellow travelers, the New Democrats, supported Senator Clinton. Throughout the primary campaign it was crystal clear that the division of the Party across the gaping ideological fault line was driven by the glaring distinctions in foreign policy.

Shortly after his victory over her in the Montana primary when he clinched the nomination, Senator Clinton graciously offered her support to Senator Obama. A few days later, stories broke that the two rivals had held a secret meeting in Washington, DC. Speculation about the content of that secret meeting involved ruminations about the role of the Clintons in the forthcoming presidential campaign against John McCain, but it is not impossible that the two rivals might have discussed the details of potential collaboration in a future Obama administration.

In the run-up to the Democratic Convention speculation was rife that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton would form a "dream team," amidst hopeful notions that he would select his former rival as his Vice-Presidential nominee. The Clinton factotums, James Carville and Paul Begala were rolled out on the networks to proclaim the sagacity of such a pairing, but it was not to be.

Further tensions between the two houses emerged when former President Bill Clinton told confidants who leaked the story to the news media that he felt isolated by Senator Obama who had studiously refrained from consulting him. Speculation about the prominent media exposure granted to the Clintons during the Democratic National Convention in Denver were running high right up to the two consecutive nights that they dominated the national media with their speeches endorsing Barack Obama. Both of the Clinton speeches were deemed effective, and both campaigned for the Obama-Biden ticket in the fall.

In the aftermath of his impressive victory over Senator McCain, the Clintons and their team rushed to the forefront to clamor for positions on the Transition Team and in the Obama administration. A Clinton loyalist, John Podesta, was appointed to head the Obama Transition, and another Clintonite, Rahm Emanuel, was swiftly named Chief-of-Staff for the Obama White House.

At that point, the news broke by means of a series of high-level leaks that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would be President-elect Obama's choice for the key post of Secretary of State. The usual Clinton loyalists headed by Carville and Begala were rolled out for the networks and the project gained a momentum of its own.

Ten days later, former President Clinton is reportedly submitting his vast international business operations to the scrutiny of the Obama Transition Team for their vetting of his wife as a potential Secretary of State. Reports that the former president is now "cooperating" with the investigations of the Obama Transition are now flooding the news media characterizing the situation by the veiled implication that William Jefferson Clinton might be the leading suspect in a series of major international crimes.

It should be needless to observe that no President can afford the luxury of a difficult relationship with their Secretary of State or their spouse -- most especially not in a time of war, sagging US prestige and rapidly rising international tensions. The ongoing drama still unfolding around the relationship between the President-elect and his potential Secretary of State augurs ill for Senator Clinton as a leading member of the Obama administration.

Given her history with her former rival from Illinois, the Senator from New York might think better of exposing herself and her spouse to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune should she become the Secretary of State and official lightning rod for President Obama.

Eric Boehlert: The Press and New Presidents: The Media's Double Standard

2008-11-20T07:48:16Z

The conventional wisdom is quite clear: The press always turns skeptical and becomes combative when new presidents come to town. Except, of course, when the press does not.

In truth, the model being touted today by media insiders didn't apply to the previous two administrations. That model didn't apply to Bill Clinton in 1993 because the press wasn't simply skeptical about his administration, the press savaged it. And the model didn't apply to George W. Bush in 2001, because instead of turning combative toward him, the press rolled over for the Republican.

In terms of how the press has treated the last two new presidents, there's the Democratic model (i.e. overly hostile), and the Republican model (overly docile).

The assumption today is that it was a cacophony of missteps made by the new Clinton-led Democratic team that generated the bad press in 1993. That reporters and pundits simply responded to the bungled attempt at transition. What's been erased from that equation, though, is the acknowledgment that with or without the miscues, the press had already adopted an entirely new, contentious, and often disrespectful way of treating an incoming president.

What's also glossed over is the fact that eight years later, the press then radically adjusted its standards -- again -- for the new Republican president.

Read the full Media Matters column here.

Bill Clinton Stumps In Georgia

2008-11-19T20:08:44Z

ATLANTA — Former President Bill Clinton on Wednesday appealed to Georgians to send Democrat Jim Martin to Washington arguing the state's hotly contested Senate runoff must provide a "bridge not a firewall" to the progress promised by President-elect Barack Obama.

"The hopes of America are riding with Georgia," Clinton told a rally at Clark Atlanta University, a historically black college.

Chris Weigant: Is Hillary Nomination Offer A Red Herring?

2008-11-19T16:42:57Z

The term "red herring" has been around for hundreds of years. It specifically refers to taking a smoked (and therefore pungent) herring and dragging it across the trail of a fugitive, in order to throw off the scent of any tracking dogs in pursuit. The term's use has evolved (with the help of mystery writers everywhere) to now mean any intentional misdirection used to draw attention from other events or motives. And while I could be proven wildly mistaken, I think the whole "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" circus will prove to be nothing more than a gigantic red herring. Something smells fishy about it, to stretch the metaphor a bit.

