home

Bill Clinton: I'll Do What It Takes For Hillary As SOS

So sez the WSJ:

Former President Bill Clinton has offered to submit future charitable and business activities to strict ethics reviews if his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, were nominated as secretary of state, according to Democrats familiar with the deliberations. He has also agreed for the first time to disclose many of the previous donors to his efforts.

. . . "Bill Clinton will not be the obstacle to whether Hillary gets this job or not," said one Democrat familiar with the situation. Another person added: "He's willing to be as transparent as the Obama world wants."

But "friends" love to talk:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has reservations about accepting an appointment as secretary of state in the Obama administration, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton who is familiar with her thinking said on Tuesday. The adviser described Mrs. Clinton as flattered by President-elect Barack Obama’s interest but said she was agonizing over the decision. Mrs. Clinton likes being her own boss and is reluctant to give up the independence that comes with that, said the adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process was at a delicate stage.

I love these "friends," especially the "spoke on condition of anonymity because the process was at a delicate stage" bit. If this "friend" really believes the "process is at a delicate stage" how does their speaking, anonymously or otherwise, help? I swear to Gawd, people just love to see their words in the paper don't they? The Clintons have too many "friends" like this. One thing Obama has over the Clintons, their "friends" know how to keep their yaps shut.

On a related note, David Border (?!?) writes a mostly good column on why Hillary should turn down the job:

I do not doubt that she could do the job -- and do it well. I have been a fan of the former first lady's since I covered her efforts for health-care reform 15 years ago. What I saw in the recent campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was convincing evidence of her physical stamina and moral courage, and of her capacity to improve her own performance at every step of the process. I admired her readiness to endorse and campaign hard for Obama after her own candidacy fell short.

What, then, is the problem? Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It's not the best use of her talents, and it's certainly not the best fit for this new president.

. . . Some commentators have suggested that Hillary Clinton is frustrated by her lack of seniority in the Senate and the fact that she is not yet a chairman of any of the committees handling big policy areas. I find that a curious notion. Her influence, which is vast, does not rest on seniority. It rests on the respect she has won from colleagues in both parties for her hard work, her preparation and her mastery of the substance of policy. Senators want her support for their efforts, and both Republicans and Democrats are eager to join hers, because they know she commands a unique audience both in the Capitol and across the country. That was true in the past, and it is even more true after the impressive campaign she ran for the presidential nomination.

If Clinton can be of service to Obama in Foggy Bottom, she can be of even greater value as an ally on Capitol Hill.

I see it that way too. My one reservation on this is that Bill Richardson seems to be the person Obama would pick if clinton does not take the job. That would be a grievous mistake. Richardson is a dolt, unfit for the position. John Kerry is vastly superior to Richardson for this job. But he seems not to be under consideration.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Cheney, Gonzales Indicted | Pass The Colombian Free Trade Pact . . . . Next Year >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not sure I buy this part. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    because they know she commands a unique audience both in the Capitol and across the country. That was true in the past, and it is even more true after the impressive campaign she ran for the presidential nomination.

    It's not clear to me whether Clinton's Senate relations will benefit from her tough and impressive campaign or be harmed by the hysteria and side-taking that the primaries engendered.

    I'd like to see her as Secretary of State but largely, I have to admit, for the discomfort it will cause to the crazy Clinton haters in the left-o-sphere.

    But please, God, not Richardson.  I have to admit that it would be a singular accomplishment for a US Secretary of State to bring us to the brink of war with Canada, but I if anyone can do it, it's Richardson.

    he'd trigger a war with Mexico. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:48:42 AM EST
    Not Canada. Leave that to Alan Alda.

    Parent
    No, he's already suggested. . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    tapping the water in the Great Lakes to artificially sustain population growth in the American Southwest.

    Parent
    Minnesota to secceed! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    Yeah I remember that boneheaded stuff.  So he'd actually start a new civil war over water rights.    The Canadians would play coy waiting game in that scenario.

    Parent
    I believe it was Mark Twain... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    who said "whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over."

    Parent
    Prophetic on this, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:02:13 AM EST
    as he was on so many other things.

    Parent
    Clinton's Senate relations (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM EST
    are enhanced by her performance in the primaries and after.  She was greeted like a returning hero, just short of the welcome Obama got, when she returned to the Senate the first time after the primaries, and that was before she started campaigning for Obama.

    If politicians gave the cold shoulder to everybody who supported a different candidate than they did, nothing would ever get done.  They don't do that.  Politics is just business, and there really aren't a lot of grudges held. (The Clintons' attitude toward Richardson might be one of those rare exceptions because he really violated the rules, but I wouldn't be surprised if they kissed and made up.)

    And besides, you think the same people who voted overwhelmingly to embrace Lieberman are going to be mad at Hillary?  Come on!

