More Clinton Derangement Syndrome

Josh Marshall just can not shake it. Now, I am not in favor of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, not because she won't do a fine job, but because I think she would be more valuable to President-Elect Obama and the nation in the Senate.

Marshall clearly opposes Clinton for State, perhaps even on the merits. But instead of making those arguments, he embraces the Clinton Derangement of the Media and the Right Wing and makes it about the Clinton Foundation:

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.

Of course you are not the only one who thought of this Josh. A lot of people hate the Clintons. You are just one more.

For those who wonder, here is a description of what the Clinton Foundation does.

Here's a question for Josh and all the other Clinton haters - have you asked about who Greg Craig represented? Who his spouse (assuming he has a spouse and she works for a living) draws a check from? Or Valerie Jarett? Or Rahm Emaneul's family? Or anyone else joining the government?

I know that I have not read anything about it from him. At this point, it is just pathetic.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama On 60 Minutes | Obama: I Will End Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Here's an example (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:53:46 AM EST
    From yesterday's Times:

    But with Mr. Clinton apparently the most important stumbling block, lawyers are trying to scour all aspects of his postpresidency as quickly as possible, one Democratic adviser said. The adviser said the examination was being overseen by the Obama team's personnel counsel, Christine A. Varney, a former Clinton White House aide who is now on leave from Hogan & Hartson.

    Hogan and Hartson ay? What are the potential conflicts there? you see how silly we can make this game?

    Not silly - impossible. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Fabian on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:13:23 AM EST
    If we judged every Obama pick on detailed scrutiny their spouse or immediate family did, were employed or donated to, the pool of influence-free candidates would be very small indeed.

    (Chelsea Clinton came under fire for working for a hedge fund. zomg.)


    For me it is not (5.00 / 7) (#126)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    about spouses or immediate family or even what the candidate themselves did with 'philanthropic' work.

    Have we now come to a point where a past President, or anyone for that matter, has to worry about bringing people and capital together to help answer the challenges of the world that governments themselves cannot fully answer?

    Do we truly expect world leaders and other private citizens to expect favors from an SoS because they donated time and money to a foundation created by her husband in the name of helping the people of the world and the world itself?

    If that is the case then the Jimmy Carter's and Elonore Roosevelt's of the world were totally out of line because any donations of time or money that they received could be viewed as 'payback' for past favors while in office. Where does the madness end?

    But then of course if you are Poppy Bush entangled in the Carlyle Group which is engaged engaged in bare knuckle global capitalism with everyone and anyone, even those of dubious background, then all is fine. Just don't be charitable because charity is very a suspicions endeavor wrought with all kinds of hidden motives.


    Money and Politics (none / 0) (#143)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    Let's be real here. Money in politics is about power.  I'm sure that most if not all of Clinton's donors were about doing good things for the world but there are always those few donors that donate with expectations and those are the ones that usually cause a bit of trouble or have a shady background.

    I think him disclosing his donor list is a fair request and given that the NY Times has already covered a couple of his business associates I think asking a few questions is not a bad idea.

    I would hate for there to be surprises.


    Dirt? (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    "but there are always those few donors that donate with expectations and those are the ones that usually cause a bit of trouble or have a shady background."

    Well you are clearly looking for dirt. Not on others, but on the Clinton's. Obviously you want some donor you can speculate on and then put that on Clinton. Sad.


    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#154)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    I am just stating a fact about money and politics. This has nothing to do with trying to find dirt on the Clintons.  

    If you want an example of "shady donors" look at Tony Rezko. The man was a crook and I will admit this as an Obama supporter.

    What is sad is that this is a problem and will continue to be no matter who the politician is because you need money to get elected and there are donors out there that are well aware of this and will use it to their own advantage.

    I think it's a bit paranoid on your part to claim that stating a fact is some secret code phrase for wanting to dig up dirt on the Clintons.

    Also, Politico has a story up on their front page about Bill Clinton and his finances. Doesn't this make anyone suspicious that there is more to this story than being told? It could definitely be a way to make the Clintons look bad and lord knows they have enemies but doesn't this make people a bit curious as to why even the Obama campaign wants to see those finances? I would ask the same thing of anyone else who wanted to be SoS.


    Then to what end (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    do you want to know all this? What is your motivation? It only leads to speculation. And that is what you are doing and that is what you want - speculation - because you have not stated any other reasons. But whatever. I don't care to sidetrack what I had to say with whatever your negative views might be. Maybe you want a world charitable giving vetting commission complete with polygraphs and brain scans. lol

    Seriously the Clinton hate comes out in all forms.


    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#165)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    Why is it that someone asking relevant questions means that they have some devious motive?  

    If asking questions to avoid conflicts of interest is considered "Clinton hate" then so be it.  What is there to hide? This is not to say that the Clintons or anyone else is hiding something but if you know that there is nothing wrong and you want to help your spouse out to get a job and there are questions why not answer them and shut people up? I would.

    It sounds as if you don't like people criticizing the Clintons. Fine, but they are major public figures and they like all politicians know that their lives will be under heavy scrutiny.

    I would be wondering aloud these same things if it was any other politician. It has nothing to do with hating it's about transparancy.


    Like I said (none / 0) (#169)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    I don't want to sidetrack from what I said for your zeal of speculation under the guise of transparency.

    My final post on the subject.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#176)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    zeal of speculation under the guise of transparency

    At some point those who continually see these sinister motives need to ask themselves what has happened in my own life that doesn't allow me to trust my fellow man.  While I'm by no mean naive when it comes to a politician's motives, I believe we should at least strive toward a society where we give each other the benefit of the doubt when there is in fact....doubt.


    Let's see... (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by eric on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM EST
    she just ran for President for pete's sake.  Now these people are worried about this foundation?  It is ridiculous.  If it wasn't a problem for a Pres (and it clearly isn't) then it certainly isn't for a Secretary of State.

    Questions about the Foundation... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by LogopolisMike on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    came up during the election. I don't know if they hold any water, but on the surface, they do seem like things that should be answered, just to be safe.

    While it's clear that a lot of questions are asked about both Clintons and their power, I think this has more to do with the amount of powerful people with whom they interact.  There are simply going to be more questions because they have more to questions.  I'm sure in 4-8 years there will be similarly more to ask of the Obamas.


    No doubt there are people who (none / 0) (#173)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    will raise some eyebrows on that list. Actually on any list.  What I see with busybodies wanting all of the people on Clinton's lists are to write speculative stories about supposed conflicts of interest.  The fact that Don Van Natta is the author of one of the articles tells me the NY times is still after as much of that speculative stuff as they can dig up.

    One other thing (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:55:58 AM EST
    If Clinton turns the job down, it does no harm to Obama politically and really empowers her and HIM in the sense that she will be seen, rightly in my view, as a major policy ally of Obama's in the Senate with tremendous influence.

    She'd have more power (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    as SoS. In the Senate she is a junior Senator, you forget that. Sure just being Hillary she has some influence by virtue of her tenacity. But power? No. Power is in the hands of committee chairs who by themselves can make or break any bill which Clinton would introduce. And we have already see Clinton's health plan co-opted by Baucus. For some reason there are those in the Senate who do not want to empower Clinton. As such she is neutered in what she can do in the Senate. So the world stage is a better place for her and for our country. It also gives he a bigger launching pad should she want to run for President again in the future.

    How does a cabinet member have more power than (none / 0) (#185)
    by jawbone on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    an independently elected senator and former primary candidate who won more popular votes than the final nominee? The cabinet member has only as much power as the president gives him or her.

    A cabinet member is nominated by the president, answers to the president, is given objectives and parameters by the president, and can be fired by the president.

    A Secty of State can do only what the president wants done--or goes rogue.

    Hillary would also be a lightning rod for MCM criticism, which might help Obama in some ways, but in others not. And would not help Hillary's "power."

    Just Say No, Hillary.


    Unfortunately, if she turns it down now (none / 0) (#195)
    by Manuel on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    the MSM and CDS victims will say it was because of Bill's finances.

    One last last thing (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:01:57 AM EST
    I would of course be heartened to see Left blogs ask tough questions of an Obama Administration - particularly regarding progressive policies (as is now happening regarding John Brennan (not by Josh Marshall though.)

    This is not that. This is repeating Drudge points from the Right Wing. This is Clinton Hate.

    This is pathetic.

    integrity (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by S on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    Big Tent Dem...