Basing my reasoning on absolutely no hard facts (which I fully admit up front), here's the scenario that keeps suggesting itself to my addled brain (and which, to my surprise, doesn't seem to have suggested itself to anyone else): during the discussions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (which took place between the end of the primary season and when she began campaigning for him), Hillary gets Barack to agree to this sideshow if he gets elected. She will be "offered" Secretary of State, which she will then decline "because there's so much to do in the Senate." But -- and here's the crux of my thinking -- she will gain by this situation by improving her prestige in the Senate and attaining more power than she normally would have (due to her low seniority status).

The first thing which made me suspicious about the whole story was the fact that it was such a big story. The day it broke in the media, some were saying she "had been offered" the position, some hedged their bets by saying things like "Clinton may have already been offered the job," and some reported (with more restraint) "Clinton is being considered for the job, but no decisions have been made, and no offer has been extended." Since then, the stories have been all over the map. In great detail. From the mainstream media to the nether regions of the blogosphere the story fascinates one and all. Intricacies of vetting are endlessly discussed, what Hillary Clinton is thinking is gone into in depth, and the eternal "what do we do about Bill?" questions are breathlessly asked.

Now, some of this is the press' continued fascination with all things Clinton, and Hillary is certainly newsworthy after her historic run for the Democratic nomination this year. But even so, you've got to ask yourself -- why is this the only story that has leaked in this fashion from the transition team? Obama has run an astoundingly leak-free campaign (and transition) from the beginning, and now they're leaking all over the place on a possible Clinton appointment? Some may chalk this up to the fact that Hillary's campaign was a heck of a lot leakier during the campaign, meaning the leaks in this story may be coming more from her direction than Obama's. But Obama's team hasn't done anything to quash any of these rumors, it should also be noted. Meaning they're OK with the leaks. But being OK with the leaks isn't the same thing as confirming that Hillary Clinton is their first choice, or that they've offered her the job.

The other interesting thing is that during the same time period that the Secretary of State rumors have been swirling, the Democrats met in Washington to select their new leadership positions for the upcoming year in Congress. Now, there is a time-honored procedure in the Senate of doling out plum committee assignments based upon seniority -- the length of time a senator has served. But Clinton is 35th in line for such assignments, which is pretty far back. Now, there are plenty of other Democratic senators who have more seniority but who also didn't just run for president. Hillary is reportedly frustrated that she is simultaneously seen as a "party leader" and yet also so far back in the seniority line. She may be looking to leverage her Secretary of State "offer" into a better place in this line. And, tellingly, Harry Reid seems to be on board with this effort.

I have to pause and explicitly state that nothing I've written here means in any way that I don't think Hillary Clinton would do a good job as Secretary of State. I think she could be a great Secretary of State, and I think she also has the potential to be a disastrous Secretary of State. I can honestly see it going either way. If I am completely wrong about the red herring scenario, and Obama does in fact announce she will be his Secretary of State, I will support her efforts to do well in the job (as I would for anyone so named). Past performance and water under the bridge are not the best indicators of how anyone would handle such an important responsibility, so I am fully ready to give any nominee the benefit of the doubt when they enter office.

But I can't help thinking the entire episode is designed to (1) give the media something to work themselves into a frenzy over (giving Obama more time and freedom to flesh out the rest of his cabinet), and (2) boost Hillary Clinton's stature on the national stage, and in the Senate itself.

If I am right, Hillary Clinton will be the one to hold a press conference -- and not Obama -- in the near future. She will say how honored she is to have been considered for the post, but that after reflection she has decided to continue serving the citizens of the great state of New York from her position in the Senate, where she thinks she will be more effective promoting Barack Obama's agenda and helping the new president get important legislation passed, and so is therefore asking Obama to remove her name for consideration.

This move will bolster her stature and reputation among her many fans and supporters. It will show that she is the one turning the offer down, leaving her supporters feeling good about (1) the fact that she was "offered" the job, (2) the fact that Hillary's power just seems to continue to grow, and (3) Barack Obama, for being gracious enough to allow her to make the choice about her own political future. It will almost completely remove any leftover sour grapes about the nomination race (and about the fact that Hillary was not offered the vice presidency before the convention as well).

It will succeed in improving Hillary's standing in the Senate, and it will also (with hindsight) have allowed Barack Obama to conduct the real vetting process for whoever ultimately gets the position -- without the blinding glare of the media's spotlight.

Meaning a win-win situation all around. Because while being offered Secretary of State is a great feather to have in your cap politically, the job would be somewhat of a dead-end for Clinton, should she accept it. She would serve for one term, then likely be replaced by someone in a second-term Obama administration, leaving her out in the cold after 2012. Unless Obama proves to be a disaster as president, Clinton would not challenge him for the presidency in 2012, and would have a hard time running for the Senate seat she abandoned in New York. Her political career would be in serious danger of being over at that point -- which, again, smells kind of fishy to me.

Which is why this whole Hillary media frenzy seems to me to be nothing more than a gigantic red herring. While the dogs of the media have dutifully gone haring after this story (baying loudly all the while), methinks there's another game afoot.