    Parent

    I dont think theyd be mad at her... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    and are more than willing to show support since she did get 18 million votes.  But I view politicians like sharks, yet they dont even always wait for blood in the water.  

    Moreover, with the Clintons, I think theres a lot of envy and powergames always at play, with the senate being a cesspool for that.  And with senators tripping over themselves to get their version of healthcare out, seems theyre quite ok with undercutting her.

    Parent

    **concerning the Clintons. Not WITH the Clintons (none / 0) (#120)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    Didnt want to give the wrong perception.

    Parent
    Chris Cillizza (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:43:56 AM EST
    also quotes a friend, but this is funnier:

    While that line of reasoning makes sense to us -- especially when considering that Clinton may have never even thought of the possibility that she could be secretary of State until six days ago -- there is a line of thinking in the political world that nothing the Clintons do is without calculation.

    If you ascribe to that idea, then this push by her advisers to paint Clinton as equivocating on her desire for the position could well be part of a power struggle between her and Obama; a public show of force to make clear that just because the president-elect has asked her for something doesn't mean she is in any rush to accede.

    Is there no cure for this disease?  


    No it's congenital. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    It would require gene therapy for Cilizza.

    Parent
    He could use English lessons, too (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    "If you ascribe to that idea"?  Good God.

    Parent
    probably (none / 0) (#43)
    by eric on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    means subscribe?

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    but he's trying to sound fancy-- without having a clue.  Sorta emblematic of his approach to actual content, too.

    Parent
    As an advisor to the POTUS (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by ding7777 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:58:27 AM EST
    I agree that its not the best use of Hillary's talents, but Hillary, as SOS, is the best choice  Obama could make.

    Conflicted (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by joanneleon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    She would do a great job as SoS, but something tells me she should run the other way.  If I were Hillary, I'd never trust Obama or anyone near him.  She'll never get a fair shake from them.

    She could be the architect of a new New Deal.  I believe that's where her talents could be used best.  I've never seen anyone who can immediately envision solutions to a wide range of problems, and who can lay out those solutions in the form of policy in a clear and concise manner, as well as Hillary can.  I think she was born to tackle the situation in this country today.

    The question is whether the egos in the Senate (and the White House) would allow her to do it.


    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    Do you think she should take the (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    job or keep her current one or does it matter in your opinion?

    Parent
    I would like her to do whatever (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    she wishes.  For myself, I would like the satisfaction of Hillary Clinton at the right hand of the President-elect.  

    Parent
    Except That (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    Obama is Left handed.

    Parent
    Sheep on the right; goats (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    on the left.  The Bible says.

    Parent
    Bigots (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM EST
    It is to laugh (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by wasabi on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:59:42 AM EST
    After all the trash talking of the Clintons that Broder has done over the years, this statement really made me laugh: "I have been a fan of the former first lady's since I covered her efforts for health-care reform 15 years ago."

    Did you see (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    Lawrence Eagleburger on the SoS candidates (particularly Richardson)?

    Do tell. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    link. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM EST
    Here's a link.

    It's not exactly detailed, nor complimentary.  Just some one liners.  

    Parent

    He's right about Richardson and Hitchens (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    And you can't deny Obama is inexperienced.

    Parent
    For example (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:43:00 AM EST
    on Iraq - Eagleburger said

    "August 16, 2002

    "I think Scowcroft has done us all a great favor by his article saying don't do it. My own personal view is that basically Gen. Scowcroft is correct. Unless the president can make a very compelling case that Saddam Hussein has his finger on a weapon of mass destruction and is about ready to use it, I do not think that now is the time to go to war against Saddam Hussein." [Fox News, 8/16/2002]"

    Hitchens on Iraq? Uh . . .


    Parent

    I did appreciate Hitchens taking (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    the right to task on GOD though.  I have to give him that, but that's it.

    Parent
    I saw Hitchens on C Matthews (none / 0) (#82)
    by hairspray on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    (just a clip since I never watch Chris) slam Hillary as a war monger, etc.  Hitchens looked tanked up as usual.  A Time editor was trying to get a word in by saying the best foreign policy the US had for the last 30 years was under Bill Clinton, but neither Chris nor Hitchens would keep their yaps shut for a analysis by the Time reporter.

    Parent
    HILLARY a war monger?!?!?! (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    Wasn't it Hitch who joined his newfound neocon pals as one of the leading tubthumpers for the Iraq War, and then went on to support BUSH (this from someone who called himself a "socialist" as recently as 2000) against Kerry in '04? And they say irony is dead (maybe alcohol helps to kill it, like bacteria :)

    Parent
    The man must be bonkers (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    That's almost a Stalinist erasure of his own history.