    ...during the primary season many dems, as you probably know, especially clinton dems, were disappointed, shocked, angered, etc by the left blogshere...we could not believe the distortions, the hate, the vitriol and yes, the left using republican talking points against Hillary...

    I remember when those talking points were first trotted out against Hillary, I naively thought Barak and Edwards surely are going to come to her defense and say there is no room for this...but we all know how that went...even so-called progressive women calling Hillary a f'ing whore, etc...it truly was unbelievable to see people we once admired turn on 'us' so vehemently and often create something out of nothing just to malign Hillary...

    ...I want to take a moment to applaud you...you have maintained your sense of fairness, objectivity, common sense and from my perspective, truth...you have kept your individuality and set yourself apart from the 'group think' and agendas that many of us had to realize exists in, yes our Democratic party just like our opponents in the Republican party...

    ...you have differentiated yourself as a blogger who is fair and balanced...you have resisted the cheap and easy shots...and in fact, you have called people on it and spoken out against it...for this you have my respect


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#105)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:09:28 AM EST

    But unaccounted millions are an issue.  Not mere CDS.  What the foundation does or claims to do or did in the past is irrelevant.  What is relevant is who controls the money and can make decisions about future spending.

    If Obama wants to take her with that baggage, it is his call to make.  That said, if he does she would IMHO be excellent at State.  Her conflicts of interest don't appear to be any worse than normal.


    Unaccounted millions? (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    Wherever do you get that there are millions unaccounted for? You do realize that the Clinton Foundation is a non-profit--responsible for opening their books up like every other non-profit in America right? Where do you get this "unaccounted millions" from?  See, that there is your CDS. You have no other reason other than that you ASSUME by virtue of Bill Clinton that there are millions of dollars unaccounted for.  You are simply making it up, taking a right-wing talking point and running with it.

    I do not understand your comment (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:15:36 AM EST
    In what way is the spending unaccounted for?

    do you know how a 501(C)(3) operates? I assure you that the IRS knows all.


    The IRS (none / 0) (#121)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:35:41 AM EST

    The IRS cares not a fig about a conflict of interest.  The IRS does not deal with that at all.  The potential conflicts of interest are on the donation side, not on the spending side.  The IRS only cares about tax law violations.  As long as any salary or benefits (either material or political) to the Clintons are within the law there is no IRS issue.  But then again, spending is not the issue.

    You wrote about (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    unaccounted millions. You are backtracking now and changing your argument to suit your needs.

    I think he/she wasn't quite clear (none / 0) (#131)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    It's not unaccounted millions per say it is more of an issue of just who is donating and what they are expecting for those donations. I think that is what the commenter was really referring to not that they weren't paying taxes or something.

    Maybe it's me but if I had millions to give to a wonderful foundation I would like others to know that I was the one who gave and not be so secretive. Maybe they are afraid of being hounded for more money if there is full disclosure.

    Who knows but it is quite curious that so many people who are doing such good would want to remain anonymous. Wouldn't their charitable givings inspire others?


    They were quite clear. (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:09:26 AM EST
    But when their argument was shown to be ridiculous then he/she changed his mind and changed his argument. Either way. Ridiculous.

    Some of the projects that (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    Clinton supports and empowers as he has said, are finding ways to make charitable acts not only self sustaining, but profitable for the investor as well.  Just imagine that someone with money who wants to do something worthwhile, wants to invest in a manufacturing plant in a poor country.  The putting together of people who are planning to run a profitable business down the road may look to outsiders, like making sausage. I heard Clinton talking about how to empower people and it had more to do with this kind of a business than simply handing out food and blankets.  Just think of how this would go over with all of the Clinton haters.  Yet, if anyone has ever read anything by Frances Moore Lappe about helping third world countries one would understand this dynamic.

    Some donors are more humble (5.00 / 5) (#194)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    than you are, others don't want every charitable organization to start knocking on their door, others simply like to keep their personal charitable interests personal (and separate and distinct from their business dealings) and others may not want publicity for particularly large donations.  Anonymous donations to a foundation are not "sinister" and in many ways - like our right to vote on a secret ballot - free people up to make personal choices about causes they believe in without being scrutinized for making a choice that is entirely their own.

    Here is a good example for you - let's say there was a high profile business man or woman who cared about gay rights, but might suffer consequences in their business life if they were revealed as a big funder of gay rights initiatives.  Are we to "out" them?  Throw away their support?

    This "anonymous charitable donor = likely evil" thing is another rightwing red herring sadly embraced by some extremely ignorant people on the left.  I say ignorant because they clearly do not know about the long tradition of anonymous charitable giving and how not only acceptable, but also honorable it generally is.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#150)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:42:50 AM EST

    That is what I meant in the first place.  

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#193)
    by Blue Jean on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    But then again, Christ said that those who give alms in public already have their reward, while those who give in secret will be rewarded in Heaven.

    Besides, I've worked for a charitable foundation, and I got irritated feedback from donors who give publicly once, and then get besieged from every charity-both legitimate and fraudulent-on the planet.  So YMMV.


    Not at all (none / 0) (#152)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST

    The source of funds is unaccounted for.

    you just wrote a different comment (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:50:15 AM EST
    Josh went off the deep end a long time ago. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:24:07 AM EST
    Too late to save him.  His hatred has seeped into the very core of his being.  He's become a joke to me.  

    Personally (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by zvs888 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:33:54 AM EST
    I think Hillary would be an awesome SoS.  She has the charisma and talent, not just the knowledge and experience, to pull off a lot of the hard deals that need to be made in the coming years.  I don't think Kerry would be that effective at bringing other parties together.

    Richardson would be an absolute joke.

    No idea why there are so many haters though. I've always supported Obama, but Obama and Clinton have always been the all-stars on the same team.  Why there's so much hate for one or either is beyond me.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:36:56 AM EST
    At this blog, I have railed at commenters who do either.

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by zvs888 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:58:54 AM EST
    And in this case it's particularly hypocritical; 2/3s of Obama's transition team is pulled from Clinton's as has been point out, and many of the top jobs seem to be heading their way.

    Obama clearly sees the value in the Clinton folks; no idea why some of his supporters do not...


    Maybe they thought (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:06:00 AM EST
    they would get the jobs?

    Unlike Josh Marshall (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:41:43 AM EST
    who wants Bill to preclude the selection of Hillary as SoS, the Obama people are investigating Bill Clinton's business affairs seriously, rather than using them to tank Hillary's selection.  The Obama people are aware and going forward.  Good for them.

    Meanwhile, how do you think the Obama torture commission will go if Brennan is appointed to a National Security position?  Think there will be any conflicts of interest there?  

    "Business affairs" (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    I hear media and Republican types muttering frequently about Bill's "business affairs" or "business dealings," as if he were some oil magnate or international real estate developer or something.

    Is it normal to refer to a charity as "business affairs"?  It seems very odd to me and I don't think I've ever heard it before.  Did anybody talk about Liddy Dole's "business affairs" with the Red Cross?

    Am I nuts?


    You're not nuts and ironically (5.00 / 5) (#197)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    if you want to look at corruption you really ought to be looking at the Red Cross starting from the time that Liddy Dole headed up the place.  But for some reason people are convinced that the donations are the place to find the "evil" in a charitable organization when in reality it is all about what is done with the money.  So far, no one has come forward with a single credible complaint about the Clinton Foundation's operations as a charitable org.  

    The thing that drives me most crazy about this CDS and the adoption of these wingnut narratives aside from the obvious stuff is that these lies end up hurting institutions like foundations - the lies about Senator Clinton doing "nothing" and being "irrelevant" during her tenure as First Lady end up hurting the legacies of all women who contributed greatly to this country as a result of their husbands' rise to power - Abigail Adams and Eleanor Roosevelt are just two examples of wives who would be discounted by their frame.  It really makes my blood boil frankly.

    Which leads me to my next question.  Why in the heck are the Obama folks even considering Clinton if they are going to be whining to the NY Times that Bill is a problem?  Why didn't they just leave her alone?  It isn't like this stuff hasn't come up like ten million times already.  One would think they would have been smart enough at least to have all the answers to their questions before they leaked this as a possible appointment.