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Bill Clinton: "I'll Do Whatever They Want"

2008-11-19T16:38:05Z

The New York Observer reports:

Bill Clinton said he'd do "whatever they want" with respect to the vetting process and information he'd have to disclose to the Obama administration to help Hillary Clinton become Obama's secretary of state.

Standing on stage and signing autographs after a ceremony to rename the Triborough Bridge after the late Robert F. Kennedy, Clinton was asked about the vetting process.

"Whatever they want. This is a deal between Senator--" he corrected himself, "President-elect [Obama] and Hillary," Clinton said. "You should talk to them. I'll do whatever they want."

That jibes with reports this morning that the former President had offered "several concessions" as part of the vetting process.

John McQuaid: The Obama Administration: An End to Dynastic Politics?

2008-11-19T12:49:24Z

Barack Obama's early moves to co-opt former adversaries Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are, at least potentially, very smart. They also signal a different way of doing business than we've seen over the past 20 years. The Bush, Clinton, and Bush presidencies weren't just four- or eight-year stints running the government but also clannish, dynastic enterprises with aspirations for potential future presidencies, legacy maintenance, et al. They put a heavy emphasis on personal loyalty and were quick to punish even perceived slights. They had -- and still have -- countless retainers, hangers-on, enforcers, and supplicants willing to say or do or say anything for the team. Think: Lanny Davis. Or recall how Bush 41 functionary Lawrence Eagleburger's honest appraisal of Sarah Palin was immediately followed by a humiliatingly abject and unbelievable recantation.

There's no way to separate the dynasty factor from the pervasive, culture war-driven toxicity of presidential-level politics over the past generation. But it obviously played a role in the atmosphere of more or less constant pettiness and recrimination we've all been living with.

Now, of course there are Obama loyalists too, an "Obamaworld" with its own rules. But Obama has no dynastic project going. Michelle Obama is by all accounts very smart and capable, but there's been no "two for the price of one" talk. At least for now, it's just him. And he seems determined to move away from the politics of backbiting -- something that may just work, given the gravity of the problems the nation faces.

I think/hope these conditions will create a more open, flexible political operation. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Lieberman will ever be an Obama loyalist in the way you have Bush loyalists and Clinton loyalists. But, assuming Clinton takes the Secretary of State job, they will both owe him. And because the obligation is a professional one, graciously offered, to turn around and start undermining him would appear particularly graceless. (Of course, if anyone is capable of that, it's Lieberman -- we'll see.)

The Obama approach also puts White House politics, with its usual emphasis on high drama and personalities, into perspective. It says: we're all grownups here. We have a lot of work to do, and we need all hands on deck. If you do well, I do well, and we all come out ahead. This sounds like management 101, something you might hear on The Office. But sometimes cliches ring true: there really is a lot of work to do, and the stakes are higher than most of us have seen in our lifetimes. Now let's see if the "grownup" approach really works.

William Bradley: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Masterstroke, Mousetrap, Or Both?

2008-11-19T12:28:25Z

Hillary Clinton's Democratic National Convention speech.

Potential Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Masterstroke or mousetrap? Or both?

And for whom?

The political world has been all aflutter for the better part of a week at the prospect -- initially portrayed as a done deal -- that Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama's secretary of state. On the Republican side of the aisle, Henry Kissinger calls her "highly qualified" and Arnold Schwarzenegger dubs it "a great move." The Clintons' opponents in the Democratic Party have been restrained in their response. The media loves it, running with endless references to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's very fine book on the Lincoln Cabinet, an Obama favorite, "Team of Rivals."

Clinton's "3 AM" TV ad attacking Obama.

Is it a masterstroke by President-elect Obama? A mousetrap for the Clintons? Is it even happening at all?

Hillary Clinton is clearly a highly intelligent and accomplished person. She's a formidable debater who prevailed in most of the primary encounters, except towards the end when Obama, who is still improving as a political leader, began getting the best of her. Like most major politicians, she is not an expert in geopolitics, she's a gifted generalist.

I was on many conference calls with Clinton during the primary season. On geopolitical matters, she generally deferred to her experts to provide the most substantive answers to questions, sometimes former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, more frequently the former NATO commander, General Wes Clark. (I found Clark to be the most impressive performer of anyone on all the Clinton conference calls.) After listening to Clark give his answers, Clinton would then agree and add a few other points. Or not.

At one point, Clinton showed that she did not have a firm grasp of the concept of nuclear deterrence. Then there was the time she thought that Pervez Musharraf was running in the elections for Pakistan's parliament. (At that point, he'd recently been re-elected president.) At other points, as is very well known, she attacked Obama for his willingness to talk with boogeymen, as well as his desire to more aggressively prosecute Al Qaeda in its Pakistani safe havens.

And her explanation for her Senate vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was non-serious. She said she voted that way to further diplomacy. But it was already well known to the well-informed that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were determined to take down Saddam Hussein. That goal was at the heart of the neoconservative project which fatefully staffed the upper reaches of the administration.

This doesn't mean she can't be a good secretary of state. Hillary Clinton is a very formidable figure. If geopolitics becomes her area of focus, she'll study accordingly. And she would be working under President Obama, with the assistance of her husband, who was a generally good president himself.

