This time they're serious?
Word "leaks" out of the transition that they are looking at Bill Clinton's finances and trying to figure out how his work would affect Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
(At this point I agree with the premise that they wouldn't let this "Clinton as Sec State" story keep going if both sides weren't serious about it, but there's no reporting yet that the Bill Clinton has provided any financial information.)
The WaPo has more on the potential Sec State two-fer.
(At this point I agree with the premise that they wouldn't let this "Clinton as Sec State" story keep going if both sides weren't serious about it, but there's no reporting yet that the Bill Clinton has provided any financial information.)
The WaPo has more on the potential Sec State two-fer.
posted by mikevotes at
6:29 AM
4 Comments:
My gut feeling is that Bill is more baggage than benefit to Obama. Hillary would be great, I'm sure, but I just can't get past Bill and his freaking ego.
As I said... Just a gut feeling.
By
-epm, at 7:52 AM
I have the same nagging questions, BUT I also see the counter case that he could also do alot of positive things, too, assuming he signs up to play ball.
He could be a very powerful backchannel. He could work at a different level than Sec State, dealing with the profile money folks who affect foreign situations as much as many country heads. He could use his foundation and fundraising as an unofficial element of policy.
I have the same concerns, but he could also be a significantly amplifying force if he fully signs on, you know?
(And you gotta figure he'd have every interest in making Hillary Clinton successful. The question would be where the Clinton's interests might be seen to diverge from Obama's.)
By
mikevotes, at 8:08 AM
That's a lot of "He coulds" and "ifs". Yes he could. But so far, with regards to unambiguously supporting Obama (or even a democratic majority)... He hasn't.
And I'm not too comfortable with his foundation becoming a quasi-governmental tool for American foreign policy.
By
-epm, at 8:34 AM
Very true.
And I understand your discomfort with non-governmental entities, but, frankly, it's done ALL THE TIME through think tanks, quasi-governmental like the IRI, "democracy support," education and developmental grants.
And that's just coming from the political side, not counting CIA fronts, IMF pressures, or (let's call them) affiliated private efforts like Soros or others.
This would just be a little higher profile and a little more directly connected.
By
mikevotes, at 1:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home