    Thank you BTD (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by bslev22 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:48:31 AM EST
    I woke up this morning, scanned some blogs and saw Josh's concern troll post about possible HRC's conflict of interest based on the Clinton Foundation.  The first thing after I thought after catching my breath from outrage was that I hoped you would address this.  Josh is doing this for three reasons, I think:

    1. For whatever reason, he loathes the Clintons.

    2. His principal audience by far loathes the Clintons and this generates all kind of hits for him.

    3. He really does have CDS, which has to be different in kind and have more dimensions than simple loathing.

    Thank you for speaking out as a real progressive and taking on this  nonsense which, if it continues, will tear apart the left flank of the Democratic base and make real progress in an Obama Administration on many fronts (both foreign and domestic) absolutely impossible.  

    P.S.  If I was really in the mood to strike back, I would attach a list of Hogan and Hartson's representative client base, which anyone can get by going to their website or to Martindale.com.  It's like shooting fish in a barrel on the conflicts front.

    It was done to me personally (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:50:04 AM EST
    and I would never do it to another lawyer or person.

    Another lawyer. . . (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:54:52 AM EST
    or person?  Freudian slip there, counselor?

    Heh (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:01:24 AM EST
    It's a fair cop. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:53:24 AM EST
    Josh Marshall may well be deranged (okay, he's certainly deranged), but I think Bill Clinton's activities do need to be vetted before Hillary Clinton could take on a role like Secretary of State.

    For years, Clinton has basically been running a shadow private sector foreign policy.  That was great when it served to counteract, if only a little, the Bush foreign policy.  But it was private sector, it was conducted outside of the public purview, and President Clinton does seem intent on keeping certain aspects of it hidden from public knowledge.

    If Senator Clinton is going to take on the role of Secretary of State then I think the Obama administration has the right and the responsibility to know about any ongoing  entanglements or potentially embarrassing financial relationships  she may have through her husband to foreign countries or major players on the foreign affairs scene.

    I don't think that these will necessarily prove to be disqualifying, but they do need to be vetted.  The more important the job, the more important and exacting the vetting.

    I do believe that ought to extend to others also.  I don't know what Craig's history is, or what his spouse or significant other does, but if there are concerns there they do need to be discovered and vetted by the Administration.  That doesn't mean he shouldn't get the job, just that the issues should be examined.

    I think, for instance, that Tom Daschle is certainly disqualified for an imaginary appointment as Transportation Secretary, and possibly any other policy-making Administration post because of his wife's lobbying role.

    ANYONE should be vetted (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:57:42 AM EST
    It is not a fair point to act as if only the Clintons should be vetted.

    BTW, any word on the Greg Craig vetting?

    How about Bill Richardson? Think there might be some skeletons there?


    I assume. . . (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM EST
    that Bill Richardson has been /would be vetted at the same level Clinton is (and, I suspect, is therefore disqualified from a Secretarial position, although I'm basing that on rumor, not actual knowledge).  Certainly, any deals that his wife (or any girlfriends) have conducted with foreign heads of state would have to been known to the Administration before he could be appointed..

    I don't know about Craig's vetting.  I assume that  he actually has been vetted -- I don't think you're implying that he hasn't?  Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that no important issues were uncovered.

    It also should be pointed out that no issues have yet come up in President Clinton's vetting.  It's simply happening somewhat more publicly because of the prominence of the position and the individuals involved.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that Craig's wife's background (assuming he has a wife) was vetted, even if not at the level President Clinton's is.

    Josh's error is in suggesting that because someone is being vetted, it somehow is disqualifying.


    I imagine what qualifies as an important event (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:10:05 AM EST
    is based on whether the Obama team wants to hire that person.

    To be honest, I think this vetting business is pure nonsense for the most part.


    Perhaps that's true. (none / 0) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:18:10 AM EST
    I imagine what qualifies as an important event is based on whether the Obama team wants to hire that person.

    But at least they need to know about the issue or event, then they can decide whether they want to live with it.

    If Craig has a wife, and it turned out his wife had done work for the Republican party, the Obama Administration might still want him for White House Counsel, but at least they'd know about the potential issue.


    I think that would be a plus (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:21:56 AM EST
    but I do not disagree with your basic point.

    Vetting is of course,normal and necessary. No one wants to get caught with their pants down.

    That said, it seems to me that the idea that the Clintons have no been living through a constant vetting process for 30 years is rather silly.


    I agree. . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:29:11 AM EST
    that the Clinton's have been thoroughly vetted over the past 30 years.  But Bill Clinton's recent private sector initiatives in the last eight years  have not been publicly examined (since as a purely private matter there's no real need to) and the fact that he absolutely refuses to reveal some aspects of his activities indicates to me that at least the possibility of embarrassment exists.

    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:34:11 AM EST
    Personally I think Bill Clinton has been so thoroughly denuded (pun intended) I can not imagine what would embarrass him now.

    I couldnt' say. (none / 0) (#79)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:40:31 AM EST
    Unlike Josh, I don't believe the existence of a vetting process is the same as a statement that some disqualifying information exists.

    President Clinton's unwavering refusal to reveal the donors to his Presidential Library, even during his wife's candidacy, raises at least a yellow flag in my mind, however.


    I disagree on that (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:41:56 AM EST
    I think the decision was made that to disclose would be to feed the beast, not kill the story. In short it was a POLITICAL decision, made to further Hillary's chances, not to hide some embarrassment.

    That could well be true. (none / 0) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    If so, it won't raise an impediment to Senator Clinton's appointment.

    It seems pretty clear (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:53:25 AM EST
    that the Obama team has been given access to all the info.

    My own view is that it looks like a done deal.


    It shouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:44:24 AM EST
    The reason Bill doesn't want to reveal the donor list is because there's an agreement with the donor that they're names won't be released to the public.  I would be doing the same exact thing when I made an agreement like that.    

    So? (none / 0) (#88)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    Why would someone not want their name disclosed for doing some valuable public work?  And if that's really an issue, just approach the donors and redact the names of the ones who wish to remain anonymous.  You'd still have better information than you do now.

    Those were the terms of the (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM EST
    agreement when they signed; that their names won't be made public.  And reasons for non-disclosure could be a simple as not wanting other organizations to come knocking hat in hand for donations or that it makes them feel more comfortable in donating. Let us not forget that the CGI does good work with the money donated.  

    Could be. (none / 0) (#120)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    And reasons for non-disclosure could be a simple as not wanting other organizations to come knocking hat in hand for donations or that it makes them feel more comfortable in donating.

    That is certainly true.

    But surely you recognize that it could be something else too?  That's why we have disclosure laws for (for instance) political contributions.  Normally, this wouldn't matter.  But when Senator Clinton might be called upon to engage in difficult negotiations from someone President Clinton is actively soliciting for money -- even for the best possible cause in the world -- surely you see the potential for conflict of interest?


    I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    that's what their working on with the vetting process to avoid conflicts of interest.

    In the case of Presidential foundations and the CGI/Clinton foundation, disclosure laws don't exist in this case.  Other Presidents like Reagan and Bush I had their own libraries/foundations and have refused to reveal their donor lists to the public.  President Clinton should get the same courtesy.    


    I would normally agree (none / 0) (#127)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:56:50 AM EST
    but their spouses weren't in the running to become SoS.

    I don't know I'm personally fine with the vetting and asking of library donors from anyone. I felt a tad bit uncomfortable when I read the NY Times article back in 2007 about his dealings with the Canadian guy and given that on the surface he deals with so many foreign entities and his wife could become the SoS I think we should know potential conflicts of interest. I would expect full disclosure from anyone in such a position.

    I don't see why this is a problem and I would rather get this done now then be in for any surprises.


    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    that's what their working on and both sides are making it work to avoid conflicts of interest.      

    I think people are blowing this way out of proportion, and the CGI/State Department could even work great as a foreign policy tag team.

    If President-elect Barack Obama selects Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, she will oversee many of the U.S. government's foreign aid programs, potentially turning the couple into an overwhelming force in global aid, say some leaders in the philanthropic community.

    "It boosts her stature, it boosts the work of the Clinton Global Initiative, it boosts the whole concept of American partnerships making a real difference on the global level," said Steve Gunderson, president of the Council on Foundations and a former Republican congressman.

    "She will be able to say in many of her meetings, 'We're in a situation where I can't commit congressional foreign assistance, but let me work with the philanthropic community back in the United States to see if there are ways that they can be helpful,' " Gunderson said.

    "that Canadian guy?" (none / 0) (#163)
    by sj on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    Really?  Some vague suspicion is what you've got?

    NY Times article (none / 0) (#179)
    by Trickster on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    What in that article made you feel uncomfortable?  I read it closely, and didn't even find a hint of wrongdoing, just depictions of ordinary charitable activity that the authors did their best to write darkly and draped in innuendo.