That's what makes this look like a potential masterstroke for Obama, taking his once bitter rival and making her his ally and representative. It makes him look strong and confident. It also would make it virtually impossible for Hillary to challenge him in 2012, a prospect which looks very unlikely in any event. That is something Lyndon Johnson should have thought of when he refused to make Robert F. Kennedy his vice president in 1964.

While Hillary and Bill Clinton, especially Hillary, campaigned hard for Obama, they ultimately were not the keys to his victory. John McCain's inability to adequately respond to the financial crisis, the backfiring pick of Sarah Palin, and Obama's victories in all three presidential debates were much more determinative.

The move, which apparently has not actually been made, despite all the clamor about it, also looks like a mousetrap.

If Hillary withdraws from consideration, then Obama has made the effort he did not make around the vice presidency. And a shadow would be placed over her career in the Senate.

For, notwithstanding whatever reluctance she may have to make the move -- which some Clinton associates are talking up -- she and her husband are taking steps to make this happen.

Now that he's back in the country, the former president is submitting himself to Obama's vetting process. And he is saying that he would place future philanthropic and business dealings under the authority of the Obama Administration.

As the Wall Street Journal reported this morning, President Clinton has agreed to submit his future endeavours to strict ethics reviews by the White House counsel and the State Department's ethics office. Obama's White House counsel will be Greg Craig, a former Clinton Administration official who broke with the Clintons and leveled tough criticisms of them during the primary campaign.

Bill Clinton campaigning with Barack Obama in Florida.

Bill Clinton has agreed to publicly reveal all future contributors to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, something he flatly refused to do during the Democratic primaries. He's also agreed to publicly reveal "major" past contributors and has begun providing detailed information regarding his business dealings to Obama.

Bill Clinton has reportedly raised some $500 million for the Clinton Foundation, and another $15 billion or so for the Clinton Global Initiative. Both of which perform good works, in addition to the incalculable value they've afforded him from a public relations standpoint.

But those huge sums, especially for the Clinton Global Initiative, seem to come in large measure from foreign sources which may be very problematic. If they weren't, the Clintons would have revealed them during the Democratic primaries.

Bill Clinton is turning over a great deal of information about his operations to Barack Obama. In politics, that sort of knowledge is power.

Of course, the Clintons are using lawyers to pass on the information, to ensure confidentiality under attorney-client privilege. But once you know something, you can always figure out a way, if need be, to "reverse engineer" it over time through another source.

In any event, having new restrictions on his foundation fundraising would probably limit the scope of Clinton's activities in that realm. If Bill Clinton has fewer resources at his disposal, he's easier to control. At times during the Bush/Cheney era, Bill Clinton has been an alternate American presence on the global stage. Now superstar figures, such as Al Gore, are likely to find it easier to come more to the fore if Bill Clinton is diminished.

Now it may seem that having Hillary in the Cabinet is a mousetrap for Obama. After all, she's a global figure in her own right. Were she to break with him, it could be a major blow.

But Obama is clearly the much larger figure on the world stage. Not since John F. Kennedy has an American president been so intriguing to so many around the world, and so widely applauded. And JFK didn't enter office that way. Obama is still only president-elect.

In addition, were Hillary to become secretary of state, it would make her efforts to retire her big campaign debt even more problematic. It would also be tough for her to contemplate a break with President Obama knowing that she would then attempt to re-enter her political career amidst a major public controversy with a multi-million campaign debt hanging over her head. That would not exactly be a commanding political position, to say the least.

She would also have problems with a political base. Yes, she got 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. But many if not most of those folks have transferred their allegiance to Obama. She and her husband thought and worked long and hard to secure her seat in New York. Seats in the U.S. Senate, once relinquished, are not easy to get back.

Obama and Hillary Clinton at their first post-primary appearance, in Unity, New Hampshire.

Will Hillary Clinton be Barack Obama's secretary of state? The momentum seems to be in that direction. The Clintons must know that she is probably precluded from being president for at least another eight years. They also know, from their own experience, that new figures emerge.

While she is a power in the Senate, she is far from being the power in the Senate. Most Democratic senators who endorsed in the primaries picked Obama over her. And she would probably have to look to Obama for a franchise on top issues like health care, which Ted Kennedy -- one of Obama's most important backers -- wants as his crowning achievement.

If she's dependent on Obama in any event, and is not likely to be president, why not become secretary of state? It would be an extraordinary career capper at an extraordinary time in history.

Now we'll see if everything gets worked through.

You can also check things out on my site, New West Notes.

Chez Pazienza: The Trouble with Hillary

2008-11-18T16:02:00Z

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that the true test of a first rate intellect is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still function.

For example: "Hillary Clinton would make an excellent secretary of state," and "Hillary Clinton would make a terrible addition to the Obama cabinet."

Or: "The current drama surrounding Hillary Clinton's potential appointment to secretary of state is almost entirely the creation of the conflict-addicted media," and "Hillary Clinton would almost surely bring unnecessary drama with her to any new post within the Obama administration."

