Clinton Vetting Includes Look at Mr. Clinton (NYT)

[jefferson_dem]

Clinton Vetting Includes Look at Mr. Clinton
By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers have begun reviewing former President Bill Clinton’s finances and activities to see whether they would preclude the appointment of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, Democrats close to the situation said Sunday.

The examination of the former president suggests how seriously Mr. Obama is considering bringing his onetime rival for the Democratic presidential nomination into his cabinet. He met with Mrs. Clinton secretly in Chicago on Thursday to talk about the prospect and word quickly filtered out. Many Democrats close to both camps said Sunday that it seemed likely that Mr. Obama would ask her to take the job, assuming they could work something out regarding Mr. Clinton’s role.

A team of lawyers trying to facilitate the potential nomination spent the weekend looking into Mr. Clinton’s philanthropic organization, dealings with foreign governments and ties to pharmaceutical companies, an adviser to both camps said. Obama advisers are discussing what Mr. Clinton would need to do to avoid a conflict of interest with the duties of his wife, who is said to be interested in the post.

“That’s the first and most important hurdle,” said another adviser to Mr. Obama, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Mr. Clinton’s role and who praised his efforts to fight problems overseas through the Clinton Global Initiative. “He does good work. No one wants it to stop, but a structure to avoid conflicts must be thought of.”

More than a dozen advisers to both sides said Sunday that although they did not have firm information, they considered it improbable that Mr. Obama would have opened the door to Mrs. Clinton’s appointment without having decided, at least in principle, that he would like to make it happen. Rejecting her after letting the possibility become so public would risk a new rupture within a party that spent much of the year divided between Mr. Obama and the Clintons.

The possibility of Mrs. Clinton’s nomination generated positive response on Sunday, even from across the aisle. “She is a lady of great intelligence, demonstrated enormous determination and would be an outstanding appointment,” former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger told a forum in New Delhi, according to news services.

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/us/politics/17memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print

[firedupdem]

1. For some reason I don't trust anything as the full truth anymore...

especially when they note that if he doesn't pick her it "would risk a new rupture within a party that spent much of the year divided between Mr. Obama and the Clintons." It may be true, but I'm in wait and see mode.

[KittyWampus]

4. it's almost like the drama was set up by some particular faction.

[firedupdem]

6. yepper....not falling for it... n/t

[Captain Hilts]

20. Plumbing the depths of immaturity, are we?

[Whoa20]

2. I truly think the American people

are just gonna zone out to this like in the primary. People are so used to brew-hahas about the Clintons that they simply don't care anymore. Watch polls be done about this saying no one cares

[scarletwoman]

3. I'm really tired of the media pushing this. I don't believe for a moment that this is coming from

the Obama camp. I'd really like to know who these "Democrats close to the situation" are, and why the hell they're running around all over the place gabbing to reporters.

This strikes me as an orchestrated effort on the part of people with an agenda. This is SOOOO not how the Obama people do things. It's pissing me off.

sw

p.s. -- JeffDem, is there some way you could make your sig graphic smaller? It stretches all your posts way out so the only way I can read them is by constantly scrolling from side to side, which is really frustrating.

[KittyWampus]

5. it's too similar to the Hillary as VP nonsense. How many times can you release a

bin Laden video or trot out the POW card?

How many times will the Mediawhores and political players trot out some story or other in an attempt to create tensions, drama or pressure?

[jefferson_dem]

10. Thanks for the heads up about my siggy.

I've trimmed it down now so hopefully it works better.

[scarletwoman]

13. Your sig works great now! Thanks for fixing it! (nt)

[DrToast]

21. I don't understand this post at all.

You think Obama would let this speculation carry on if he wasn't actually interested in hiring her?

[scarletwoman]

23. Obama is doing what he's always done, refusing to get drawn into other people's games.

He'll announce his Cabinet picks when HE'S ready to announce them, and not one minute before.

The people who are going nuts with speculation and trial balloons and alleged leaks and such, are NOT coming from his camp. He's not going to dignify such nonsense by reacting to it.

sw

[mod mom]

26. I am GLAD the media is bringing up Bill's financial alliances before a SOS is chosen.

There will be no change when our foreign policy is even partially in the hands of folks willing to sell out to the highest bidder (think: East Liverpool Toxic Waste Incinerator, International Election Organization, Free Trade w China despite human rights abuses, media consolidation). Hats off to the NYT for bringing this up as a reminder.

BTW I heard ABC's Jake Tapper speaking of Bill's link to the Kazakh President as a reason why a SOS position should be ruled out for Clinton (on Ed Schultz). Finally the press has gained cojones to take on the greedy powerful!