    Another Possible Explanation... (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by santarita on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    is that donors know that the right wing media luminaries like Rush Limbaugh would research the donors, the donors' spouses and extended families and friends in order to find something to slime the Clintons with.  If I were a donor, especially a big dollar donor, to Clinton's Foundation, I would seek anonymity.

    Try this (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    1.  Win the lottery.
    2.  Tell all of your friends and relatives that you've won and that you already gave a big chunk of change to your Aunt Lonnie.

    Now come back and wonder this question again.  I suspect you won't wonder.

    (IOW:  If you have deep pockets for one, then many will expect the same.)


    Shadow policy???! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:59:09 AM EST
    Yes. Bill is running a shadow government.  Bwahahahaha.

    Take me to this (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by eric on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:09:00 AM EST
    shadow government.  I want to live under that one.

    Not a shadow government. . . (none / 0) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:07:49 AM EST
    but a shadow foreign policy in which, for instance, he is negotiating between pharmaceutical companies and poorer nations to get affordable supplies of critical drugs into those countries.

    That's a foreign policy issue, involving American companies, foreign governments, international trade, intellectual property, etc.

    Good for him, I say, but it does need to be understood.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:16:40 AM EST
    Let's say that is a legitimate concern - is it solely a Clinton concern?

    No, but. . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:25:00 AM EST
    I can't think of a single other potential candidate for appointment with a spouse even one tenth as actively involved with foreign interests as President Clinton is, or with the kind of semi-personal fund raising interests he has.

    Outside of foreign affairs, there are definite parallels.  As I said elsewhere in this post, I think Daschle is disqualified from Transportation, and quite possibly Homeland Security because of his wife's lobbying role.  And Lieberman, if he weren't already disqualified for general jerkishness, couldn't be HHS secretary because his wife is a health industry lobbyist.


    Maybe Hillary should get a divorce (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:27:44 AM EST
    That is the most obvious. . . (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:31:15 AM EST
    solution.  And I think it would make a lot of CDS sufferers happy, since many of them cite her decision to stay married as one of the reasons they hate her.

    However, can you imagine the response to the headline "Obama offers SoS position to Clinton, but only if she divorces"?  Well, it would be good for blog traffic!


    A post in the making (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:32:57 AM EST
    I'm considering it, for traffic purposes of course.

    If you do. . . (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    you should demand the Obamas disgorge all the money Michelle earned working for that hospital corporation before Obama introduces health care legislation.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:37:07 AM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    LOL - What if Chelisea Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by feet on earth on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:53:04 AM EST
    was to be offered a job in the Obama's administration? Or at some point have some political ambitions?

    Should she disown her father to appease the CDS  mentally challenged?  
    Is there no end to CDS?  Deal Lord, do they ever they need intense therapy!!!  


    Was Hillary disqualified (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by eric on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:27:52 AM EST
    from being President because of these conflicts?  That job has even more entanglement with "foreign interests" than the SOS, doesn't it?

    If any serious issues. . . (none / 0) (#69)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:33:22 AM EST
    are uncovered (and there's no evidence that such issues exist) then, yes, it could potentially have been very, very embarrassing for Clinton to have them uncovered while in office.

    And further (none / 0) (#52)
    by eric on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:25:39 AM EST
    is it some sort of unique concern for the SOS?  I don't recall hearing about these issues when Hillary was actually, you know, running for President.

    I did hear them (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:27:20 AM EST
    I didn't realize this was la-la land (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by pluege on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST
    Does anyone here really think that all sorts of not-readily-known motivations are not involved in all sorts of government transactions?... was the Iraq invasion not about securing Iraqi oil for American companies? Ws Katrina recovery funding not about sloughing taxpayer funds to contractors in the South? And what about the entire military budget and the Wall Street bailout? Does anyone really think Democrats are immune to this kind of behind the scenes deal making? Have our Secretaries of State not been a front for American business forever? Come on already - shadow government??? Hardly.

    A shadow government would be one working at cross purposes of the actual government. Obama, the Clintons, and all Democrats and republicans are of like mind when it comes to using the government to promote US business interests. Some Democrats differ only  so very slightly from republicans (and most Democrats) in the role of the US military in securing US business deals. Note, for instance, no one argues about the tens of thousands of US soldiers scattered across the globe. Those soldiers secure "American interests", which is what - our striving for human enlightenment - puleezz. No one would have argued about Iraq if bush hadn't screwed it up.  


    The imagery to be continued (none / 0) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:53:38 AM EST
    he is doing it in his shorts.  That was their image of Bill in the White House.  

    That makes him the first Blogger, doesn't it? (none / 0) (#153)
    by blogtopus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    He set the standard for Cheetopia!

    I think concern troll posts should be called Bloogers, as in "Josh Marshall just flicked a blooger"


    Did anybody here (none / 0) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM EST
    or anywhere else, for that matter, suggest that they shouldn't be vetted?

    Tax Returns (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    I remember the Clinton tax returns and the supposedly nefarious doings the tax returns would reveal.  When they didn't find anything (and they won't find anything here), they'll go even crazier because they think there must be something there hidden from view.

    It looks like Hillary does want to be SoS judging from the leaks coming out and I, for one, am ecstatic.


    Once the returns were released (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:11:40 AM EST
    ...the Clintons were criticized because they didn't take deductions that many take.

    If I recall.


    The core issue is not, to my eye anyway, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by scribe on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:05:36 AM EST
    whether or not one particular blogger hates HRC or WJC more than another, or something similarly silly.

    The issue is evenhandedness.

    One of the big Sunday papers had a cartoon yesterday portraying a line of people standing in their underwear and holding their clothes, next to a pedestal sign which said "Obama Administration Job Applicants" (or something close to that - I can't get the cartoon online).

    Everyone who wants a job will have to fill out the 63 question form which is widely regarded as more intrusive than anything ever, surely more than I have ever seen.  If people, regardless of their past status, job or whatever, are perceived as being able to get around that intrusion, then the next question becomes "why not me, too?"

    To be blunt, WJC has not been hanging around Chappaqua sitting on the front porch rocking and playing with the dog.  He's been out and about flying in peoples' private jets, making deals, meeting and greeting people and who knows what else.  IF you want a dirt bath, google "Clinton  Burkle" and watch the toobz' sewers erupt. I would suggest that if the people of New York want HRC to be their senator and not care too deeply about what WJC is doing, that's fine.  But it's one thing.  Obama is not only building a team, but he is also staking his administration's efficacy on the team he picks.  If all his press people do is answer questions about WJC and some cooked-up scandal,  he won't get any of his agenda done.

    And, FWIW, let us not forget that the Repugs spent the last decade building an oppo-research file on HRC and her husband in anticipation of her being the candidate in 2008, only to see all that work for naught when That Guy From Illinois wound up in the nominee seat.  You think the CDS Dems are p*ssed?  Think about how the Repugs feel.

    Further, I would (speaking for myself) prefer to see HRC remain in the Senate.  Not just because she is an effective senator and can become a lion in that body.  Rather, NY Gov. David Patterson has made it about as clear as it can be made that, if she is made Secretary of State, he will appoint himself to her seat in the Senate and leave the governorship.  The NY Legislature is closely divided:  a trio of Dem senators are taking Lieberman's example to heart and dangling control to the Republicans and Democrats based upon which party gives them the most.  It is entirely possible that, regardless of the electoral results, if HRC goes to SoS, then the NY governorship and Senate will be in Republican hands.

    The upshot of that would likely be that Wall Street would never be adequately cleaned up.

    Finally, BTD:  a little self-awareness check on your part seems in order.  Whatever the merits of your opinions on Josh Marshall's opinions and posts, I think an objective observer could easily conclude your attitude toward him has crossed from disagreement to hateful derangement.  For sure, he's gotten inside your head.  This is not junior high school, and none of us should act like it still is.

    The points about lobbying for Cuba and so on are all fine and, to a degree

    Guilty (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:12:04 AM EST
    Read my posts on Marshall with a jaundiced eye. I have crossed over to detesting and disrespecting him.

    Why jaundiced? (5.00 / 7) (#146)
    by pluege on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    • Is not a fundamental construct of the left blogosphere exposing and fighting bull, deceptions, and cult influence?
    • Is it not feasible that "wingnuts" fly on the left just as they do on the right?
    • Is it not the providence of the reality-based community to rail against wingnuts whatever their orientation because they are counterproductive to progress regardless of their orientation?