Or, now that I think about it, maybe this: "I really liked Bill Clinton and thought he was a great president," and "Bill Clinton is a narcissistic sociopath who drags trouble behind him wherever he goes like tin cans tied to a wedding limo."

With all of these disparate notions fighting for supremacy, the question then centers around whether the good to be had by appointing Hillary Clinton to a high position in the incoming government outweighs the bad. Is she really worth all the political and emotional baggage?

Honestly?

No, she isn't.

I won't be one of those people who spent months vociferously supporting Barack Obama only to then criticize him the moment he wins; I in no way feel "betrayed" by any of the decisions he's made in the couple of weeks since securing a landslide victory and the mandate that comes with it. On the contrary, I'm encouraged by his desire to bring former adversaries into the fold; I think it's good for the country, by and large, and fulfills the promise Obama made during the campaign to shun the mistakes of his illustrious predecessor, a man who never met a spineless crony he didn't like.

But bringing Hillary Clinton on board is an entirely different animal.

I despised the kind of cynical and unscrupulous campaign Clinton ran during the primaries, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the nature of modern politics -- particularly because it has no bearing on her capacity to represent the United States as its top diplomat. What does present a problem, however -- and will continue to -- is that with Hillary Clinton, you never get just Hillary Clinton; it's always a package deal that includes Bill.

And if you think Bill Clinton won't find a way to inject his special brand of self-obsessed melodrama -- the proudly sly, Melrose Place-meets-the-White House shtick that we endured for most of the 90s -- into the otherwise focused, serious and drama-free environment created by Team Obama, I've got a story about not having sexual relations with an intern I'm sure I can convince you of.

Bill Clinton doesn't know how to lay low and relinquish the spotlight; he'd be an albatross around the neck of his wife and therefore a 300-pound millstone around the neck of the Obama White House.

And as Obama's own campaign said in reference to its opponent in the general election, that's not change -- that's more of the same.

Nathaniel Frank: This Time, Hear All Opinions on Gay Troops Issue

2008-11-18T16:01:42Z

While Barack Obama has said he thinks the ban on open gays in the military should end, military leaders themselves have mixed views on the matter. This is important because it was the opposition of Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1993 that derailed Bill Clinton's effort to lift the ban on gay troops.

Senator John McCain said during the presidential debates that he would give "full consideration" to legislation on "don't ask, don't tell" but that he would ultimately defer to military commanders who have told him the policy "is working." One of Obama's top military supporters, General Merrill McPeak, bore out McCain's comments last month, saying he believes the ban should remain.

But yesterday a document was released that was signed by over one hundred retired generals and admirals calling for repeal of the gay ban. The statement says that replacing the current policy with one of equal treatment "would not harm, and would indeed help, our armed forces," and it points to countries such as Britain and Israel which both ended their gay bans years ago. "Our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," says the statement. "Such collaboration reflects the strength and the best traditions of our democracy."

Clearly opinion is mixed on the issue, but the very existence of support for repeal by so many top military leaders undercuts McCain's suggestion that the military believes the policy is working. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said he will support whatever decision Congress makes, and two former chairmen of the JCS have said they think the ban should end.

In researching my forthcoming book on gays in the military, I learned from Clinton transition officials that there was disagreement, behind the scenes, about whether and how military officers should resist lifting the ban. Military brass even met with members of the religious right and settled on a public relations strategy to cast the policy in terms of military effectiveness when their real reason for supporting the ban was moral and religious opposition to homosexuality. And when it came time for the brass to speak publicly, they all fell in line behind Powell in opposing openly gay service.

The political history books fault Clinton for not consulting enough with the military. In truth, he met with the Joint Chiefs just two weeks after his election, and again the week after he took office. The reality is the he did consult; but some powerful military men didn't like what they were hearing, and they squashed the effort to end the ban.

This time, we must hope that all opinions and positions will be heard. At a time when our military is stretched thin, the nation owes itself no less.

Joanne Bamberger: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Will She or Won't She?

2008-11-18T15:25:07Z

I can't imagine being in Hillary Clinton's shoes right about now.

At her news conference last week, she really did look like the cat that swallowed the canary when asked about the reports that Barack Obama was considering her to be his Secretary of State.

If offered, would she dare turn it down? That depends on where she thinks her power base is higher and what puts her in a better position to run in 2016 (I can't believe that even Hillary would take on Obama in 2012, though you know nothing is impossible!)

In truth, her Senatorial position isn't that high profile, other than the fact that she is one of only a handful of women there (17 out of 100 -- roughly the same percentage of women in other high profile positions like women law firm partners and large business owners). Plus, her comparatively junior status and her current committee assignments don't give her a lot of clout there, compared to more senior Senators.

But if she stays in the Senate, she's IN Washington and can try to have sway over the agenda. She'll be in the Senate chamber and in the DC spotlight, something that won't be shining on her if she has to be jetting off to the Middle East or Afghanistan.

So, if Hillary's ultimate goal is to run for President again, does accepting the slot as Secretary of State get her where she needs to be? If she becomes part of the Obama cabinet, a candidate Hillary would be tagged with being the equivalent of another Obama administration against the GOP.