    Parent
    Or tanked? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by hairspray on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:44:56 PM EST
    Enough martinis (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    and all sorts of personal history can be rewritten by self :)

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    I've done it myself :)

    Parent
    Careful! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:08:38 PM EST
    Hitch might take that personally--he IS an ex-Trot, after all, and they loathe Stalinists (for my money, it's "potayto, potahto" all the way.)

    Parent
    I think it's funny (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:49:42 AM EST
    considering the names you were called for criticizing Richardson.  Oh no, how dare you insult such an accomplished man, blah blah blah.

    Parent
    Look (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:52:01 AM EST
    Any objective person has to say that Richardson is a dolt.

    I know a lot folks who know him - believe you me - it is a pretty universal view.

    Parent

    Having said that (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:04:38 AM EST
    I imagine I would love to have a beer with him.

    Parent
    It's sad, I was thinking the same thing :) (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    No, you wouldn't (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:25:33 AM EST
    He has wandering hands, apparently.

    Parent
    Sez you (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    Maybe that was my entire reason, for all you know!

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    Come on Steve, let's go before we are late for our date :)

    Parent
    Wasn't that (none / 0) (#44)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:09:48 AM EST
    the same thing they said about W in '00? Perhaps that tells us all we need to know . . .

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    I never heard anyone say that Clinton patted, stroked, rubbed women staffers and others without invitation and in both private and public.  Never.

    If those rumors are true about Richardson, he has a more complicated and more ominous problem than Clinton ever had.

    Parent

    So, you admit these are just rumors... (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    ...but insist on spreading them anyway.  

    Interesting.  

    Parent

    Go google it (none / 0) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:03:36 AM EST
    They're not just rumors, there have been open allegations, and there's also video.  Richardson says he's just a friendly, "touchy-feely" kind of guy.  I hope I don't have to tell you how women feel about dealing with "touchy-feely" guys in their professional lives.


    Parent
    Nice piece of dancing... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    ...around the issue.  Here is what you said...

    "If those rumors are true about Richardson..."

    As I recall, you once told me in no uncertain terms that you would never, ever engage in spreading of rumors.

    Also, since women are individuals, I won't pretent to know how each and every one feels about having "touchy, feely" people around them.  No doubt that not every female is of the same mind as you.

    Parent

    Right.... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by sj on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:46:21 AM EST
    ... some "females" like being touched or hugged by anyone around them.

    I think if there are differences in how "females" feel about "touchy, feely" people its a matter of degree.  Is one merely irked briefly?  Or does one's skin crawl?  Or anything in between.

    Because it's not just "touchy, feely" people that are the problem.  It's those who are inappropriately "touchy, feely".

    Parent

    Huh. (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    The question of rumors vs. allegations aside, this sounds like you're arguing, "But some women like to be groped."  I hope I'm wrong.

    Parent
    While you are certainly free... (none / 0) (#111)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    ...to read into my comments whatever you wish, please do not ascribe the voices in your head to me.  

    Parent
    W. (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM EST
    As in George.

    And he doesn't pat staffers, just presidents.

    Parent

    Apologies, gyrfalcon-- (none / 0) (#98)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    I was responding to a previous post that said Richardson was the sort of fellow one would like to have a beer with. The "W" in my comment stood for GWB, not WJC. I'm on your side on this one.

    Parent
    Did anyone call BTD names? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:01:24 AM EST
    I don't think so.

    What people did was take issue with BTD calling Richardson a 'Fool'. And in fact you may have endorsed that name calling of Richardson. It certainly appears you are doing that now via your comment.

    Webster's:


    1. fool
    Function: noun

    1. a person lacking in judgment

    2 a. a retainer formerly kept in great households to provide casual entertainment and commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble b: one who is victimized or made to appear foolish - dupe

    3 a. a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding b. one with a marked propensity or fondness for something (a dancing fool) (a fool for candy)

    4. a cold dessert of pureed fruit mixed with whipped cream or custard

    Now can you or BTD say with any credibility at all that Richardson is anyone of those things?

    I will say this to you Steve, if you refuse to recognize Richardson's significant accomplishments and instead call him a fool you may qualify as "a person lacking in judgment" (see Webster's definition #1 above).

    Silly name calling is for kids or for people seeking attention by being provocative.

    Parent

    GWB (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    Has the best resume in Washington.  And he is a fool.  Accomplishments are not the same thing as judgement.

    Parent
    Which has nothing (none / 0) (#89)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    at all to do with Richardson.

    Parent
    If you want to make the case (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by CST on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM EST
    Richardson isn't a fool then make it.  Saying he's accomplished doesn't make that case.

    Parent
    Here's Richardson on (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    Richardson: NYT

    Parent
    CST (none / 0) (#106)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    You obviously have a problem understanding the English Language. I posted Webster's definition of what the word fool means, in all it's forms. I challenge anyone here to show me where overall Richardson fits any of those definitions.

