Here's an obvious sign that no one fears the investigative power of that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: reporters continuously suggesting or mildly implying that Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State wouldn't face much trouble over Bill Clinton's philanthropic conflicts of interest. On last Friday's Charlie Rose, newly minted ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper described how Hillary had to be coaxed into taking the job (instead of her hungrily grabbing for it). In salons like Rose's, it's all about how fellow liberals get along, and whether conservatives object doesn't much matter:
But one of the problems with Senator Clinton I think that there has been -- she has been very torn about it. She has a lot of autonomy. She is a figure in the Senate unto her own right. They were making leadership positions for her there. And, you know, how much did she want to subvert her own independence in an Obama administration? And in fact, I'm told that on Wednesday night she communicated to the Obama transition team that she did not want the job, and she was going to turn it down. On Thursday, there was a tremendous amount of pressure and coaxing and cajoling from the Obama world, and by Thursday night she had accepted -- essentially accepted it. As you say, nothing officially offered or suspected. But we do expect an announcement after Thanksgiving.
CHARLIE ROSE: One issue was former President Clinton and whether he would disclose, A, all of the contributions to his foundation and to the Clinton Library, and, B, would he be willing to subscribe and limit or seek approval for his speaking engagements. Has that been signed off on?
JAKE TAPPER: My -- yes, it has been. And in fact, more quickly than I think a lot of people expected, and I think one of the ways they did it was involving a lot of people from Clinton`s inner circle: David Kendall, Cheryl Mills, John Podesta, the former White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton is one of the co-chairs of Obama's transition team.They were deeply involved in a lot of this and they hammered out details. My understanding of the arrangement is that President Clinton will disclose donors. They will not be known publicly, but they will be known to the Obama transition team so they can vet them.
Rose merrily rolled along in done-deal mode, instead of asking Tapper: How is disclosing donors privately to Obama's transition team going to mollify Republicans? Rose could have even said it might cause trouble with "Clinton haters," if he wanted to sound suitably liberal. But there are no conservatives in the equation at this point.
Overall, Tapper's appearance on PBS was pretty matter-of-fact, but Rose is way too chummy with the liberal elite to really give viewers a sense of what kind of problems Team Obama may face -- if Republicans are willing to apply scrutiny (and naturally, be whacked on the knuckles by the liberal media for daring to act like an opposition.)
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If Hillary is qualified and
November 29, 2008 - 09:21 ET by sublight68If Hillary is qualified and no conflicts of interest or other objective reasons to keep her from the position are found, than she should be confirmed.
The president should be able to choose his cabinet as he sees fit. I believe this when a Republican is in office, so I believe it for Obama. I may disagree with his choices, but he won the right to make those choices.
HOWEVER, the Republicans should thoroughly, but fairly, investigate and raise legitimate objections about any nominee during the confirmation process and not just roll over "to get along" as they so often seem to do.
I don't want them to pull out the Left's standard trick of opposing any nominee simply because they're from the other party -- it's tiresome and counter-productive.
But if there is truly cause to hold up or deny a nomination (or at least vote against it), then the Republicans need to make the case and make a stand.
Qualifications
November 29, 2008 - 10:34 ET by easygoerProblem is; what exactly are her qualifications? That she married a man who became president? They say she's an Ivy League educated lawyer. There are plenty of them around. Two will shortly be in the White House. Does anybody seriously believe she would have been elected senator from NY, a state she never lived in, if her husband had not been president? Must have been the Yankees hat that put her over the top. What has she ever accomplished, other than marrying well? And even that is debatable. She is the antithesis of what the feminists say they want. Sarah Palin on the other hand...
Please. Better SoS than
November 29, 2008 - 10:36 ET by motherbeltPlease. Better SoS than a SCOTUS position!
And that was being talked about, even though she's never been a judge anywhere and has abcolutely NO credentials or history of assessing constitutionality of anything!
Fabrification
November 29, 2008 - 09:45 ET by easygoerIt never existed.
VAST right wing conspiratzia
November 29, 2008 - 20:39 ET by nathanbforrestwhat do you mean it never existed .. sure it does .. i would be a card carrying member except our cards are our secret handshake and passwords .. to all of us out there : (5%m4&kSpVV)14
never look a gift skunk in the tail
Don't worry
November 29, 2008 - 10:07 ET by c5thenSoon after Hillary is installed as SOS, and right after the formation of the Civilian SecurityCorps, the vast right-wing conspiracy will be hunted down and eradicated once and for all.