    Marshall, kos, and others hailing from the left that support cultism, boosterism, 'Clinton Derangement Syndrome', etc. are counter productive to progressive goals. They should be exposed and denounced because they undermine progressive credibility and hinder achieving progressive goals.

    How do they undermine? (none / 0) (#168)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    These are individuals who blog. They don't own our votes. We get to chose who goes to the Senate and Congress not them.  The only way people undermine progressive causes is if they don't vote for them.

    Blaming certain individuals that you don't like for  a lack of progressive credibility is absurd.


    Um (5.00 / 6) (#171)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    Are you saying that those bloggers have no influence on people and how they vote? I beg to differ - look at all the sheeple they created during this election.

    Why would they even do it if they have no influence?


    What I am saying (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    is that we as individuals own our votes.  I do not read blogs so that I know how to vote, I read blogs for news and opinion. Based on my own beliefs and research I make a decision as to who I vote ffor

    Sheeple?  The same could be said about this blog, no?

    Have you ever thought that people blog because they like to write and have conversations with those from all walks of life? You do remember why Marshall started TPM? It was because of the Florida mess and he knew there were other people out there that wanted to discuss it and make sense of it all.  

    This anger towards bloggers is the same anger that I saw directed at Donna Brazile because they expressed opinions that people didn't agree with.  Why the hate on people expressing opinions? Why aren't people allowed to ask questions without being called deranged or robots?


    To the extent (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by Lena on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    that Josh Marshall, the "kossacks" (rolling eyes), the Huffington Post commenters, et al., have begun to speak for the "progressive" community, get their often laughable stories quoted in the MSM, and are embraced by other "progressives," progressivism is dead.

    And to the extent that other "progressives" keep defending some of the most sexist, inane, double-standard lovin', and yes, Hillary Clinton-hating remarks that keep showing up, again and again, on all those blogs, it is an embarassment to the progressive community.

    I have stopped reading all the above blogs, because they're so unreliable and irrational (and would never dream of getting any news whatsoever from any of them). I just wish my fellow progressives could all unite in condemning the untruthfull hyperbole that gushes from those sites like geysers on a seemingly daily basis....

    Also, isn't it a double standard to be fine with some of the demonstrably false info coming from the left blogs (because it doesn't influence your vote, and I'm sure no one else's!), but at the same time criticize the false info that comes from the MSM?

    At any rate, I read some of the most hideously sexist drivel I've ever read at Kos this election season, and never want his name to be connected to progressivism ever again.


    Huh? (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    I was going to stop commenting on this thread and just lurk but your comment needs to be responded to.

    And to the extent that other "progressives" keep defending some of the most sexist, inane, double-standard lovin', and yes, Hillary Clinton-hating remarks that keep showing up, again and again, on all those blogs, it is an embarassment to the progressive community.

    What is this about?  What sexist and Hillary hating remarks do you speak of? I do not recall Marshall or Kos outright saying they hated Hillary they expressed a choice which was Obama (although I'm not even sure Marshall really was rooting for Obama but rather not rooting for Hillary).  

    As a black female who saw this election as an eye opener I think this sexism doomed Hillary! meme that has been floating around is nonsense.  Did sexism cost Hillary votes? Is sexism at play about the SoS position? Really?  Where is the outrage about the fact that 20% of voters (you know the people that can actually chose progressive policies by voting and not bloggers) in states like OH, PA, WV stated to strangers that race affected their votes and 75% of them voted for Clinton?  Wouldn't that bother you more rather than what some bloggers said? How is THAT good for progressives?

    To profess such hatred for bloggers that you do not know and empowering them by picking fights with them is not going to do anything for progressive causes. Blaming them is just silly.


    Please make your absence (none / 0) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    permanent from my threads.

    you are not breaking any rules but you just annoy me.

    I am sure Chris  and Jeralyn will be happy to have your participation.


    My anger at them (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    is not because they support a certain candidate or not, or hold a certain opinion or not, it's because they have been trafficking in lies, disinformation, and irrational hatefulness, and then their readers propagate those lies and disinformation. Progressive blogs were supposed to be about being reality-based, not what they are now. And, no, this blog does not compare in that sense at all. Unless you are claiming that there is no reality, only different opinions, in which case there's nothing to talk about at all here.

    the "marketplace of ideas", perhaps? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by byteb on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    "Sheeple" creation is more likely to occur in an atmosphere devoid of vigorous and passionate discussion complete with dissenting viewpoints. The blogosphere came of age because of the disgust with the group think MSM narrative that cast Gore as nerdy jerk and Bush as The Cowboy we all wanted to have a beer with.  
    BTW, are you really saying that hundreds of thousands of ppl marched to the polls during the primaries and general and voted a certain way because of the power of certain blogs? Which blogs created what kind of sheeple? Or more to the point, why is a a person denigrated as a "sheeple" because they voted for a certain way?

    Most blogs out there that I see now (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    ARE groupthink exhibits, just like the MSM narratives. And, yes, I use 'sheeple' for all the bots that were created by Kos, TPM, HuffPo, etc. repeating the same exact talking points over and over again.

    And, no, I didn't say those people voted that way solely due to blogs. Follow the thread.


    BTD is hardly alone in this (5.00 / 11) (#62)
    by ChrisO on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:30:38 AM EST
    TPM used to be my first read every morning. But the hatred and vitriol towards Hillary turned me into a once a week reader, at most. Josh was one of the primary "progressive" voices leading the mob in the worst vilification of a candidate from her own party that I have ever seen. I don't just disagree with Marshall, I detest him. The schism that still exists in the party (and even though most of us are behind Obama, believe me, the schism is still there) is largely a result of the sliming of Hillary by Marshall, HuffPo and Kos.

    I guess they felt it was OK to rip the party apart for a candidate who would "bring us together."


    He has? (none / 0) (#45)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:19:14 AM EST
    Rather, NY Gov. David Patterson has made it about as clear as it can be made that, if she is made Secretary of State, he will appoint himself to her seat in the Senate and leave the governorship.

    When did he say that?


    There were two articles. (none / 0) (#132)
    by scribe on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    First, the later of them, published this morning about 6 hours ago, pours water on the topic. (I hadn't seen this one when I wrote my post.)

    Of course, if he appoints Andrew Cuomo, that's the second NY AG taken out inside of two and a half years.

    It appeared that the article supporting my argument which I read over the weekend had been scrubbed.  It turns out that even the papers cannot agree on how to spell the governor's surname, such that he doesn't always turn up in every search.  Here's the article, from Saturday .

    Here's another blog, listing some prospective candidates.


    Count me (none / 0) (#133)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM EST
    in that group that has a severe case of JMMS.

    I stopped (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by BRockNYLA on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:20:20 AM EST
    reading Josh and Kos months ago.  They are dead to me for their performances during the primaries.  No forgiving, No forgetting.

    The thing that kills me (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by ChrisO on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    is the way people talk about donations to Bill's fund as if they were payments going into his pocket. I agree that everyone should be vetted, and if the husband of an SoS candidate has extensive foreign dealings, there's certainly cause for very close scrutiny. But the fact that the money comes in to the foundation and then is distributed to some very worthwhile causes is hardly akin to having a for-profit business relationship.

    BTW, I assume there were similar demands to see the entire Red Cross donor list when Bob Dole was running for President.

    If you want proof (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by eric on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:22:04 AM EST
    of Josh's CDS, outside of the merits of what BTD writes here, all one need do is look at this post from last Friday. Not Over Till It's Over

    Josh tells us that it isn't over because Bill Richardson is now meeting with Obama for the SOS position.  "Not over till its over"?  Geez Josh, could you be a little more obvious about your feelings here?  Is this a football game and Hillary is the visiting team?

    No, in Josh's mind. . . (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:26:26 AM EST
    Hillary is the football.

    The lineback dummy more likely (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Salo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:28:40 AM EST
    or the boxer's punching bag.

    Imagine you're a foreign head of state (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    if its Bill Richardson, they would prepare to just meet the "US Secretary of State."  But if its Hillary, they'll be meeting "Hillary Clinton" who also happens to be the Secretary of State.  Its instant star power and rapport.  

    But some Obama advisers argue that Clinton would be an ideal fit if Obama concludes that he will have to focus his early days in office on the domestic economy, and will have to essentially outsource heavy-duty foreign travel to his secretary of State. Her celebrity and credibility would be a huge asset in his goal of reengaging the United States with allies. "You can send out John Kerry or Chuck Hagel," said one adviser, mentioning some other candidates for secretary of State. "Sending Hillary Clinton out is better."