    FYI a fool is usally not an accomplished person. You just can't be accomplished in the areas that Richardson is and be a fool. That you don't understand that is very sad.

    If you want to go around calling people fools with no evidence, no intelligent argument as to why, and do it in the face of what the word actually means, which I provided you, then you may be the fool because you show a gross lack of judgment, which is one definition of fool. Or you may just be acting childish and are prone to enjoy calling people names. But what you are not being is sensible or rational.

    Parent

    Two things (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    The only person I called a fool was G.W.B. and I stand behind that 100%.  And thanks, I can read just fine.

    You obviously have a problem not being a condescending jerk.

    Parent

    I'm a jerk? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:53:27 PM EST
    How about you? Read your own post"

    If you want to make the case Richardson isn't a fool then make it. Saying he's accomplished doesn't make that case.

    I did make my case in citing Webster's so there would be no question what it was you were trying to call Richardson.

    You say you never called him a fool but yet you challenge me to 'make a case he isn't' which certainly is not saying on your part that he is not a fool. In fact in making that statement you are calling him a fool by challenging me to prove otherwise. Do you even think about what the words you say mean?

    I'm done here. You talk out of both sides of your mouth probably because you have nothing better to do with your time. I do. Seeya.

    Parent

    This is ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Exeter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:25:48 AM EST
    Bill Clinton is a former President. A two term president that just left eight years ago. The guy doesn't need to be vetted like everyone else, because he's not like everyone else.  

    No, he should be vetted. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    However, the vetting ought to be simple enough.  Between media attention and his wife's Senate career and her Presidential run, how much is there left to discover?

    (That's why the conspiracy theories crack me up.  How could the Clintons hide anything?)

    Parent

    These so-called "friends" (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    of the Clintons could be anyone from someone associated with the Clinton administration once upon a time, to some concern troll from the GOP to some CDS victim in the Obama camp.

    Unfortunately, the media is only too happy to jump on any hint of drama.  "Anonymous"?

    Yup, this drama and that drama (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    and Ayman al-Zawahri drama, it's all drama all the time these days.

    Parent
    I don't get this: (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    "Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It's not the best use of her talents, and it's certainly not the best fit for this new president."

    This is just an assertion, with no data or rationale to back it up. Where is the evidence that she is 'the wrong person for that job in this administration' and 'not the best fit for this new president'?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:44:07 AM EST
    I took the positive parts - to wit, Hillary can do more in another capacity.

    Parent
    Of the three mentioned possibilities, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    in that light I desire Clinton.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    It seems hard to know where she could do more at this point - so many unpredictables.

    Parent
    "Business activities" (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    There it is again.  Last night on TV, somebody referred to Bill's "business deals."

    I'd like to know where this comes from.  He's raising money for a big international charity and his foundation, and he gives speeches for big fees.

    Where in those activities is there anything resembling "business deals"?  Using that terminology automatically throws suspicion on him for no good reason, and I can't see how that isn't deliberate.

    Must be (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    the first non-profit "business deals" in economic history. (Although it looks as though General Motors has been run as a "non-profit corporation" for some time now!) But seriously, did anyone ever describe Elizabeth Dole's tenure as head of the Red Cross in the way? Or Al Gore's global warming initiatives? The symptoms of CDS just keep getting weirder and weirder.

    Parent
    Friends say: (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    .... BTD will do whatever it takes to make TalkLeft a site where people can easily browse for crime posts, all of which have excellent commentary.
    Let's hope BTD's friends are right. They have his best interests at heart, just like Hillary's.

    More anonymous sources (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by joanneleon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    I don't know if I believe any of this came from a real source or not.  Sometimes I think that journalists make "stuff" up based on rumors, and pass it off as anonymously sourced.

    As far as I can tell, there is not one named source in that WSJ article.  That's really shoddy journalism.


    "according to Democrats familiar with the deliberations"
    "say people involved in the talks"
    "according to people close to the talks"
    "one person added"
    "said one Democrat familiar with the situation. "
    "Another person added"
    "according to one person close to the talks"
    "People involved in the vetting process say"
    "Sen. Clinton's aides say"
    "said one adviser"
    "according to the people familiar with the talks"


    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    The obligation to sacrifice and to shut up is now BC's.

    That's some strong deep CDS there. Get help.

    Hee (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    T
    here's no CDS, here.

    No, using phrases like "muzzle Bill Clinton" and "eliminate distractions" in reference to Bill and Hillary reveals a deep abiding respect for them. Especially when coupled with a hysterical emphasis that Obama needs to "control" these two wild and crazy lunatics because when they open their mouths, garsh, what Obama-harming madness could pour forth?!?

    Any thoughts on Daschle's wife? Should she be "muzzled" and "eliminated" or are those actions only necessary for the Clintons?

    Watching the cranial explosions of the CDS-infected is going to be the best part of HRC taking the State job, if she decides to do it.

