My privileges have been restored recently, but I still miss Bob Johnson on this site. Always cogent, often contentious, whatever your opinion of his opinions, he was a credit to this site. I hope one day soon his posting privileges will also be restored. But in the meantime, with his permission, I'm reproducing his latest diary. I'm sure it will cause some discussion!! Update [2008-5-23 12:2:53 by duende]:Big crow eat: conclusion got curtailed in previous posting
BOB JOHNSON'S DIARY
Frankly, I see far more reasons why Hillary Clinton would make a poor choice as Vice President than I see in her favor:
* She energizes the Republican fundraising machine in a year when Republicans are down and out, and not particularly overjoyed with their standard bearer, McCain.
* The revving up of the fundraising and attack machines would help downticket Republicans at the very moment they face crushing losses.
* She and tag-along Bill undercut Obama's core message of "change" in numerous ways.
* The brutal campaign has produced hundreds of clips of her undercutting Obama's credentials as presidential material making her a liability on the ticket.
* But here's the biggie: She and Bill (particularly, his post-presidential years and her campaign fundraising questions) have not been vetted and their baggage is likely to be a target-rich environment for the enemy.
Back in early March when the Clinton campaign was trotting out its phony and transparent "reasoning" for attacking Obama under the guise of "He hasn't been vetted," I wrote the following diary:
Has Hillary Clinton really been "vetted" as she so often claims?
I opened that piece with this observation:
Over and over, we have heard Hilary Clinton and her campaign surrogates claim that she has been "vetted for 15 years." Harold Ickes used those very words today.
The candidate, herself, has said:
"I've been tested. I've been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises. There's not going to be anybody saying, `Well why didn't we think of that?' or `What, my goodness, what does that mean?'" she said. "I am going to be able to go up against any Republican who they nominate."
"No surprises?" You've been "vetted?"
Really?
Of course, the claim of Clinton and her surrogates that she has been "fully vetted over the last 16 years" is complete rubbish. In fact, none of her Democratic rivals during this primary season have touched the issues that have Republicans no doubt licking their chops at the prospect of Clinton being on the Democratic ticket.
As I noted in my March diary, the list of unexplored, juicy targets tied to the Clintons (even ignoring all the old, 1990s baggage) is a rich list, indeed:
Why would Obama and the Democrats need to supply these targets to the enemy in a year where we have the upper hand on corruption in Washington? Why would Obama pick Clinton when there are a dozen or more good prospects for VP who carry far less baggage than Hillary Clinton?
Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
- Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
- How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
- Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
- How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
- How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
- The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
- And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.
So has Hillary really been vetted? Shouldn't she be fully vetted on these stories and others for no other reason than as a public service to the Democratic Party? (The same logic Camp Clinton continually throws out for its "vetting" of Obama.)
I have no problem with Clinton being on the list of possible VPs. But she needs a full vetting. And that means the Clintons have to open the books on her fundraising efforts, Bill's presidential library sponsors, his "work" in other countries including Kazakhstan and any other peccadilloes that may be tucked away in the recesses of the Clinton's closet.
For the sake of the Democratic Party and our fortunes in November, Hillary and Bill Clinton need to be fully vetted.
If they don't want to share their "secrets," then Obama and company should not run the risk of putting her on the ticket.
As I concluded my diary back in March...
I am sorry. I am not taking her or her surrogates at their word that there are "no surprises" and that she has been "fully vetted."
The facts are, she has not. Certainly not to the extent she will be on these stories -- and more -- in a general election versus John McCain.
Let the "vetting" begin.
NOTE: I know Clinton and her camp (hello, Geraldine Ferraro!) have made efforts the last few weeks to drive wedges between her supporters and Obama -- ginning up resentment, talking about "white, working-class voters," etc. -- but to reward those tactics would also be a mistake. Her attempts to hold Obama and the Party hostage to her VP demand should not be honored. To do so would be the very antithesis of Obama's "change Washinton" message.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 93 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