All hail The Obama, or else...
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
MESSAGE !!!
November 29, 2008 - 20:44 ET by nathanbforrestiriSH flag .. 14 .. mOOsE .. armaDIllo EGg .. fax now ...
never look a gift skunk in the tail
I lost my secret decoder
November 29, 2008 - 21:02 ET by sherylsimsI lost my secret decoder ring when I was helping orchestrate the great "Bimbo Eruption" but I am a card-carrying member!
Our next meeting
November 29, 2008 - 21:33 ET by choselife3xLocation change: alpha foxtrot charlie tango 12
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
ten-four, you betcha
November 29, 2008 - 21:44 ET by sherylsimsten-four, you betcha
Bill Clinton has made
November 29, 2008 - 11:38 ET by nicksmith112Bill Clinton has made millions in the Middle East since he has left office.
In fact he didn't have much to say during the Port security debacle....maybe because of $$$$$ he was making in UAE.
I'm sure the loony left media will never brings this up.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
Most of us on NB are
November 29, 2008 - 12:23 ET by Jack BauerMost of us on NB are political junkies. No doubt.
So you'll all know that Obama has been practically UNTOUCHABLE during the campaign.
We've tried (and by that I mean conservatives, not hapless Republicans) manfully, but it hasn't worked.
Based on that level of cultish Obama euphoria, we can take an educated guess that with his media arm (the press, the networks, most cable, Hollywood) under his thumb, it won't be very effective during the administration either to go after him personally.
So conservatives have to try a differnt tack, one which Obama has to contitutionally offer his opponents -- Republicans have to go after his appointments with everything they have.
You weaken the giant by tying him down with endless challenges to his staff. Both those who need confirmations and those who don't.
Starting with Hillary Clinton. If the Senate Republicans don't go into confirmation hearings with the aim of embarrassing and provoking her, then it really is all over for the next eight years.
And it's not as if there isn't a ton of material which she has to answer for under oath. She'll be confirmed, but that's not the point. She need to be publicly damaged goods.
The Reps need to think of this as a line by line neato opportunity. And enough of this nonsense about giving him a chance,
Give him the chance they gave Bush.
quite true Jack' start
November 29, 2008 - 12:27 ET by botgquite true Jack'
start with challenging her constitutional problem with assuming a position she voted a pay raise for.
Lets find out about those FBI files
Oh my and Arkansas, land deals, the Chinese, all under oath............
could be fun
Color me skeptical, but I
November 29, 2008 - 12:30 ET by sherylsimsColor me skeptical, but I can't imagine anyone asking her any hard questions, I can't picture her being forthcoming with any of her answers, and I sincerely doubt if they did and she was that ANY of it would ever be reported for anyone to know about.
And whom ever asks her
November 29, 2008 - 12:36 ET by Free StinkerAnd whom ever asks her these tough questions would probably end up in a mysterious plane crash, or be found in Fort Marcy Park.
The Clintons play rough.
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
Oh and don't forget the
November 29, 2008 - 12:52 ET by sherylsimsOh and don't forget the media's role in it. Whomever does ask anything that might cause Hillary to squirm will get the "Joe the Plumber" treatment times ten.
Oh Clinton's confirmation
November 29, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Jack BauerOh Clinton's confirmation is going to be BIG TV; it will have the largest amount of interest of any appointment for obvious reasons.
And it's up to the Republicans to make sure they go all out to get her under oath.
It almost doesn't matter what she answers, she needs to be rattled in her face. That's what people will remember.
This is a major opportunity. Of course, if McCain is involved he'll try to reach across the aisle. Unfortunatley. it won't be to strangle her, but to tongue her.
Ewww. Now I have a very
November 29, 2008 - 12:45 ET by sherylsimsEwww. Now I have a very unsettling mental picture.
You're welcome, my
November 29, 2008 - 12:55 ET by Jack BauerYou're welcome, my friend
Reactionaries
November 29, 2008 - 12:55 ET by nofateBack in the days of other new administrations, i.e. Russia, China, etc., they used to call us "reactionary forces" and take us out and shoot or re-educate us. Can't wait.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
That's the dilemma, isn't it?
November 29, 2008 - 14:31 ET by KC MulvilleWe really have two options.
