Wolfson: Clinton not being vetted 'as far as I know' (his Fox debut, take it for what its worth)

[ErinBerin84]

I don't neccesarily think this means anything...if Clinton even IS being formally considered, Howard would be best to just keep his mouth shut about. Though I can definitely believe also that she may not be at the top of the list. This article doesn't really have anything new, but I'm just posting it since its Howard's Fox debut, and I'm sure Politico would have made an article about it if he had said something more along the lines of what James Carville said on Anderson Cooper last night (that "the children in the Obama campaign are playing with matches").

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Wolfson_Clinton_not_being_vetted.html


Wolfson: Clinton not being vetted 'as far as I know'

On Fox, former Clinton chief strategist Howard Wolfson indicated that Hillary Clinton is not being formally considered as Obama's running mate, in that she has not been asked to undergo the formal vetting process.

"Not as far as I know," said Wolfson, who remains close to Clinton, in response to a question from Sean Hannity.

He continued to say that the lack of formal vetting wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that Obama would choose her.

"There is more information available about Hillary in the public record than just about any other public figure in America," he says, citing in particular the tax returns that Obama's campaign demanded she release.

"That may be sufficient for him to make whatever decision he wants to make," said Wolfson, a newly-minted Fox contributor.

Wolfson's words, along with Obama's so far anemic fundraising on Clinton's behalf, seemed to indicate Clinton's willingness to stand apart from Obama -- as a separate power center within the party if he wins, and as an instant rival for the next nomination if he loses.

But he suggested she'd clearly also like to be Obama's running mate.

"I think she'd be a huge asset to the ticket. I think she'd be a great addition," he said

[babylonsister]

1. Straws...grasping. nt

[ErinBerin84]

2. yeah, it's a pretty weak article. Very politico.

I was just curious to see if Howard would start the Obama bashing right away, or wait until Hillary is definitely not on the ticket...I still think its so funny he ended up on Fox. I mean, I joked about it in the primary, but its happened.

[Median Democrat]

3. Yeah, the primary is terrible at exposing weakness and flaws...

At this point, is there any stone unturned with respect to Hillary. Yes, there are some issues that have not been publicized, but they are mostly known by now. You need to vet someone like Webb, for example, who may not have as high a profile, but Hillary for better or worse is pretty well known.

[ErinBerin84]

4. I thought that projection by Wolfson was pretty funny too,

[karynnj]

6. Actually there are the donors to Bill Clinton's foundation

In addition, there are issues with regards to 1996 and 2006 and 2008 campaign financing.

[Median Democrat]

7. The thing is we do know about these things ...

Its just that they really did not get media play, particularly as Obama was trying to outreach to Hillary supporters towards the end. The Bill Clinton foundation and the oil exploration joint ventures got minimal attention, so vetting Hillary is not going to disclose them. The difficulty with Hillary is properly guaging how Fox News and ABC will try to exploit these issues, because Fox was having a love fest with Clinton representatives towards the end with one of Hillary's surrogates gushing about how fair and balanced Fox was. What happens when Fox suddently turns hostile on Hillary again? That's the real unknown.

But otherwise, there is no need to vet Hillary for unknown skeletons. The real problem is what happens when Fox turns on the hate again.

[PM7nj]

5. Ah... well now we know where 'as far as I know' came from. nt

[AtomicKitten]

8. That bridge was burned.