|
Massive conflict of interest (especially when combined with the clintons' perfect record of allowing their self-interest to trump national interest) is yet another reason we must never ever allow the clintons to retake the White House. Evidence of the clintons' massive conflict of interest is everywhere, yet no one besides Byron York seems to see it.
THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY: |
-
As for Byron York's comments on The New York Times article about the clintons' weird marriage, let's not be fooled: The Times article is simply part of a carefully orchestrated clinton-conflation/clinton-'divorce' triangulation ploy....Sprinkle a bit of conflated clintons (the "twofer" construct) HERE, a dash of 'divorced' clintons THERE.
This NYT piece is intended to emphasize the latter clinton state....
Or rather, it's supposed to de-emphasize the former, which has, in fact, bombed.
The clintons' recent promotion of the clinton 'twofer' construct seems to have worked against clinton self-interest, (which, in case you haven't noticed, is the only kind of interest that interests the clintons).
It is not surprising that iterative instances of clinton conflation would increase--not decrease--the rate of decline of the sock-puppet's already sinking poll numbers. (2 x 0 = 0)
Thus enter Pinch to help the clintons reverse the process, which I don't believe will work any better. (1 x 0 = 0, too.)
- When necessity demands they both speak from the same platform, as at the funeral of civil rights campaigner Coretta Scott King, the former president's eloquence and instinct for what an audience wants to hear eclipses his wife's more pedestrian public-speaking style.
-
Clinton's reputation may sink his wife's presidential hopes
The Scotsman ^ | May 24, 2006 | ALEX MASSIE
Her head bobbed nonstop in servile compliance.... Her gaze was fawning, fixed on him.... Her mouth was frozen shut, corners upturned a carefully calibrated nine degrees above the horizontal.... Not a smile.... (Never a smile).... Just enough of an upturn to hide the always-present anger. His sock puppet was on display.... Finally.... He spoke for both of them, alternating between oily racist and reliable misogynist.
Instead of striking out as her own person in this friendly venue--it was the Coretta Scott King funeral, for heaven's sake--she reprised their '92 electoral refrain. 'Two for the price of one' would be, at it had always been, the order of the day.
NO BARGAIN
If they didn't know in '92 that one was not enough, they certainly know it now. (Refuting the axiom that 2 x 0 = 0), their 'twofer' construct remains the lifeblood of her electoral--(and, arguably, non-electoral)--life.
She of the 'plantation' blunder simply wouldn't play here. He, as First Black President?, was providing cover.
And still, the central question remains: Can spilt oil raise a sinking ship?
by Mia T, 03.18.06
THREE WOMEN AND A FUNERAL
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR 3
Byron York: The real reason Bill shouldn't return to the White House
The Hill ^ | 5/25/06 | Byron YorkPosted on 05/24/2006 5:51:56 PM EDT by JeanS
So Bill and Hillary Clinton lead separate lives -- sort of.
That's pretty much the conclusion of a New York Times story that was the result of interviews with 50 friends, aides and associates of the Clintons.
The Times traced the former first couple's whereabouts for the past several years and found that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have seen each other an average of about 14 days each month since the beginning of 2005. Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. In February 2005, the paper says, the Clintons saw each other just once -- on Valentine's Day.
On the other hand, last August the two were together for 24 out of 31 days.
Just why is the Times telling us this? It's not entirely clear. After all, a lot of senators and representatives spend time away from their wives or husbands.
Telling us that is not telling us a lot. Instead, the Times seems to be dancing around the question of whether Bill Clinton is on the prowl again, and whether that might affect his wife's presidential ambitions.
But of course the paper can't just come out and say it. So it says things like this:
"Because of Mr. Clinton's behavior in the White House, tabloid gossip sticks to him like iron filings to a magnet. Several prominent New York Democrats, in interviews, volunteered that they became concerned last year over a tabloid photograph showing Mr. Clinton leaving BLT Steak in Midtown Manhattan late one night after dining with a group that included Belinda Stronach, a Canadian politician. The two were among roughly a dozen people at a dinner, but it still was enough to fuel coverage in the gossip pages."
Belinda Stronach? Why were prominent New York Democrats concerned about Bill Clinton being photographed near her?
The Times didn't say. Indeed, a search of the Nexis database reveals the paper has never even mentioned Clinton and Stronach together.
But readers of other newspapers will know. In 2004, for example, The Washington Post ran a brief gossip report that "Canadian papers were running items about what was called a 'close personal and business relationship' between Clinton and Canadian billionaire Belinda Stronach."
The Times apparently doesn't want to traffic in such rumors. So it threw out a little tastefully understated innuendo instead. It's all part of what the paper calls the "soap opera of infidelity."
And yes, the Clintons have provided a lot of soap opera over the years. But their marriage raises a far more serious issue as we contemplate the idea of Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president. And that is, we have never, ever had a first spouse like Bill Clinton.
The former president has so many business deals and so many political entanglements that his presence in the White House, even as first spouse, would make life very … complicated.
Just go back a few months to the Dubai ports deal. Remember when we found out that, even as Mrs. Clinton denounced it, Mr. Clinton was giving his friend the crown prince of Dubai advice on how to make it work?
The former president wasn't working pro bono. He has gotten tons of money from Dubai in speaking fees and in business deals involving Dubai and something called Yucaipa, which is a wildly profitable company owned by the man the Times describes as Clinton's "bachelor buddy," Ronald Burkle.
Clinton has also hit on many, many world leaders to help build his presidential library and to give money to the Bill Clinton Foundation. In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, the foundation took in $57 million. It has certainly taken in much, much more since then. The money comes from all over the world; Bill Clinton operates on the world stage and is well-paid for it.
Now, all of that is the standard stuff of ex-presidents. But they only do that kind of business after leaving the White House. Doing so in office would be absolutely forbidden and would create enough conflicts of interest to keep an army of investigators busy for years to come.
But what if Bill Clinton, after leaving office and pulling in money from around the world, were to return to the White House as first spouse? It would be a terrible mess.
Would it make sense if Laura Bush had business deals in Dubai, and Brunei, and Taiwan, and all sorts of other places? Would that be accepted as normal practice?
Of course not, and it wouldn't be for Bill Clinton, either.
So the role of the former president in a possible Hillary Rodham Clinton administration is a very serious issue indeed.
It's not as sexy as the "soap opera of infidelity," and it certainly won't receive as much attention in the papers and the talk shows.
But it's a problem -- a big problem -- waiting to happen.
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@nationalreview.com