[karynnj]

27. If this is NOT from the Obama campaign - it is insidious

Whether the Clintons themselves are behind it or just there media allies, it seems they pushed these two points out.

Step 1: Define it as Obama is serious about HRC and is vetting the Clintons

Step 2: Push that having raised this, it is harmful to the Clintons not to take her. Additionally, if Obama takes her - it will be pushed that the Clintons' got a clean bill of health.

Listening to Morning Joe - there were subtle (or less than subtle jabs at anyone other than HRC.
1) The new reason not to take Kerry - Feingold heading SFRC would be a problem - this was said as fact. What is the problem - that he is too principled?
2) That HRC has no know history of working badly with Biden. (Then saying that Kerry and Biden have been like brothers for "30 years" - with all that means (knowing comments of "I've got brothers". Now, none of this was said in 2004, when Biden was a potential SoS. So, bizarrely, the closer Kerry/Biden working relationship, which has always been professional is not good. There is no real history of HRC ever being in a position where Biden was in charge - so it really is hard to predict how that will go.

[scarletwoman]

28. Of course it's not from the Obama people -- they have NEVER operated this way.

Yeah, it IS "insidious". I think what we're witnessing is the overt manifestion of a covert factional power struggle. The Beltway Establishment power bloc and their faithful media lackies are going to keep throwing everything they've got in Obama's way -- but I'm confident he'll find a way to outflank them.

sw

[Radical Activist]

7. And this is when the talk of Hillary as SOS dies.

Bill doesn't need another scandal and the damage it would do to his reputation when people find out where the money from his library came form. I wonder what money he collected while he was President that related to policies he acted on in the white house?
Hillary will take her name out and Obama gets to look like the bigger person for at least considering his former rival.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Speculation. Was the source Lanny Davis?

:eyes:

[progressivebydesign]

9. And of COURSE every MAN will have his WIFE fully vetted. RIGHT???

Give me a fucking break.

[SoxFan]

12. If his wife...

Is a former president....
Has a multi-million dollar foundation funded by overseas interests...
Is involved in high level multinational business transactions...

...then the answer is yes

[Joe the Revelator]

17. Um, yes, he would

[camera obscura]

19. Yes, actually, they do. It's routine to have all your immediate family checked out.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Josh Marshall just posted some thoughts about this issue.

FYI:

HRC as SOS
from Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall

I can't be the only one who's thought of this.

In late December of last year The New York Times wrote a lengthy article about the various donors to the Clinton Foundation, and the conflicts of interest (real or apparent) they might create for Sen. Clinton should she become president. At the time Bill Clinton said that if Hillary were elected he would disclose the identities and contribution totals of all the Foundation's contributors going forward, though not the ones that predated her presidency.

The Foundation's contributors include not only a number of heads of state but also a lot of high-flying businessmen who play the game so high in the stratosphere that what we normally consider foreign policy questions routinely play into their business interests.

Now, Secretary of State is not president. But in the foreign policy realm, it is as close as you get. So how does this all play out if she's nominated to serve as Secretary of State? Does the same going-forward disclosure policy apply?

Late Update: I'm not sure when today this article went up. But it turns out the Times has a piece up on their site about precisely this question.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/244634.php

[ProSense]

14. " Rejecting her after letting the possibility become so public would risk a new rupture..."

Good friggin grief.

[firedupdem]

16. That line stuck out for me as well. It's like he's going to be forced

to put her in this position. I think NOT!

[ErinBerin84]

25. yeah, another writer

from the NYT said something like that on Morning Joe "It gets to a point where, after a while, he risks public backlash for letting this hang out there and not giving it to her." Uh, surrre. More like backlash from the media.

[niceypoo]

15. I find everything about this to be funny

I love how people drive themselves berserk over the Clinton's, particularly Republicans.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. If it didn't, there would be something wrong with the vetting process. n/t

[mod mom]

24. Glad to read they spoke of Bill's endorsement of the tyrant Kazakh President:

AS AN ELECTION INTEGRITY ACTIVIST THIS BIT OF HISTORY SPEAKS VOLUMES:


"No donor to the Clinton foundation has raised more persistent questions than Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining executive. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra shared a midnight banquet in September 2005 with Kazakhstan’s authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton praised Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international election-monitoring organization, undercutting American foreign policy and his wife’s sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s human rights record.

Two days after the trip, Mr. Giustra’s company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan. Spokesmen for both men said there was no connection between the trip and the deal. Months later, a foundation controlled by Mr. Giustra gave $31.3 million to the Clinton foundation, its largest known donation."

BIDDING OUT ELECTIONS TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. NO WONDER THE CLINTONS WERE SILENT AFTER 2000 AND 2004.