    Disappointed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Coral on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    Despite my earlier skepticism, the appointment of HRC as Secretary of State has grown on me, and I will be mightily disappointed if it doesn't happen.

    That said, with Ted Kennedy's illness and age possibly affecting his power in the Senate, there does seem to be a path for her in the Senate.

    I wonder also if Kennedy's illness and the possible need to replace him in the Senate from MA may be influencing Obama on Kerry. It would be a drag to have two freshman senators from MA.


    Barney Frank (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:02:55 AM EST
    will certainly replace either one of the two.  Technically a freshman, but not really.  And I don't know why Obama would be worried about the Mass. delegation's make-up anyway.  I don't think there's any chance that the state's utterly broken Republican Party could put up a viable candidate against the real battallion of superb and well-known Democrats who would be vying for the job(s).  So why would he care which good Dem. steps in?

    Obama's BFF Deval Patrick might well be one of them, too, which he'd love.

    Parent

    Loss of seniority (none / 0) (#40)
    by Coral on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    in both positions is what concerns me. Yes, I assume Frank will replace one of them, but he won't have seniority in the Senate.

    Parent
    Concerns Mass people (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    yes, but Obama doesn't care.  Why would he care whether Mass. senators have seniority?  He should worry about losing strong allies in the Senate, but since he's taken Biden out and is happily contemplating pulling Hillary for State-- and giving wet sloppy kisses to Lieberman-- apparently, he sees that as not such a high priority.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    wouldn't make Kennedy resign and I doubt he'll pick Kerry for a cabinet post so he doesn't really affect our senators much.  I just hope he doesn't poach the gov.

    The one thing that sucks about Kerry vs. Kennedy is Kerry doesn't do anything for MA.  And I don't mean earmarks.  Kennedy has his ear to the ground here still and will throw his weight around back home.  Occasionally that's a bad thing (Cape Wind), but most of the time it's very good and he will go out on a limb for people here.

    Parent

    Seniority isn't the only thing (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    He has friends and power.

    I hope Patrick stays.  We need someone to see the state through right now and we've been going through governers like hot cakes.  Although we could certainly do without some of our city and state legislators.  I feel like every day another one of them is in the neews for breaking the law - taking bribes, sexual assault, you name it.

    Parent

    I know the guy (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    with the sexual assault allegations pretty well.  He was my rep and then my senator and active in my gardening group.  My family has known him since he first ran for office.

    Just for the record, he didn't actually "assault" anyone except verbally, and he is a very sick man with bipolar.  That it happened totally stunned everyone who knows him or has worked with him.  It's beyond out of character, it's on another planet from the sober, dignified, actually rather shy and completely non-threatening person he is.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:41:53 AM EST
    That's why I should read past the headlines.  Although I usually skip stories like that.

    Parent
    No way (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    It would take years (that frank doesn't have) to build up the kind of power in the Senate that he's developed in the House.

    MA is going to lose a seat in 2010, so at that point one of the members is going to retire, lose, or go to the Senate, but I doubt it will be Frank.

    Parent

    Make you a bet (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    on Frank going to the Senate.


    Parent
    Ok, I'll bet you an (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:46:44 AM EST
    "I'm sorry, you were right."

    I don't expect to have to say it--ever. ;-)

    Parent

    I agree with andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by dk on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:28:23 AM EST
    on this one.  The public speculation in MA doesn't seem too focussed on Barney.  Most of the focus seems to be on a few of the other more senior House reps, as well as Martha Coakley (State Attorney General).  I also wonder if former congressman Mary Meehan is interested.

    Barney has so much power in the House, I don't see why he'd switch over at this point.  And he's not a spring chicken either.  

    Parent

    Oops, that's Marty Meehan. (none / 0) (#91)
    by dk on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    No gender confusion implied.

    Parent
    Well, it IS Massachussetts! (none / 0) (#97)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    and no offence intended ;)

    Parent
    She's not doing herself any favors (none / 0) (#12)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    by not muzzling her confidants.

    Obama's campaign exemplified the value a disciplined and loyal staff can bring.  If HRC and BC can't control the people around them then they'll be of limited value to an Obama administration.  So, in a way, this is strictly on them.  If they really want her to get the gig, and she really wants it, then they need to exercise their vaunted power and shut the people around them up.

    HRC has visibility in the Senate, but not seniority.  So, she's going to be limited in the Senate, regardless, because power in that institution is not derived from notoriety, but by seniority.  So, if she's truly interested in having the power to participate in tranfromative policies, SOS isn't a bad idea.  the downside is that she will have to sacrifice her agenda or risk the embarrassment of being asked to resign, and she will have to set aside her Presidential ambitions...regardless of what many think, the SOS position is not a springboard to the Presidency.  Check out the last SOS to become President.  