So even though my initial reaction to the speculation of a Madame Secretary title for Hillary Clinton was that it was a brilliant and inspired move, I'm now wondering whether the Clintons' pride and their wish for more Clinton legacies allow her to say yes, if offered.

If she accepts a still-pending offer, Hillary would have to make the calculation that she'd be OK with Secretary of State being her last stop on her political adventure. Can she make a mark on her own in that position such that she would be judged more in her own right than if she was President, which, if she was ever elected, would mean daily -- no, hourly -- comparisons with her husband? Now that's a quandary worthy of a 3 a.m. phone call.

The British newspaper The Guardian claims that Hillary already has accepted the position, but nothing is being reported here other than that Barack Obama's people are still vetting her (and Bill).

Some people think it's a lock, but I say the fat lady hasn't sung on this one yet. One thing I am sure of -- Hillary has a plan. She always has a plan. And I'm not sure this step is in her playbook.

Joanne Bamberger is a political and media analyst and writer based in Washington, DC. She is the editor-in-chief of the political blog, PunditMom. She is also a Contributing Editor of Politics & News at BlogHer.

Disgrasian: Keep Your Friends Close and Your Frenemies Closer

2008-11-18T13:50:07Z

Post-election politics have begun to resemble an episode of The Hills lately, with Obama -- who is obviously Lauren Conrad -- reconciling with bitter rival John McCain Monday while currently vetting best frenemy Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. McCain is this drama's Heidi Montag, Lauren's former friend who started out likable and sweet but wound up, over time, becoming a lying deceitful bitch. (Heidi spreading rumors about Lauren's alleged sex tape = The McCain camp's allegations that Obama palled around with terrorists.) We've got Hillary, meanwhile, pegged as Audrina Patridge, Lauren's on-again, off-again friend whose Significant Other always seems to be stirring up trouble between them. (Monosyllabic Justin Bobby = Overly-loquacious Bill.) Will Hillary turn down the position as Secretary of State, the way that Audrina recently turned down living with Lauren and Lo (BFF/gatekeeper Lo = Rahm Emanuel) to move out on her own? Will Bill's ties to oil sheikhs compromise the already-tenuous friendship between Hillary and Obama the way that rumors about a Justin Bobby hook-up with Lauren hurt Lauren and Audrina? Will McCain and Obama really be able to put aside their differences to tolerate being in the same room together or -- dare to dream -- to be friends again, even?

Stay tuned!

BFFs = Best Frenemies Forever

Michael DeJong: Obama-kinda-clean

2008-11-18T11:46:50Z

"God looks at the clean hands, not the full ones."
~Publilius Syrus

While he was campaigning in 2000, George Bush used to say that when he got into the White House he would give the Oval Office "one heck of a scrubbing" making allusions to the traces of "icky-bits" that Bill Clinton left behind.

When his term was complete, Mr. Clinton took only his favorite personal belongings - minus that assumed "something special." So Mr. Bush, at taxpayers' expense, gave everything else Clinton had left behind the "heave-ho," with the exception of the massive oak desk made famous during the Kennedy years.

Being the president of the United Stated means that you're the leader of the free world - you're the big cheese, the Commander-in-Chief, the "decider" and "Numero-Uno." The buck stops with you and you're responsible for running a clean-ship.

That said, I can't imagine John F. Kennedy caring about cobwebs, Bush scrubbing the bowl (though the image does make me smile), Dwight D. dusting, Clinton clearing out the cupboards, Woodrow Wilson doing windows, Truman taking out the trash, Hoover pushing a Hoover (except perhaps his wife), Johnson adjusting the drapes, Ford cleaning the floors, Lincoln doing laundry, Teddy tidying rooms, Nixon neatening anything (except for scrubbing 18 minutes worth of audio-tape), F.D.R. fluffing and folding, or Carter cleaning the crystal.

In actuality, the nuts and bolts of cleaning in the White House falls onto the shoulders of a special branch of the White House cleaning crew called the Executive Residence Staff.

The Bush family has occupied the White House for eight dirt-filled years, and while there isn't a U-Haul back to Crawford in the driveway yet, they clearly have one foot out the door, making ready for the new 44th President - Barack Obama - and his family. (The Executive Residence Staff are gonna' have their hands full preparing for the Obamas... that house is bound to be nasty.)

In preparation for our new Democratic President, how do those in charge of housekeeping intend to get eight years of Republican stains and smears out of the White House? There are those actual blood stains from when the Bush's dog "Barney" bit a reporter, and the smears from the likes of Karl Rove. Quite possibly there are moose droppings tracked in by Sarah "Recently Tagged and Released" Palin's snowshoes (though there were no reports of her visiting) but there are those nasty vomit stains from when "W" choked on pretzels. Oh, and let's not forget the burn marks on the new Oval Office rug left when Satan and George exchanged the presidency for the remainder of his soul.

In January 2009, when Barack Obama is sworn in as President, he will bring with him our hopes for so many new-and-improved, spick-and-span changes... a clean economy, clean peace, clean civil rights, clean jobs, clean housing, clean health-care, clean energy, clean technology, clean emissions and maybe even new clean industry with new clean green collars.