    Add Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:20:16 AM EST
    and its double the star power!

    Richardson would get rolled (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    by the Defense Department. If Gates stays, as it appears likely, State needs someone with a lot more smarts and clout than Bill Richardson. That is Hillary.

    These are legitmate questions to ask any appointee (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:29:14 AM EST
    The issue is not what the WJC Foundation does, the issue is who is funding the projects (and his library).  If HRC is Sec. of State it is likely that she will have to deal with individuals and governments who may well be, or have been, financial contributors to one or more of the Clintons' various projects.

    No one is casting aspersions on what it is the Clintons or WJC is doing, it is the potential for financial conflict of interest that must be assessed. And yes, it must be assessed for all high level appointees insofar as their individual areas of responsibility are concerned.

    That said, I do not wish to see HRC as Secretary of State regardless of the existence of any conflicts, on the merits as you put it.  She is one of the Democratic Party's leading hawks, and it is her foregn policy positions that led to my decision to support Obama over her.  To now have her in heading up Obama's foreign policy team would be hugely disappointing.  

    It is hard to see how the new President can deliver on his expressed desire to "change the mindset that got us into this [Iraq] war" by putting Sen. Clinton at State.  Support on her foreign policy/defense positions from the likes of Sen. McCain and Dr. Kissinger only reinforce my view that she is not suited to change the mindset of our foreign policy and defense/security policies one iota.

    I think she is a very valuable Senator and would make an even more valuable addition to the Supreme Court.

    If they are (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    and I aceptr that the Obama team needs to know, why no concern or postings about Craig's entanglements? Or Emanuel's? Or Jarett's? Or any one else being floated?

    Do you see my point?


    In this post (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:12:30 AM EST
    my beef is with Josh Marshall playing the Media Right Wing Clinton Hate game.

    the story was BS (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    roundly debunked.

    It is why Josh does not write about it anymore.


    All of it (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    Sorry, I did this story in real time. Go catch up on your own time.

    Fair point (none / 0) (#83)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:44:14 AM EST
    but I think the reason is obvious.  For better or worse HRC and WJC are about as high profile, newsworthy as individuals can get in this day and age.  Got to take the bad with good on that, as I am sure they would be the first to acknowledge.  Not to say there was every any justificaiton for the level of bad launched at them throughout WJC's amdinistration.  

    I have enormous respect for both, I just do not support the de facto empire and the policies and military-industrial-corporate establishment that support and maintain it (or the empire that supports the establishment and policies, take your pick).  While not overly optimistic the our new President can or will do a lot to change our destructive course, he did at least hint at it during the campaign.  It gave this voter some hope, which alas is better than none.

    I read all the progressive blogs and value the views expressed here as well as at Kos and TPM. I think we all get hung up on our favorites players and lose sight that at th end of the day all of them are politicians and the only thing that matters is what they do in whatever official capacity they serve to make, in one's own view, the country & world a better place.

    It is my view HRC would do an excellent job on the Supreme Court or in the Senate.  


    In short (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:47:03 AM EST
    Because the Media hates the Clintons and the Right hates the Clintons, Left blogs should ALSO hate the Clintons.

    I tell you, I am with Somerby on this one.


    Good? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    For better or worse HRC and WJC are about as high profile, newsworthy as individuals can get in this day and age.  Got to take the bad with good on that,

    Good?  What good would that be?


    How about traveling the world & a foundation? (none / 0) (#201)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    The ability to travel the globe influencing for the better world affairs, solving pressing global issues like disease and hunger, that sunds pretty good to me.  I think that is how WJC has been occupying himself of late.  I do not beleive he would be doing so with the impact he does were it not for having been a successful, much admired former President.

    Supreme Court? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:38:37 AM EST
    Hillary has shown no interest in becoming a Supreme Court justice.  

    When an opening occurs, offer her the job (none / 0) (#85)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:45:11 AM EST
    and see what happens

    There won't be a job offer (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by WS on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:50:42 AM EST
    because an SC job won't be offered.  She's the least bit interested in becoming a Supreme Court Justice in the media interviews she's done on the subject.    

    The issue is not (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by ChrisO on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:48:03 AM EST
    who is funding his library. The law says presidential libraries can keep their donor lists confidential. Rep. Waxman tried to subpoena the donor lists for the Reagan and Bush I libraries, and was turned down. There were also questions about the Jesse Helms Foundation, which was believed to have received donations from foreign interests while he was chair of the Foreign Relations committee. Also turned down.

    The only reason there is an urgency to know about the Clinton donors is because people with no knowledge of the situation are claiming there must be some kind of smoking gun. It's generally accepted in America that officials aren't allowed to go on fishing expeditions simply because they're curious if there's any wrongdoing.

    Absent any specific allegations, there's absolutely no reason why the Clinton Library donor list shouldn't receive the same consideration as his predecessors'. While the vetting process is important, I don't see why the Obama administration should have the right to demand this information (not that I believe they have) any more than they should be able to insist that applicants waive attorney client privilege.

    Let's face it, in this case the vetting process isn't to determine if there's wrongdoing, it's to make sure there's nothing that will embarrass the Obama administration. This is a legitimate concern, but it hardly supersedes the rights of individuals to keep certain information confidential.


    Not ismply to prevent embarassment (none / 0) (#200)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    The Secretary of State is, second to the President, the chief public official responsible for dealing with foreign affairs and foreign governments.  If foreign governments have contriibuted to the WJC Foundation and/or library (as they have been known to support, e.g., the Carter Center), then HRC as SOS could easily be conflicted.

    No one cares who paid for Bill's foundation but for the impact it might have on the future, hoefully not, Secretary of State's judgment.

    That is a legitimate concern.


    Oh you mean like (5.00 / 10) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:49:15 AM EST
    how the VP AND Kerry (another possible SOS) also voted for the war? Why is it that some Obama supporters put the "hawk" only on Clinton?? Why is that?

    Fascinating, isn't it? (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    I think these people wouldn't recognize a genuine war hawk if they fell over one.  Nor do I think they really care one way or the other.  It's an excuse for CDS.

    Biden's a hawk too (none / 0) (#202)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    no doubt about it.  Kerry, in my view, sold his soul voting for the AUMF knowing better.  He had his eye on 2004 and it backfired.  Still, JFK has acknowledged his error and has in the past opposed militaqry adventures of this sort.

    The list of those who opposed include Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin as well as Jack Reed.  So it was possible to oppose particularly for Senators in blue states.

    At least Biden won't be chairing Foreign Relations and hopefully he will never succeed to the top job.


    Give Obama some credit (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Manuel on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:21:08 AM EST
    She is one of the Democratic Party's leading hawks

    Obama is well aware of this perception (which doesn't quite fit reality by the way).  For Obama, this is a point in favor of having Clinton in the Cabinet.  He wants her point of view considered when policy is formulated.  As Johnson said "Inside the tent pissing out".  Obama must feel confident that the resulting policy will have broad appeal and be effective.


    So if HRC's (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM EST
    vote on AUMF is disqualifying in your mind then why do you say:

    I think she is a very valuable Senator

    You decided that she was toxic because of a vote on the Senate floor and then make that statement.

    And if funding the Clinton Foundation is the  issue in your mind I have to ask if you believe that if a member of the Gambino family makes a contribution to a foundation does that mean the foundation is mobbed up?

    Regarding an SoS appointment, do you actually think that the SoS makes foreign policy at the exclusion of the President and his other advisers.


    BTW (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:31:41 AM EST
    the rest of your comment is what I think Josh really thinks and I wish he would just write that.

    The don't quote you (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:33:53 AM EST
    in the New York Times if you complain about how much of a hawk Hillary is. Mumble about Bill Clinton's private work, however, and they'll get real interested.

    I swear. . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:41:44 AM EST
    Mumble about Bill Clinton's private work, however,

    I read that as private parts the first time through!


    heh (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    Remember Drudge and the tattoo?

    Diversions (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by mountainaires on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:38:33 AM EST
    Distractions and diversions. Josh doesn't like the idea of Obama picking Clinton as Sec/State because he fears the inevitable [and already happening] erosion of Obama's credibility on foreign policy. Remember the 3 a.m. phone call ad? With Clinton as Sec/State, it becomes reality. Josh has positioned himself alongside Chris Matthews as part of Obama's palace guard. Protect POTUS is the new watchword for these bastions in the new "Ministry of Propaganda." It's all about what's good for Obama.