    In a way, Obama has effectively put a check on the Clintons.  She takes the gig, he quiets them both down and gets them in line.  She refuses (extraordinary in itself, someone refusing an offer to become SOS), and she looks more dedicated to her agenda, whatever that may be, keeping in mind her fairly limited power in the Senate.

    Should be interesting.    

    Disagreed (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM EST
    on everything else.

    Parent
    Unsurprising. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    But look, even she's chafed at her lack of seniority.  Her first term showed her as pragmatic enough to know her role in the Senate and in the state senatorial pecking order and to put in the time and effort to get things done as she could.

    So while she may wield some influence, she's still not going to have the committee assignments she needs to drive her issues.  She will remain at the mercy of the committee chairs.  That's just the way it goes.  

    Running unsuccessfully for President doesn't result in increased power in the Senate.  Time in does.

    Parent

    Kennedy did (none / 0) (#27)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    just appoint her to a healthcare task force though.

    Parent
    More than that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    made her head of the group examining health insurance, which she probably has a more detailed and nuanced understanding of than anybody else in the country.

    Interesting he would put her there since the big divide between her and Obama on health care was/is the issue of mandates, on which real reform of the health care system utterly depends, IMHO.

    I have to wonder if Teddy didn't do that in order to try to lure her to stay in the Senate and work with him to convince/force Obama go to that way.  One of the great mysteries of his endorsement of Obama is that HRC is basically on his side on his big issue, and Obama was not.

    If she goes to State, he loses a powerful and super-knowledgeable ally on health care, and even if there are some lingering resentments from the campaign, he's got to be very unhappy about that prospect.  He wants to get health care reform well on its way before he's unable to work anymore.


    Parent

    Perhaps in the Senate... (none / 0) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    ...but I don't think she has "a more detailed and nuanced understanding of than anybody else in the country".

    I'll give that distinction to the people who work on those issues all day, every day--like the fine people at the NAIC or the state insurance departments.  

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    should have said "politician."  That said, she certainly has a much, much broader perspective than the people at NAIC or particularly state insurance departments.

    Parent
    Highly doubtful... (none / 0) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:51:02 AM EST
    ...since they are extremely knowledgable and involved in every aspect of health care.  Not to mention it is their livelihood, their career, their passion.  

    Parent
    On a policy-making level (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    I stand by my comment.


    Parent
    And knowing what these people do... (none / 0) (#86)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    ...on an intimate basis, day in and day out, I stand by mine.  

    Parent
    THANK YOU! (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    One of the things that annoys me most is when people say things like, "she understands energy better than anyone in the world".  There are few issues where a politician understands a topic better than the actual people that work in the field (exceptions might be political science and some aspects of law).  

    This is why "expertise" by a politician is a dubious notion to me.  What's FAR more important is a politician who knows how to surround themself with the right experts AND listens to them.  Give me that over the shallow/superficial knowledge of even the best politician in their chosen field of expertise.

    Parent

    I really wonder if these so called (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by hairspray on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:23:55 AM EST
    anonymous sources are anything but "made up" people to help drive the story.  The Clintons are good copy and the more that can be put out there the more papers they sell, or blogs they excite, whatever.  I seriously doubt these sources.  If they want to give us a newsflash, anchor it to a name, otherwise it is BS.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    With "friends" like these . . .

    Parent
    The other problem with 'friends' (none / 0) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    Is that there is a good chance that the 'friend' can be friends with several people and without the names, we really do not have a clue as to where this is coming from. Also, as you note in the questionable 'friend', they most likely are not that good of a friend. I hope she used the false info feed to discover who is the real 'friend' or not.

    Parent
    Although figures like... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:30:09 AM EST
    ...Marshall and Kissinger were vastly more influential than many of the presidents they ahem served. In you could argue that the presidency is all about foreign policy adventures and not really about domestic reforms.

    This is a moment in American history where a titanic figure like Clinton could revive the plenipotentiary power that Marshall and Kissinger enjoyed.

    Parent

    Using History (none / 0) (#19)
    by WS on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    to judge Presidential prospects is overrated.  You have to look at the personalities.  We only need to look at the President-elect to know that if history was the "decider," he wouldn't be there.  

    Parent
    If "friends are talking" (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    there's a reason.  The columns yesterday by Ambinder and Jack Tapper are instructive.  Tapper reported  repohttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/a-wrinkle-in-th.html
    that H Clinton sources say there are snags in the vetting process because the Obama reps are expecting Bill Clinton to be reigned in in ways not required of other former Presidents.  Ambinder says same thing at his blog at Atlantic.  Seems to me that Obama camp is trying to control Bill and Hillary; and if this is Obama camp's goal, I say Hillary stay away.  
    In addition, the Boston Globe reports that Teddy Kennedy has formed three working groups on healthcare for his Senate committee -- one of the three is to be headed by Hillary.  Sen. Kennedy may have his own agenda here (promote Kerry's SoS prospects), but neverless is creating an opportunity for Hillary. The other two working groups will be headed by Mikulski and Harkin. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/kennedy_creates.html
     

    Parent
    Eh (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    "Friends" talk nonsense all the time.