And while blood from the bite of a pooch, moose droppings from the shoes of an Alaskan Governor, and or even vomit from a residing President can be dealt with by housekeeping - the blood on his hands and the rest of Bush's dirty little secrets can never be scrubbed away.

Al Giordano: Mr. President-Elect: Judge Abner Mikva Is Right About Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State

2008-11-18T01:47:23Z

Crossposted from The Field.

"When we have an announcement about Cabinet appointments, we will make it. There is no doubt that I think people want to know who's going to make up our team, and I want to move with all deliberate haste, but I want to emphasize deliberate as well as haste. I'm proud of the choice I made of vice president, partly because we did it right. I'm proud of the choice of chief of staff because we thought it through. And I think it's very important in all these key positions, both in the economic team and the national security team, to -- to get it right and -- and not to be so rushed that you end up making mistakes."

- President-elect Barack Obama, November 7, 2008

There are many annoying aspects of the noise machine that is blaring that arrogant and cacophonous yet familiar mantra: "Clinton is inevitable."

We heard it for all of 2007 when they told us that Senator Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee for president.

And we're hearing it all over again regarding that same Senator Clinton and the position of Secretary of State...

"It's a done deal. It's inevitable. He's already offered it. She's already taken it."

I say to you now as I told you and so many others then: It is not inevitable.

And there's a very interesting twist in the story tonight because one Chicagoan of gigantic integrity has stepped forward to insert some reality into the noise.

Abner Mikva - former federal judge, law professor, member of Congress, reformer of Chicago politics, chairman of the Illinois Human Rights Commission... and former White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton - told the New York Times today:

The vetting of Mr. Clinton's myriad philanthropic and business dealings is "complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides," said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama's closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration. "There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they'd have to be made public."

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton's activities abroad.

Associates of the Clintons said that Mr. Clinton was likely to have to make significant concessions and that he was inclined to do so. Among other things, they said, he would probably have to agree not to take money for speeches from foreign businesses that have a stake in the actions of the American government. Another obvious issue, Democratic lawyers said, would be whether Mr. Clinton's foundation should accept money from foreign governments, businesses or individuals for the foundation's philanthropic activities and if it should disclose those donors publicly.

"The problem is it's going to require some sacrifice by him," said a former Clinton aide who is not involved in the discussions but did not want to be identified because the talks are confidential. "If he's not willing to do that, it could blow up."

One proposal, floated by Mr. Mikva and several other aides involved in the vetting process, would be for Mr. Clinton to separate himself from the activities of his foundation, including raising money.

"It's not just what he does or says - it's the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy," Mr. Mikva said. "It's more than a legal problem - there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

God bless that man. Abner Mikva is a national treasure, one that has lived long enough with a front row seat to history to cut through the bull and identify what is most important in these hours of decision.

Mikva has stirred the hornet's nest. His words got Politico's Ben Smith out of bed and on the phone with Chicago. Now hear this:

The transition communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, says Obama adviser Abner Mikva didn't speak for the campaign in a Times story that went online this evening, in which Mikva appeared to set an almost impossibly high bar for approving Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State....

A Democrat who saw the quotes suggested Mikva's words were Obama's way of walking back the suggestion that Senator Clinton could serve as secretary of state.

But Pfeiffer, asked if Mikva spoke for the campaign, responded, "no."

Mr. President-elect: You said, on November 7, that in making cabinet appointments you "would not be so rushed that you end up making mistakes."

Like so many of those here, below, at the grassroots base that refuse to believe the noise machine that seeks to demoralize us and make a lie of your own statement, if - and we say "if" because we have never believed the noise machine's spin, and that is why you are president-elect today - but if you are at all persuaded by the pressures upon you turn your foreign policy over to a media freak show, we invoke the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell to the Church of Scotland in 1650 when it sought alliance with the Crown: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Few are the voices - like the brave and wise Abner Mikva - with the wisdom and courage to stand up to the sycophants being rolled at present by the Mighty Wurlitzer!

Among us are David Ignatius, who writes in the Washington Post:

"The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper "Le Monde" carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: "Happy New Century!" You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.

"Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that's hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options."

As Ignatius demonstrates, there are cases when what seems like and addition turns out to subtract from the overall sum of riches.

And Ken Silverstein with his Five Reasons Hillary Clinton should not be Secretary of State:

"The Clinton style of management-for example, pitting one faction of staff against another-would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail."

And Justin Raimundo of antiwar.com:

"Hillary opposed every significant peace initiative he put forward during the campaign, including a timetable to get us out of Iraq and direct negotiations with our adversaries. She derided this last - and very encouraging - stance as 'naïve' and 'dangerous.' Is this the person who will now be expected to take the lead in facilitating those talks?"

And since when have Raimundo and Marty Peretz been on the same page on any matter? Heed and listen:

"There have been so many Hillary Clintons that I suspect that none was authentic... I believe Barack is playing with fire."