If we don't oppose Obama now, it will tell the Democrats that there is no payback for their obstructionism for the last eight years. There has to be a penalty for their behavior, and frankly, now is the only opportunity to impose any penalty. One thing we can dismiss immediately, of course: anyone who argues that if we give the Democrats a break now, they'll reciprocate with nice behavior later, simply doesn't know Democrats. They never reciprocate nice behavior.
On the other hand, we do believe in the principle that elections have consequences. How can we honor that principle unless we oppose the nominations?
I go back and forth on this one. What may decide the issue is whether Republicans have enough clout to actually penalize at all. If they don't (as I suspect will be true), then it makes more sense to pose a serious-but-not-fanatical challenge to the nominees. Why play into the media narrative that the GOP is just being mean and petty to Lord Obama? Instead, communicate our serious objections to Obama's plans wherever we see them, but don't stonewall for stonewalling's sake. We may have to eat this one ...
Hilary cant be SoS
November 29, 2008 - 16:48 ET by Rob BIt's unconstutional
Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
As I understand it, President Bush's executive order from earlier this year "encreased" the "Emoluments" (salary) of the office of Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time. Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be being appointed to an office for which "the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased" during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment ... if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn't on these matters, of course).
i cut and pasted from http://www.therepublicanunderground.com/view_topic.php?id=95&forum_id=2 more links on this info are in the thread
Live Free or Die
Constitution
November 29, 2008 - 17:40 ET by sherylsimsConstitution Schmonstitution... If Obama can be our prez then why not have Hillary as SoS. She is no more ineligible than he is.
KC, you clealy understand
November 30, 2008 - 06:15 ET by Jack BauerKC, you clealy understand that the constitutional role of the opposition is to "oppose."
Now we know that there will be those Republicans who think their role is to "facilitate" the power of the governing party, in a "collegial" way. Especially in the Senate, which is unfortunate as that's where the hearing will be held.
(McCain, et al) and the Democrats will throw them the left-over meaningless scraps of power from their table, to keep them quiet.
Those people are lost -- so the real at opposition has to begin with conservatives taking on Obama's appointments in every branch of government.
Forget attacking Obama personally about his past (it didn't work) -- get his drones. Show them up. Shine a light on their past misdeeds, missteps, leftist positions, blame-America for everything thinking.
Good morning Jack
November 30, 2008 - 07:32 ET by cocodrieI agree. If an appointee is not objectionable we should approve it. But if a nominee is bad for America we should oppose it at all costs. I don't think there will be any good nominees.
I believe our compronises cost us the election. We only have a short time to expose the truth and get some conservative support for 2010.
Constitutional role?
November 30, 2008 - 23:46 ET by KC MulvilleJack, I'm usually with you, but I'm not clear that the constitution has anything useful to say about opposition. The chief method of opposition in the constitution is between whole branches of government, but most commonly between the legislature and the executive.
The two main forces of opposition investigation in this country are the minority party and the press. Now, the press is unwilling and the minority party is unable to reveal bad nominees, and is unlikely to stop their confirmation.
Well there danged well
November 29, 2008 - 18:10 ET by bigtimerWell there danged well better be some repubs demanding to see the donor list to the Clinton Library and making the list public, this has been promised to released for years now.
If the repubs just stay quiet about this too now...I give up.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
give it up
November 29, 2008 - 21:01 ET by nathanbforrestthe republicans don't have any fire breathers in the senate .. not one of them will be willing to stand up and ask the hard questions .. mark my words, they'll roll over like a cur dog and whimper ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail
Hey nathan, can't say I
November 30, 2008 - 02:52 ET by bigtimerHey nathan, can't say I disagree, it just depends on who is seated on our side of the aisle for the confirmation hearings...I haven't looked it up, too lazy, just will wait until it happens, but there are a few on the repub side who are conservative and will speak out, just do not know if they are going to be a part of this.
No matter what, we all know it is a done deal.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
SOS
November 29, 2008 - 20:48 ET by cocodrieWhen Hillary hangs her shingle on the SOS door, America will have the military slang for chipped beef on toast.
coco... Unfortunately the
November 30, 2008 - 02:56 ET by bigtimercoco...
Unfortunately the majority of the population doesn't even know what you are talking about here anymore...let alone how to cook it.
Sad.
Shite on the Shingle indeed.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
good norning BT
November 30, 2008 - 06:55 ET by cocodrieFigured most wouldn't get it but the old timers will. That's about what most of those liberal shingles are worth anyway. Hope the military people aren't too offended, using their "favorite" food that way.