    Josh Marshall got all indignant once a year or so ago when I pointed out to him that he's a hypocrite. Well: The shoe fits, WKJM.

    Boosterism (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by mountainaires on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:52:19 AM EST
    This sort of underscores my point above about Josh becoming part of the "palace guard." I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.



    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Fabian on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:32:21 AM EST
    It's like reading about the latest teen pop idol instead of a head of state.  I think I'd get cavities if I read the actual articles listed.

    ...and I thought the blogs were bizarre.


    I don't think they realize (5.00 / 8) (#97)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:54:28 AM EST
    that the Clinton Foundation is non-profit.

    Get back to me when Bill starts getting paid to lobby the State Department.  Yawn.

    Steve M is almost always a good choice (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:19:32 AM EST
    Grounded, warm with no hint of nutty flavor while being slightly effervescent :)

    Hehe (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:07:26 AM EST
    I plead guilty to being a latte-drinking liberal, but I think this is the first time I've been cast in the role of the latte :)

    Josh Marshall gettin a tad Larry Johnsonish (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:58:22 AM EST

    Inner circle Obamaite Daschle's wife (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by pluege on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    is a lobbyist. Did marshall raise questions bout that...of course not, nor any other Obama booster with similar issues.

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    I think for your health maybe you shouldn't read Marshall. It seems that you become enraged when you read him and then opine about his posts.

    Your blood pressure would probably thank you if you stopped reading him. :)

    Ignore him! He's just one person with a computer!

    I'd thought the opposite (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM EST
    I believe it's valuable to vent to relieve pressure.

    Since I'm all steamed up about JMM, it helps me when BTD posts about him.  He reads JMM so I don't have to.


    But (none / 0) (#158)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    wouldn't it help to ignore him? I mean if you are that angry at a person to the point of almost hating them, why help him out by creating a blogfight? People like drama and by going back and forth with Josh it just gives him site traffic, no?  

    If you have such strong opinions and don't want him to be relevant why not ignore him? People follow him because others have made him relevant and even though this post negatively reflects on Josh it still makes him relevant.

    I just say ignore him. I personally read his blog for Greg Sargent's posts.


    Please ignore my posts (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    and no longer comment in them.

    It's a pet peeve of mine, but your comments annoy me.

    I would much appreciate it if you did not comment in my threads anymore.


    Do me a favor (none / 0) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    Don't comment in my threads anymore.

    I really do not like your presence in my discussions.

    I am sure you'll do better with Chris and Jeralyn.


    What evil deeds is the Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:00:07 AM EST
    foundation doing? Gosh, I need a refresher.
    By the way, how many people know that GHWB was on the board of a gold mining company in Africa which LITERALLY buried unionizers alive---I do mean literally.

    Sufferers of CDS (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    need to take two aspirin and call their doctor in the morning.  The 'trial ballon' seems to be maintaining its heft despite deflationary efforts ranging from pinpricks to arrows.  More reasons as to why Mrs. Cllinton cannot be Secretary of State need to be conjured up before the symptoms become exacerbated and more potent palliatives, along with their associated side effects, are needed.

    "A lot of people hate the Clintons." (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by joel dan walls on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    So wondering out loud if Hillary Clinton might have financial interests in conflict with serving as Secretary of State is now CLINTON-HATING?

    I think Clinton would be fine as SOS, but get a grip: you've de facto defined any criticism or questioning of Hillary Clinton as "Clinton hating". Not exactly what I would consider an attempt at honest discussion....

    When you ask the question (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    about OTHER Obama appointments, get back to me.

    Talk about missing the point.

    I hate stupid people.


    No one has (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by JThomas on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    any way of knowing that all of the above candidates are not being asked those same questions. The press just does not seem interested in creating rumors about the other folks...just the clintons...big surprise.

    Look, like it or not, the Clintons are big news whatever they do, whereever they go, so of course the press will speculate much more about them than Craig or Dashle.

    They all get vetted, count on that.
    The press only cares about the Clintons..is that fair,not really. But blame the Clintons for being an ex-president and first lady who are very fascinating politcal figures in America. That sells newspapers. It sucks but it is what it is. Capitalism.


    I am sure (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
    that the same people wondered out loud whether John Kerry or Bill Richardson might have financial interests in conflict with serving as Secretary of State.  I am sure that they wondered out loud whether Rahm Emanuel might have financial interests in conflict with serving as Chief of Staff.

    You're right, of course.  This isn't about animus towards the Clintons at all.


    Unreal. (4.83 / 6) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:18:03 AM EST
    It's so strange the way the hate Bill in particular...seems even more than Hil. I have heard him described as her albatross. Wow. I never thought a twice-elected, beloved, Democratic President responsible for the best times of our country financially and also as seen by the rest of the world is now a negative thing. Apparently, though, Obama is smarter than these idiots and sees Hillary's worth.  

    Who are they? (none / 0) (#23)
    by NealB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:58:00 AM EST
    All these folks who hate Bill Clinton? Remembering that Clinton was impeached and what was lost doesn't mean they hate him. They all know, of course, that it was NOT Bill Clinton's fault. It was the fault of the times and Starr and the right-wing media; but they don't believe it was Clinton's fault (unless they're deranged). Even if they believe in the dubious blue dress, it still doesn't mean they hate him. They don't hate Bill, they just can't forget that he was there and what was lost.

    What was lost?? (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:31:43 AM EST

    What was lost? (4.83 / 6) (#98)
    by Moishele on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    Or do you mean what Democrats stood idly by and let the Republicans take from us? Don't blame Bill for Congressional Democrats not having any spine.

    And, of course, for the last (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:26:21 PM EST
    6 years of his 8 year presidency, he had a Republican congress to battle.

    'What was lost' was a Democratic agenda from the congress.  Clinton did his job.  They didn't...they were thrown out of office and left him there alone with a veto and a red pen and not much more except imagination and determination.


    You do realize (4.66 / 3) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:30:32 AM EST
    that Bill Clinton is highly respected worldwide do you not.

    Any lover of liberty.... (2.00 / 2) (#122)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    should have issues with Slick Willy.

    Look hard and close at his civil liberties and drug war records as pres...abysmal is the word.  He's the man who brought us Gen. McCaffery as drug czar for heaven's sake!

    Granted, he's got pretty much the same sh*t record on these issues as everybody else in the cesspool, but he of all people should have known better.  Obama too, who I assume is gonna continue the same tired policies endorsed by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush.

    Hate is a strong word...lets just say I've got no love for the guy.


    Slick willy? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    You really did internalize the right-wing lies about both of them, huh?  Tell me...were you raised by Republicans? Because you sure tout their talking points like one.

    It's no lie... (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:07:44 AM EST
    look it up right here in the TL archives, Bill Clinton's record on civil liberties and the drug war was the pits.  No worse than the average Republican perhaps...but the pits none the less.

    I was raised by loving parents who voted Democrat for lack of better choices...they taught me to think for myself, and my mind tells me, based on the evidence, that Slick Willy was no friend to liberty.  Feel free to deify him irregardless of the facts, the same way the right-wing demonizes him irregardless of the facts...but that ain't my game.


    Irregardless is not a word. (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    Either way, you sound like a Republican in Dem's clothing. Slick Willy.

    And if you actually knew ANYTHING about him and his stance on the War on Drugs you would know that Bill tried to change America's drug policy---he wanted a healthcare-based approach to drugs...drug courts,methadone clinics etc. But it was blocked--by Republicans and Democrats alike--Joe Biden one of the strongest supporters of criminalizing drugs. Add to that Charlie Rangel and close Obama associate Sam Nunn. DEMOCRATS were responsible for helping Dems block Bill's ideas about the Drug War.  Look it up and find out the FACTS before you talk without knowing what you're actually talking about.


    Those other Democrats... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    appointed the tyrannical train-wreck Barry Mccaffery as drug czar?

    He could of used the veto on the Crime Bill if it meant that much to him, he did not.  Under his watch we saw the largest increase in marijuana arrests ever, more crimes eligible for the death penalty, more mercenaries on the street.  You blame "other Democrats"?  Gimme a break and remove the rose-colored shades...

