Clinton as Sec State - The money issues
Two interesting Politico pieces about Hillary Clinton as Sec State.
First, a report from Mike Allen that Bill Clinton might be open to forgoing any foreign income while Hillary Clinton is Sec. State. (This could also be setting the stage for a non-nomination, "We offered everything we could.")
Second, Ken Vogel theorizes that the unique non-fundraising status of Sec State might get Hillary Clinton out of her remaining campaign debt.
Later: (WSJ) "Former President Bill Clinton has offered to submit future charitable and business activities to strict ethics reviews if his wife were nominated as secretary of state...."
And, more "concessions" described to the AP.
The Clinton camp apparently wants it widely known that, no matter what happens, it's not Bill Clinton's fault.
First, a report from Mike Allen that Bill Clinton might be open to forgoing any foreign income while Hillary Clinton is Sec. State. (This could also be setting the stage for a non-nomination, "We offered everything we could.")
Second, Ken Vogel theorizes that the unique non-fundraising status of Sec State might get Hillary Clinton out of her remaining campaign debt.
Later: (WSJ) "Former President Bill Clinton has offered to submit future charitable and business activities to strict ethics reviews if his wife were nominated as secretary of state...."
And, more "concessions" described to the AP.
The Clinton camp apparently wants it widely known that, no matter what happens, it's not Bill Clinton's fault.
posted by mikevotes at
10:42 AM
5 Comments:
Consensus seems to be, Bill is a problem. Money, ethics, connections, ego... whatever. Obama has to decide how much a Sec State Clinton is worth to the success of his presidency. The collateral of Bill ("buy one, get one free") Clinton may turn out to be just too high maintenance for No Drama Obama.
While I like the idea of Hillary as Sec State, the more I back up and look at the bigger picture -- and reflect on history -- I'm hoping Obama finds a way to back out of this one.
He can get away with employing some talent from the Clinton administration, but I think he's best served if he can make a clean break from The Clintons™, if you know what I'm saying.
Rahm was in the Clinton WH. So was Holder and there may be others. Plus, you have two senators as pres and vp. At what point does "Change You Can Believe In" become a patronizing bit of claptrap? Does he really need The Clintons™? (I know the political cartoonists would love it, though.)
Just trying to get my head around this.
By
-epm, at 11:17 AM
"The Clinton camp..."
See. There's the problem. You can't have a functioning administration with "camps."
I'm getting a bad feeling about this...
By
-epm, at 11:38 AM
I understand your concerns, they're very real, but again the upside is a Sec State "team" that starts with more influence and better relations than any in the history of our country.
Also, I think that continuity to the Clinton admin on the foreign stage does have value.
If you look at it in the context of the requirements of the job, and immediate desired outcomes, it's a big tool that can't be duplicated.
As example, again on mideast peace, there's no one else that could come in with that kind of credibility and pull on all parties.
Or look at Russia or Europe or China or Africa or South America. There's nobody else that comes in with that kind of weight.
Now, as to diverging/battling priorities, if she signs on, it will be in Hillary Clinton's interest to make everything work. There may be a few turf battles, but I they'll be across departments, defense/intelligence, and not so much up the chain.
.....
Last, please don't buy into that favorite media mantra right now that certain staff means no change. It's the policy and tone that need to change and frankly smart experienced people are the most likely to bring that about.
Sarah Palin was "outsider change," but I don't remember you being all too enthused about that.
The media wants to pick fights between Obama and his supporters right now. Don't bite.
By
mikevotes, at 1:20 PM
Good exchange. And good point about hitting the ground running as a trusted known quantity to foreign powers.
Again, I'm not "worried" about Hillary. I'm sure she'd be a good soldier, if you will. Indeed, I can't imagine there are cavernous differences between her and Obama vis a vis foreign policy. I'm "worried" about Bill trying to "help" in that rogue, self-serving kind of way that he "helped" Hillary during the primaries.
Regarding "Change"... I should have been more clear. I'm not personally concerned about bringing in Clinton admin personnel. These are hardly inner sanctum "Clintonistas." These are competent administrators. Rather, I was looking at it from a media/great-unwashed perspective.
This is a problem I have when snapping out comments... my inner voice often changes as I write and I don't make it clear in my writing.
By
-epm, at 1:37 PM
Yeah, Bill will probably be an issue when he tries to do too much, but, in the end, I think alot of his primary problems came because he felt adversarial and was frustrated that his wife was losing and was frustrated with her campaign's infighting.
If she is Sec State, I think he'll be pulling the rope in the same direction, assuming Obama keeps his internal politics clear.
(PS. They were both wrong in their long rumored "Obama can't win in a general election" belief.)
And, I probably overreacted to the Clinton folks in the Obama White House thing. I'm a little frustrated at the media trying to start a fight between Team Obama and those who voted for him.
It's weird to have won and have the media trying to draw fighting factions in your group. It's been so long.
By
mikevotes, at 2:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home