    Most of what I read sounds like nonsense.

    I will say that the WSJ story sounds like a Bill planted story. He does not want to be blamed.

    As for the rest of it, sounds like crap to me.

    Is Hillary conflicted? Well, duh. But personally, I can not imagine her turning down the President when he asks her to serve. You just can not do that.

    Parent

    It seems to me that the vetting of (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    Bill must be the only obstacle though.
    While that is being worked out, tongues wag.
    I agree that Hillary will want the job.
    I ascribe to that idea.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    Why assume there's an obstacle- (none / 0) (#136)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    Isn't it reasonable that something like this will take time?

    My take on all this is that people are gossiping all over cause that's what people do when they are waiting for a big announcement.

    Parent

    Thats' all I mean. I'm sure that (none / 0) (#138)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:42:31 PM EST
    Bill's activities are complicated to untangle and make appropriate rules for.

    Parent
    Conflicts are an issue (none / 0) (#58)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    and BC has to acknowledge that, as does anyone else who thinks his vetting should be significant.  

    He simply can't be engaged in the type of work he's doing now if his wife is SOS.  Period.  Had he not been a former President, there wouldn't even be a question about that.  

    The obligation to sacrifice and to shut up is now BC's.  He's no longer an elected official or a government appointee.  He's a spouse.  and spouses, whatever their prior jobs, aren't permitted to give the appearance of impropriety or conflict.  The shoe, as it were, is now on the other foot and HRC is driving.  

    Every former president has said that their role as former president is not to criticize the sitting guy or to impede him.  When one of them does, it's a big deal (see Carter, Jimmy).  

    So, I stand behind what I wrote before...this is a pretty good power move by Obama.  

    Parent

    He said (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    he would do what ever asked.

    I can not imagine you are objecting to that. Actually I can. CDS is strong.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    Great power move if it gets Bill Clinton to cut back his efforts to fight things like malaria and AIDS in Africa.  God, the things people find praiseworthy.

    Parent
    I guess Bill Clinton's only (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    recourse is to become a registered lobbyist.  

    Parent
    No, (none / 0) (#94)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    the issue is will BC deal with say, guys in Khazakstan?  Or will he give a speech in Saudi Arabia for $250,000?  Or will he give a speech to another group whose interests might collide with the administration's?

    He's got a source of private earnings separate from his foundation and he will have to curtail most of that at least that which might conflict with HRC's charge.  No serious person expects that his foundation work will be abridged, just that he's going to have to be open about it and who donates.  There's all sorts of precedent for blind trusts, etc, so don't get ridiculous about Obama harming AIDS prevention efforts, etc...  

    The move is to relegate public commentary by both Clintons to support for the administration...HRC as a member of the administration and BC as her spouse.  So it is a good move for Obama, politically.  Why wouldn't he find a productive way to use HRC and muzzle BC if he could?  If you were the President-elect, wouldn't you want to eliminate distractions, especially if you could do it and score a net gain?    

    There's no CDS, here.  

    Parent

    CDS example: (none / 0) (#101)
    by dk on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    The move is to relegate public commentary by both Clintons to support for the administration...


    Parent
    No it's not (none / 0) (#104)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    it's smart politics.  I don't give a sh!t what they say, but he should.  So, he co-opted them.  Good move.

    And, I was right. I think (though I'm pretty skeptical of Politico) that BC will give up foreign income so as to not conflict.

    Parent

    The idea that either of the Clintons (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by dk on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    would speak out against the Obama administration is only held by those with CDS.  People living in the world of reality do not take that notion seriously.  

    To his credit, I actually think Obama understands this.  And I'm saying that as someone who has not been and still is not a fan of Obama.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#113)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    No one ever disagrees and then leaks their displeasure with an initiative.  That NEVER happens.  

    C'mon...trying to mitigate any dissension by putting a potential dissenter on the team is smart.  You're deluded if you don't think that there's both utility and strategy in his decision.  He gets her skill set, she gets a powerful position, he eliminates any potential for a dustup.  Everybody wins.  

    And, if you don't think that the Clintons wouldn't criticize the guy then YOU've got CDS.

    Parent

    I think you should publicly (none / 0) (#107)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    disavow murder before being allowed to comment any further.

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#108)
    by dk on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    My comment was for OC (none / 0) (#109)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#112)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    Not so sure how that makes any sense.

    So, when did you stop beating your wife?

    Parent

    After Clinton stopped trying to undermine (none / 0) (#126)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    Obama.

