More Drama On Clinton At State

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:24:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It struck me as strange yesterday when the distinguished ex-judge Abner Mikva took it upon himself to discuss the Clinton at State issue and allow himself to be characterized as a "close Obama supporter." The Obama transition team slaps Mikva down today:

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

. . . A Democrat who saw the [Mikva] quotes suggested Mikva's words were Obama's way of walking back the suggestion that Senator Clinton could serve as secretary of state. But Pfeiffer, asked if Mikva spoke for the campaign, responded, "no."

Everyone likes to see their name in the papers I guess. Even distinguished ex-jurists like Abner Mikva.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< FDR On The Comeback Trail | Clinton And Obama On Iran >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

More Drama On Clinton At State | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I just reread my post (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM EST

and I am pretty sure I accused Mikva of nothing more than being a distinguished ex-jurist who wanted his name in the papers.

I think YOUR CDS is manifest.

bear in mind, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by cpinva on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST

the nyt's still publishes the ravings of maureen dowd, as though she were a sane person. anything they publish is suspect, subject to further inquiry and independant, third-party confirmation.

keep that huge sack of salt handy, when perusing their pages.

The article I saw specifically claimed. . . (none / 0) (#1)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:38:30 AM EST

that Mikva was working on transition and personnel issues. Lesson: Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Bad writing, not their intent I think (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:44:10 AM EST

Note the different characterizations:

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

And then this clumsy line:

One proposal, floated by Mr. Mikva and several other aides involved in the vetting process, would be for Mr. Clinton to separate himself from the activities of his foundation, including raising money.
"It's not just what he does or says -- it's the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy," Mr. Mikva said. "It's more than a legal problem -- there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

Mikva floated it "and several other aides involved in the vetting process." To wit, Mikva floated and then, in addition, several other aides actually involved in the transition process ALSO floated it.

It sounds like the balloon has been shot down.


Is Mikva (none / 0) (#16)
by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:52:39 AM EST

actually an aide, as opposed to an advisor?

Sloppy writing by that reporter, I agree with you.


: Advisor obviously (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST

Yep, sloppy writing.

Predictably, Al Giordano says (none / 0) (#3)
by Democratic Cat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:45:05 AM EST

in re Judge Mikva, "God bless that man."

Al Giordano--who is he? (none / 0) (#6)
by kempis on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM EST

And why do people read him? Can't they tell he's rowing with one oar?


I have no idea who he is (none / 0) (#8)
by TheRealFrank on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:53:06 AM EST

The first thing I read by him was the ridiculous "the Clinton rumors are all a conspiracy by the Clinton Machine to push her into the SoS position!!11!!!".

That told me enough. It's always nice to know who to ignore.


Al is a good guy (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:03:50 AM EST

He is deranged about the Clintons, and Hugo Chavez.

I consider him a friend of mine.


I haven't seen the "good,' um, ever (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST

Well (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:41:23 AM EST

you just saw him during this election.


: True (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST

Well, OK... (none / 0) (#21)
by kempis on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST

I have seriously deranged friends, too. :)

Any chance you can reason with him and get him to see that he sounds like a crackpot?


Not a chance (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:26:37 PM EST

: heh...I sympathize n/t (none / 0) (#27)
by kempis on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:36:34 PM EST

Leave it to the NY Times to select (none / 0) (#4)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:50:40 AM EST

a source that will say what the so-called newspaper wants to report. I grew up in a family where it was heresy not to read the entire NY Times religiously every day. I dropped my subscription over a year ago, and can read online anything there worth reading.

I am loving (none / 0) (#5)
by rooge04 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST

how quickly Obama's team is to slap down this nonsense. I love it.

: It's either that (none / 0) (#7)
by Fabian on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:17:19 AM EST

or have spend ridiculous amounts of time doing damage control if they let nonsense like this get out of hand. Now that would make Obama's administration-elect look weak.

You're SURE? (none / 0) (#11)
by Ben Masel on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST

Got cites?