    And yes, gimme ain't a word..either is ain't, but you know what I mean:)  


    I blame the paradigm of (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM EST
    policy on drugs that has been around in America for the last 100 years.  You didn't address my points. That Bill tried to change drug policy and was blocked at every turn--by Republicans and Democrats alike.

    Blocked how? (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    He signed budgets that increased drug war funding, appointed a drug czar that placed a new emphasis on marijuana prohibition...if that is "trying", I'd rather he didn't try at all.

    Look up facts and what actually (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    happened instead of talking about things which you know nothing about apparently.

    I'd say likewise... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    I've googled the topic up a storm, and the general consensus is Clinton sucked arse on civil liberties and drug policy.  So says the ACLU, NORML, and others.

    If you have any links I'll be happy to check 'em out...this is the first I'm hearing of a bold progressive plan on crime and drugs that was foiled by Republicans and fellow Democrats.


    So all that Bill accomplished was for (none / 0) (#184)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    naught because he didn't do more? Don't forget that Al Gore, hated by the left wing media, waged a lackluster campaign with Donna Brazile as his campaign manager. Bill was wildly popular and if the Democrats had been more firm in their convictions that the right wing smear machine was the enemy not Bill's policies Al gore would have been our president for the last 8 years. Al under Donna's guidance refused to run on Bill's record of economic and social success.

    They are vetting the spouses (none / 0) (#6)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:18:29 AM EST
    According to the Washington Post, the application for a job in the Obama campaign is very intrussive.  They are pretty much asking the spouses or significant other to fill out an application as well.  Fun article.

    Funny (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:26:47 AM EST
    "Vetting" is a word. I call it excuse making.

    An excuse to say no to people.

    Let me put it bluntly. By Josh Marshall;s standards, Greg Craig's conflict of interests should disqualify him from being White House counsel.

    He lobbied for Fannie Mae for instance. And if you want a real political bomb, for Cuba.


    I wasn't making excuses (none / 0) (#13)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:43:39 AM EST
    I was just saying they were vetting the spouses (and as you said, probably giving him good excuses to say no as well :).  

    I personally think the notion that former president Clinton's work is a conflict of interest, is sorta stupid.  High powered people are married to high powered people.  Now I can see a time when it would be prudent for Bill Clinton to put off on a news conference or project (I can also see times when it would help to link his work with the work of the administration- in order to show America's giving nature).

    Don't fall into the trap of CDS- Clinton Defense Syndrome.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:48:49 AM EST
    Clinton Defense Syndrome. I'm howling at that one.

    It is a trap I willingly walk into (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:48:52 AM EST
    because it is absolutely necessary.

    The irrational haters make it so.


    Its 100% rational (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:56:48 AM EST
    It might be morally wrong, but CDS (the original meaning) sells papers or gets people to read a blog.  

    I would love to see the data on how much  readership increases when someone talks smack about the Clnton's.   Th


    Fair point (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:59:12 AM EST
    Silly to compare... (none / 0) (#11)
    by NealB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:41:15 AM EST
    ...Hillary Clinton to Craig, Emaneul, Jarrett, or "anyone else". The Clinton's are in a league all their own. Holding them to a unique standard isn't deranged, it's sensible; the only reasonable standard to apply. So far it sounds like the entire new administration will be made up of Clinton veterans. So I agree that having Hillary there as defacto "second-in-charge" isn't going to cause any problems.

    It's clear to me that Obama's win this year was an Obama-Clinton win. When Obama's big argument in the final days was mostly 'don't we all miss the good ole days when Clinton was president?,' it's understandable that Obama's putting together a Clinton revival for the opening act of his presidency.

    The question is how long will the Clintons like being back in the White House under Obama? It's easy to forsee two scenarios: 1) they're the stars of a blockbuster and move on after a year or two or three, or 2) they bomb and start to fade away after a year or two or three.

    So it is a Clinton stanard (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:47:47 AM EST
    Not an Obama Administration standard according to you?

    I rest my case.

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome admitted. You do realize that you provide no actual argument for why Hillary Clinton would be held to a different standard than say, Bill Richardson (now there is a vetting file that might make for an interesting read.)

    John Kerry? Teresa Heinz Kerry's financial holdings are of prime concern? Not for Josh Marshall. Or you apparently.

    But what the hell, he was just our Presidential nominee.

    And what if Al Gore was up for a position. Is he is a "league of his own?"

    So that we have it straight - you argue that the Clintons SHOULD be held to a higher vetting standard.


    I argue that it's silly... (none / 0) (#28)
    by NealB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:02:24 AM EST
    ...to think that a past president's spouse and the almost nominee this year wouldn't be. What difference whether it "should" or not?

    I argued it is silly to pretend (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:06 AM EST
    that I argued the Clintons should not be vetted.

    What is NOT silly is that YOU argued that the Clintons are in "a league of their own."

    Now I see you regret having crossed that bridge and are implicitly walking it back.


    It's wasn't that kind of argument. (none / 0) (#41)
    by NealB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:14:01 AM EST
    It's pointing out a misread of reality. Silly. You call something reasonable deranged. That's just silly.

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:15:23 AM EST
    Perhaps I misread you.

    You did write "a league of their own" did you not?


    at least he didn't cast Rosie O'Donnell though. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Salo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:30:15 AM EST

    Yes. (none / 0) (#60)
    by NealB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:29:33 AM EST
    And that's why.

    The you agree with my post then (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:34:41 AM EST
    If "almost nominee" (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    is a criterion that justifies a higher standard for vetting, then let me remind you that Kerry was THE NOMINEE in 2004.....

    let's see Teresa Heinz Kerry's dealings....


    I argue... (none / 0) (#37)
    by NealB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:09:56 AM EST
    ...that Hillary might be a big hit but there's no way to avoid the frenzy that surrounds the speculation.

    the frenzy (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:12:49 AM EST
    Like Josh Marshall's?

    I think this vetting drama has a purpose (none / 0) (#50)
    by ajain on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:24:32 AM EST
    They know hiring Clinton will make the media go crazy. So why not create the frenzy by yourself. The idea that Obama and Bill Clinton hate each other is already set in stone for the press corps. If the Obama team makes noise about vetting for Bill Clinton and making arrangements for the future with Bill Clinton before offering the job to Hillary Clinton then maybe the press have the storyline of 'they won't offer unless they have agreement on Bill Clinton'. This is a good story line coz then everyone will back off and "Obama would not have offered her the job if he wasn't sure there would be control and strategic use of Bill Clinton" will be endlessly repeated over the airwaves.

    Clarification (none / 0) (#70)
    by ajain on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:33:25 AM EST
    "Obama would not have offered her the job if he wasn't sure there would be control and strategic use of Bill Clinton" is good story line if he offers it to her. They will assume that potential conflict of interest will be has been resolved or atleast managed.

    My conspiracy fears (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:58:33 AM EST
    The boys, Kennedy etc, wanting to diminish Hillary's power in the Senate, raise the issue of the SOS, then they can taint her again with the Bill stuff.   Keep the little woman in her place.  To me this can take two paths:  it could all be an Obama club ploy to cut off her knees, where Josh and the blogger boyz do the dirty work for them.   These "loyalist" embedded blogger boyz, do not go off the program without directives.  

    No.... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    after the VP stuff, why not?  

    "hard nosed" (none / 0) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    I can't believe that an operation as professional and hard nosed as Obama's campaign would have made such an important decision based on personal/emotional considerations.    
     Lets see, I learned from this election, not to trust anyone.  "hard nosed" is the key.  No one else left standing.  

    CDS is specific to the Clintons, (none / 0) (#187)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    But the phenomenon permeates most groups. Take congress, for instance; keep your head down, make speeches about how awful some things are, do nothing. Feeding the bureaucratic beast is the goal, actually solving problems is anathema. Just look at the many posts that refer to Hillary Clinton's status as the "junior Senator" from NY, and that the Party Leadership's primary goal in life is to make sure she stays boxed in and "in her place."

    I say f*'em. If for whatever reason Hillary doesn't become SoS, She and Obama should make a pact that she will become the "go to" Senator for any bold, innovative initiatives he wants to implement. She has enough star power that she and Obama could bypass the dinosaur hierarchy, and make their appeal directly to the American people. Nancy and Harry will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing.

    If we're going to demand fundamental reorganization of the banks, auto industry, etc. wouldn't it be just common sense to begin with Congress itself?

    Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are there for one purpose: Regain Congressional power, feed the glacial, bureaucratic beast, and do nothing. If we truly want "change," it most certainly won't come with this Democratic Congress.