    Parent
    Would you care to give a reason that (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:41:31 AM EST
    Bill Clinton should stop his charitable work?
    I don't ascribe to that idea at ALL.
    In fact, I think that Hillary's stature and effectiveness are enhanced by Bill's work.


    Parent
    FYI Kennedy and Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:13:32 AM EST
    are not good buddies.  Kennedy and his operation don't think much of Kerry.  I doubt Teddy would do any maneuvering with helping Kerry in mind.  Health care reform is not only his number one priority, it's probably his only priority now for as long as he's got.  I think he will be single-minded about it, and everything he does will be in furtherance of that goal.

    Parent
    Does the anonymous e mailer (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:10:59 AM EST
    really believe Hillary Clinton is unaware the Secretary of State's role is to further the President's foreign policy agenda?  

    Leaking and Obama (none / 0) (#47)
    by koshembos on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    I grow up in a country were leaking has been elevated to an art form; it has nothing to do with the quality of the government. Bush and Obama go for the tight rope; Bush was the biggest disaster the country has ever experienced.

    I also don't think that Hillary should take the SOS job. The main reason is Obama whom I don't trust and wouldn't go to war with. In addition he still lives in the idiotic postpartisan period that is never going to happen. My get into a sick bad?

    All this media concern about (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    w  hether Bill Clinton's very existence dooms Hillary Clinton's fitness for Secretary of State, coupled with all these "friends" of Hillary Clinton stating she is conflicted about the osition:  reminds me all too much of the constant media concern about whether Obama should/would select Hillary Clinton as his VP.  Makes me think this won't happen either.  Throwing crumbs to the begger under the table of the rich man.

    Sad and angry (none / 0) (#116)
    by feet on earth on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    This all thing makes me very sad and angry.

    I wish I had the money, time, and organization to lunch a "Replace Bill foundation lost donations" due to undue disclosure impositions.

    If I could I would send out to all of those who talk about this non-nonsensical vetting a picture of a child dying because there are not enough anti-malaria pills, or whose parents just dyed of AID and ask them to contribute to Bill's foundation to make up for their stupidity.  

    The US (none / 0) (#118)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    gov't has given unprecedented sums to treat AIDS in Africa...The Gates foundation has done huge things on Malaria.

    It's not that Bill will be prohibited from raising money.  He will not be able to personally profit from giving speeches outside the US.  He will not be able to raise money from despots.  Neither is bad.

     

    Parent

    Unprecedented? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM EST
    In fact, a full two-thirds of the money for the prevention of the sexual spread of HIV goes to abstinence. What's left is targeted to groups considered high-risk. HIV-activists have spent the last two decades trying to show that condoms aren't just for prostitutes and the promiscuous; Bush has undone much of their work.

    link

    So who gets the PEPFAR money? Most of the money goes to U.S.-based non-governmental organizations. We now know that a big chunk of the money lets them buy AIDS drugs from U.S. drug companies, who make a significant profit on PEPFAR by charging four to five times what it would cost to buy equivalent generic drugs. Most of the remaining money goes for expensive salaries and benefits to foreign (usually U.S.) staff, their very nice cars and offices, their operating expenses and overhead costs to support their home offices in the United States. Though the accounting is difficult, it is likely that less than 25 percent of PEPFAR aid value actually goes to recipient-country people or institutions.

    link

    Health GAP highlighted abstinence-only funding as a major area of concern in the bill. The Hyde/Lantos Bill does overturn a previous requirement that one-third of prevention funding be directed towards abstinence-only programmes.

    However, to the dismay of grassroots organisations, this has been replaced by a "reporting requirement" which mandates that the Office of Global AIDS Coordinator submit a report to Congress if a country with a generalised epidemic spends less that 50 percent of sexual prevention funding on programmes promoting abstinence and faithfulness.

    The Centre for Health and Gender Equality commented on the bill's educational provisions, stating that Congress "is continuing to impose arbitrary funding directives to encourage abstinence-only programmes over effective, comprehensive prevention interventions."

    PEPFAR Watch


    Parent

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#134)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    They'll pull a Rick Davis and put somekind of firewall so that the funds still come in.

    Parent
    What makes Clinton so qualified? (none / 0) (#131)
    by DraftFareed on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    Where exactly did the notion that Hillary Clinton is most qualified for the post of Secretary of State come from?

    I agree most with this post:
    http://draftfareed.org/hillary-clinton-wrong-secretary-state/

    Fareed Zakaria has demonstrated time and again that he is far more qualified to handle sensitive diplomacy with world leaders.

    are you kidding? (none / 0) (#133)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    Doesn't even make ANY kind of sense (none / 0) (#137)
    by IzikLA on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    The most convoluted and contrary explanations I have ever read.  Not to mention the presentation of blatantly false statements.

    Parent