Secretary of State (none / 0) (#17)
by Daniel on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST

Firstly, I want to acknowledge that many on this blog have been avid supporters of Hillary Clinton. Having said that, let me also say I think it a HUGE mistake to name her as secretary of state, which at this point, seems like inevitable. During the primaries, despite some folks saying otherwise now, foreign affairs was THE one area of substantive disagreement between her and Barack. From her hinting she's consider nuking Iran, to her disparaging of his willingness to meet with any leader without preconditions, to her LATE LATE regret at her vote to go into Iraq. If you have spent 5 minutes really objectively viewing Hillary (or Bill), you know that in the end, they have but one agenda item, and that is promoting the Clintons!
Only reason she ran for senate was to position herself to run for president. Blind ambition for power and a sense of entitlement seems hardly to be qualifications for THE most important cabinet post. If Obama is such a fan of Lincoln's , he might do well to view what Seward did once HE became secretary of state. This is NOT a good start to an 'administration of change'.

: Another perfect example of CDS! (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by MonaL on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:35:15 AM EST

Thanks for acknowledging the obvious Dan.
I never saw substantive differences between HRC and BO. Except that he didn't have a voting record to defend while he was a state senator. IMO, any "differences" were campaign politics/rhetoric.

: Disagree completely (none / 0) (#20)
by MyLeftMind on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:14:23 PM EST

Hillary's statements were simply an attempt to differentiate herself from Obama because their policy positions were so much in alignment. Obama slipped up by saying he'd meet with with Iran's prez without preconditions, and Hillary took advantage of the chance to get more Jewish and moderate/pro-military support by saying we'd nuke them if they attacked Israel. Of course we would support our allies, especially Israel, but we'd jump in without the nukes. Obama had to stand by his words, and managed to position himself as different from Bush et. al. who refuse to meet with certain foreign leaders. But in reality, a Prez isn't going to be running around meeting with all world leaders until his SoS or other surrogates lay the groundwork for a solution he's signing off.
Hillary is a good person and a great leader. She'd be excellent as SoS and would likely get huge credit for finding ways to spend our money to create peace in the middle east (diplomacy is going to cost us a lot). Lincoln and Seward aren't comparable to an Obama Administration's SoS, and Hillary can only benefit from supporting Obama's foreign policy completely. I have no doubt that she'd be brilliant and create lasting change. Teaming up with Obama is a great opportunity for both of them.
Hillary's only problem is Bill. His ethics are her Achilles heel.

: look up "objectively" (none / 0) (#22)
by kempis on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:21:53 PM EST

...and then post.
THIS is not an example of objectivity:

If you have spent 5 minutes really objectively viewing Hillary (or Bill), you know that in the end, they have but one agenda item, and that is promoting the Clintons!
It's boilerplate Clinton-bashing. Its origins are the rightwing talking points of the 90s which were brushed off and shamelessly used by some of the more manipulative and less scrupulous Obama-supporters to get the "progressive netroots" sheeple (and the MSM pundits) bleating against Hillary.
It's bullcrap.
It's a claim you cannot support with anything but propaganda.
So you look really silly to lecture people on their need to be "objective" about Hillary Clinton's qualifications to be SoS.
Furthermore, if you think Hillary is such an obviously disastrous choice, what are you saying about Obama's judgment? I think he's exercising excellent judgment and selecting the best candidate for the job. You, however, must think he's incapable of making "objective" judgments because "If you have spent 5 minutes really objectively viewing Hillary (or Bill), you know that in the end, they have but one agenda item, and that is promoting the Clintons!"
You must consider President-elect Obama's decision-making to be poor. I don't.

: Did you READ my post? (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM EST

This is just false "foreign affairs was THE one area of substantive disagreement between her and Barack."
Utterly false.
It is tough for Obama supporters to realize I know, but wake up and smell the coffee.

Is this the same Abner Mikva (none / 0) (#19)
by Demi Moaned on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:13:16 PM EST

... who was a Congressman from the North Side of Chicago in the early 70's and challenged Chuck Percy for the Senate? Surely he'd be too old now. Perhaps it's his son.

: Same guy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:47:16 PM EST

A long and storied career!