Wow. Hillary and Bill will have to go through full on vetting of the

[dkf]

Clinton Foundation if she wants to be SOS.

From TPM:

HRC as SOS

I can't be the only one who's thought of this.

In late December of last year The New York Times wrote a lengthy article about the various donors to the Clinton Foundation, and the conflicts of interest (real or apparent) they might create for Sen. Clinton should she become president. At the time Bill Clinton said that if Hillary were elected he would disclose the identities and contribution totals of all the Foundation's contributors going forward, though not the ones that predated her presidency.

The Foundation's contributors include not only a number of heads of state but also a lot of high-flying businessmen who play the game so high in the stratosphere that what we normally consider foreign policy questions routinely play into their business interests.

Now, Secretary of State is not president. But in the foreign policy realm, it is as close as you get. So how does this all play out if she's nominated to serve as Secretary of State? Does the same going-forward disclosure policy apply?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[camera obscura]

1. Hey, why not

last thing Obama needs is some drama in his first term.

[dkf]

3. McCain's team was full of these international conflicts of interest.

I doubt Obama will stand for that sort of thing. This should be interesting.

[Metric System]

2. Oh look- more smears. I think I'm starting to realize what the leak was all about. I swear if people

around Obama leaked the story just so they could then raise questions about vetting and conflicts of interest, I will be one pissed off Democrat. Frankly, this is starting to look like something intended as a smear job.

Ok, let's say "Clintonites" are behind the leak (as some here claim) and Hillary is pushing to be SOS. Can someone explain why she would bother if she didn't want to be vetted?

[dkf]

4. So you want Hillary as SOS sans vetting?

That's more McCain than Obama.

[Metric System]

10. I didn't say that. My point is she has to know that if she wants to be SOS there is vetting involved

If "Clintonites" are behind the leak, as some here claim, why would she go after a job that requires vetting IF she couldn't possibly pass the vetting test, as some here claim?

[SoxFan]

5. Actually, it was Hillary's people who leaked it

That's hardly a secret.

[Diamonique]

8. Those questions have been out there all the time.

They came up when she was being discussed as the VP pick.

I think it's unfortunate, but this is an issue that would naturally come up for any position she is chosen for. Personally I hope there's a way to solve this problem, because both of the Clintons could be very helpful to this new administration in some capacity or another.

[camera obscura]

9. Because she wanted to make a show of rejecting it in favor of becoming the new lion of the senate

(just playing devil's advocate)

[Metric System]

11. She's a Junior Senator. She can't just jump over others with seniority.

[Life Long Dem]

13. Yeah that's it, Obama must have leaked Hillary's name!

:rofl:

[Metric System]

16. Ok, so she had her name leaked but she can't pass the vetting process (as the haters claim).

Yeah, that makes sense. I can see why she'd want to put herself through the embarrassment.

[Whisp]

17. or she had her name leaked in hopes to pressure Obama to

overlook the vetting process.
It's very similar to the VP pick - the media was pumping it for her like crazy, but Obama did not buckle under. I don't know why she thinks the same tactic will work this time.

too bad for the Clintons that chickens do come home to roost.

[Metric System]

20. Um, so the Clintons control the media? They should really get some better coverage for themselves,

in that case. Did you ever think that maybe the media mentioned her name a lot re: the VP position because she had been his primary opponent, is considered a skilled politician and because it sells? Again, Hillary supporters had no problem with Obama not picking her as VP. What we hated was the bashing that accompanied the rumors. Kind of like now.

[Whisp]

22. there are always a few yapping dogs that bark the same message over and over

like that weasel shit Lanny Davis and thelike during the primaries, that do get the attention they crave. and seeing Newstertainment laps up this soap opera crap like they do, it's not all that difficult to steer topics one way or the other if you play the lowest common denominator.

[Metric System]

24. Ugh, Lanny Davis? He isn't a power player in the media. And for the record, there are many of us

Hillary supporters who roll our eyes and cringe when he's on TV. But no, bringing up little ole Lanny Davis doesn't prove your assertion that the Clintons control the media. And for every Lanny Davis on the Clinton side during the primaries, there was homophobe Roland Martin on the Obama side. Get them BOTH off my TV!

[Whisp]

27. I'll ask you this then: who do you think the media would rather have with power?

a transparency seeking Obama or a known supporter of wars that should not have been fought?

if Hillary is SoS and disagrees with Obama, which horn do you think Blitzer and the rest of the war loving breathless 'journalists' would be tooting for?

[Metric System]

28. Obama picked Biden for VP. Biden voted for the IWR too. But somehow Hillary needs to be punished?

[Whisp]

31. she doesn't need to be punished, she just shouldn't be in a position

to make judgements like that again.

as for Biden, I'm not too happy about his lapse in judgement either, but I think he at least came up with a half assed explanation or apology or something. Which doesn't really cut it with me, but it's a start. Hillary refuses to admit she was wrong wrong wrong and avoids a genuine apology.

[Life Long Dem]

29. I can't see why either.

You won't find one of my post blaming her. I've been pointing my finger at the media, and not at Hillary.

Perhaps now is the time to show a little patience, since this is a rumor.

[Metric System]

30. Agreed.

[roguevalley]

32. everyone has to be vetted. so does she. to not do so is to always

have her credibility be in question. She is not exempt from the process.

[onehandle]

6. Josh Marshall is a little slow on this. It's been brought up everywhere starting Friday.

Was he asleep all weekend?

[zulchzulu]

7. It's been pretty obvious to me that Hillary will not be SoS... I'll bet $1000 she won't be

The main reason: Bill Clinton.

He does not want to be vetted or release a list of his contributors. He simply won't do it. So... as the agreement goes, the vetting process includes a candidate's immediate family being a conflict of interest...

Hillary can really make her mark as a great Senator of a very populated state. That's not too shabby.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Maybe They'll Split

There's a small chance that Obama's doing this to cleave off Bill...

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Is that the latest leak?

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

25. Bingo!

Taken strictly on her own, HRC would sail over the vetting bar. I'm not so sure Bill wants the Obama team to know everything there is to know about his finances. Not because of anything crooked, but just because.

[vanderBeth]

15. HILARY AND BILL ARE ABOVE THIS

:sarcasm:

:hide:

[dkf]

18. Bwahahahaha.

:rofl:

[zuul9]

19. All the news indicates she will be SOS, but there will be a lot of problems in the future

All the money Bill gets from the rich sheikhs and royals in the middle east, will be a direct conflict of interest, in her role as SOS. Obama wake up! dump the drama queen!

[dkf]

21. I wonder how much conflict of interest Obama will accept

before he nixes SOS.

[zuul9]

26. My concern is by the time he dumps her the damage will be done.

[Life Long Dem]

23. The media is telling a rumor.

And nothing has changed since this was reported last Thursday.