You may not believe any of those people (I often disagree with some of them, but each of their words rings true in this case), and you may not believe me. We don't know yet if you do or not, and we will await the word from your lips before presuming anything. But surely you cannot ignore the words of the national treasure that is Judge Abner Mikva.

There are better uses and positions for someone of the undeniable talent of Senator Clinton in your cabinet, or even on the Supreme Court, but the discretion and diplomacy required of the next Secretary of State to undo the grave messes already created cannot, should not, must not be placed in the hands of someone who - even if it is through little or no fault of her own - is a magnet for the kind of media circus that the mere suggestion of her appointment has drawn already.

Do not wake up on January 21 - or soon after - with the words of the great Abner Mikva ringing in your ears, lamenting that you did not heed them when you could:

"It's more than a legal problem - there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

No Drama, Mr. President-elect, at this hour of the first crisis of your presidency-elect. Ethics matter, even when they do not play to the crowd, especially at those moments when few have the fortitude to consider them important and fight for them.

Do the right thing, Mr. President-elect. And in the absence of other voices that so far shrink from their public duties at this hour of moral crisis, I bid you: Good night. And good luck.

Clinton Aides Comfortable With Bill's Vetting, Worried About Press

2008-11-17T15:54:13Z

Aides and advisers to the Clintons feel comfortable that the vetting of Bill Clinton will not disqualify Hillary from becoming Secretary of State, and argue that the former president could be a tremendous asset both to his wife and Barack Obama in the future administration.

Nevertheless, there is a concern that critical media coverage could sour the Obama and Clinton camp's view of the arrangement and hurt Sen. Clinton's chances of ending up at the post.

In conversations on Monday, officials noted that Bill Clinton has long expected that much of his work during the past eight years would be opened to public scrutiny if his wife were to win the presidential election. Moreover, they added, the former president already had made a substantial share of his financial record public -- including every paid speech he has delivered since leaving the White House -- in accordance with congressional disclosure laws that impact his wife. But there still exists the possibility that a post-presidential arrangement, whether through Clinton's library or global initiative fund, could prove cosmetically problematic and spur enough of a media frenzy to scuttle things.

"The next two or three days will be critical," said one aide. Another figure close to the Clintons noted that they are focused on "trying to weather this storm... If they can limit [the press fallout] around Bill, she'll get the appointment."

Officials told the Huffington Post and other outlets last week that Obama had (informally) offered Clinton the post during their meeting in Chicago. Some subsequent media accounts stated that a formal offer had not yet been extended. But aides say that is a distinction without a difference: Clinton believes, based on her meeting with Obama, that the position is hers if she wants it; moreover, aides say, Obama's transition team would not have gone through with the vetting of the former president (nor would he have agreed to it) if the idea of Hillary at State wasn't crystal clear.

There is lingering concern over Bill Clinton. The Clinton Global Initiative has raised billions of dollars from many international financial and political entities. In addition, both he and Obama (and, on occasion, he and his wife) have had clear policy disagreements that could muddle the message of the next president.

But lost amidst these potential hurdles is another obvious element: Bill Clinton could also be, if tasked correctly, a tremendous asset to Obama, observers say. A renowned diplomat with perhaps the thickest rolodex of officials around the world, the former president could at once help amplify the White House message while serving as a friendly buffer should there be a fissure between Obama and another international leader.

Take, as a case study, negotiations over a Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Clinton has a clear interest in the passage of any such measure, having received $800,000 in speaking fees from an organization promoting the trade deal. In addition, he has spoken out in favor of the Bush administration's approach, contradicting not only Obama but his own wife.

However, Clinton could be a huge help for President Obama should he try to restructure such an arrangement with the Colombians, as seems likely. Clinton is close to President Uribe and has myriad connections to prominent government officials, business leaders, and aid groups in the country. Any fallout between Uribe and the Obama administration could be lessened by Clinton's diplomatic touch, as could frictions that accompany negotiating trade deals or other political arrangements.

"This is the very interesting flip side of the problem people are starting to talk about with Bill Clinton," said Paul Blustein, a trade expert at the Brookings Institute. "The ideal outcome with the Colombia FTA is that it gets renegotiated so that Obama can support it without it looking like he just made cosmetic changes. At the same time, it has to be done in a way that preserves Uribe's dignity... to make sure he can also save his face. And Bill Clinton is certainly a master at that. He has a personal relationship with the two guys involved, which is obviously a big plus... He can go and say 'I feel your pain' [to Uribe] or something to that effect, and be believed. He's good at that."

Certainly, having Bill Clinton as a mediator requires some initial conditions to be met. For starters, his wife would be the one calling the shots -- having too many cooks in the diplomatic kitchen is both problematic and dangerous. Moreover, Bill would have to untangle his financial ties and start publicly adopting positions that were in line with the Obama administration. The former task would cost money -- but that is usually the price of public service. The latter is merely a matter of control and messaging.

"He doesn't have to be supportive or critical," said Rob Shapiro, an undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton White House. "If asked about the contradiction between his position and the president's he ought to say: 'I support the position of the president.' And if they say what about the difference, he should say: 'I support the position of the president.'"