Off-the-books diplomacy, recalling Bill Richardson's career as an unofficial negotiator with Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic in the Clinton era, is back with the former President himself in North Korea to arrange release of two imprisoned American journalists, employees of a media unit headed by former VP Al Gore.
Bill Clinton's gig is complicated by his wife's status as Secretary of State, giving new meaning to the expression "private channels."
All hands in the White House and State Department are maintaining official silence about the trip, obviously intended to break the stalemate over the Administration's need to act on the imprisonment while stopping short of destroying the possibility of future negotiations with North Korea over nuclear weapons.
Raising the stakes in rewarding blackmail by rogue states is a problematical development. Freeing the two women is a commendable objective but, in the light of North Korea's history of political blackmail, a dubious step that will only continue the cycle of American impotence in dealing with that regime.
Richardson himself, then a Congressman nominated to be UN Ambassador, went to Pyongyang in 1996 to gain the freedom of a young American man, so disturbed that he committed suicide soon after returning home.
The North Koreans, whose foreign policy seems oriented around getting attention on the world stage, will no doubt accept Bill Clinton's trip as the price of freeing prisoners who serve no other purpose for them, but the precedent is unnerving.
Keeping Bill Clinton offstage during his wife's State Department tenure would clearly be a plus for the Obama Administration. Given Al Gore's personal involvement in the current case, wouldn't a former Vice-President's humbling have been a high enough price to pay?
Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Obama Job Loss
Bill Richardson, who was going to help the new administration create jobs as Commerce Secretary, is giving up his own even before he starts.
Stepping down under the cloud of a pay-to-play investigation, Richardson joins a parade of Democratic governors plagued by scandal in the past year (Spitzer, Blagojevich) and, more disturbing, the second former would-be presidential nominee and potential VP on Barack Obama's list last summer (John Edwards).
Richardson's departure statement, with the usual protestations of innocence, has a curious reference to remaining in his job as governor of New Mexico and continuing to "work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future."
Say what? Is Richardson suggesting an unhappy outcome for his legal troubles? In any case, his leaving the new cabinet before entering it is an unhappy reflection on the Obama vetting process and a sad blow to the pride of Hispanic Americans in his appointment.
Stepping down under the cloud of a pay-to-play investigation, Richardson joins a parade of Democratic governors plagued by scandal in the past year (Spitzer, Blagojevich) and, more disturbing, the second former would-be presidential nominee and potential VP on Barack Obama's list last summer (John Edwards).
Richardson's departure statement, with the usual protestations of innocence, has a curious reference to remaining in his job as governor of New Mexico and continuing to "work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future."
Say what? Is Richardson suggesting an unhappy outcome for his legal troubles? In any case, his leaving the new cabinet before entering it is an unhappy reflection on the Obama vetting process and a sad blow to the pride of Hispanic Americans in his appointment.
Monday, March 24, 2008
What's John Edwards Waiting For?
Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama last week raises the question of why the leader of the also-rans is being coy about making a choice
"John Edwards," Politico reports, "is unlikely to endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton before the nomination is decided, according to interviews with several members of the former candidate's inner circle."
Why not? At this stage, the Democrats need all the clarity they can get. Despite his long-standing ties to the Clintons, Richardson made his announcement last week--a hard choice, but he made it.
Edwards has been courted with visits from Obama and Clinton, and he knows how helpful his endorsement might be, particularly in the upcoming North Carolina primary.
Why would he hold back? None of the possible reasons do him credit or even make much sense. Surely he knows enough about the two candidates to make a choice, and holding out will not encourage them at this point to take up his war on poverty any more than they already have.
Is he angling to be a kingmaker at the convention? Not likely, all but a handful of his pledged delegates are gone, and none would take direction from him in any case. Does he want to be sure to back the winner and end up in the cabinet, perhaps as Attorney General? Bad strategy. They don't give medals for showing up after the battle. Or is he just planning to become the 21st century Harold Stassen, a perennial Presidential candidate?
Jonathan Prince, Edwards’ former deputy campaign manager, thinks his man has clout, asserting "that before Ohio and Texas, the campaigns told me that the most popular Democrat in Ohio was John Edwards. And he was tied for the most popular Democrat in Texas. I would imagine that what was true in Ohio is true in Pennsylvania, too.
“One candidate is trying to show he’s got it wrapped up. I think John Edwards would help to do that. The other candidate is trying to show that things are breaking her way. I think John Edwards would help to do that also.”
Most of all, by choosing now he would set an example for his party to encourage settling their squabbles sooner rather than later to unite against the possibility of another Republican in the White House. John Edwards has dedicated himself to bringing together the two Americas. Is it too much to ask him to do something for the two Democratic parties?
"John Edwards," Politico reports, "is unlikely to endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton before the nomination is decided, according to interviews with several members of the former candidate's inner circle."
Why not? At this stage, the Democrats need all the clarity they can get. Despite his long-standing ties to the Clintons, Richardson made his announcement last week--a hard choice, but he made it.
Edwards has been courted with visits from Obama and Clinton, and he knows how helpful his endorsement might be, particularly in the upcoming North Carolina primary.
Why would he hold back? None of the possible reasons do him credit or even make much sense. Surely he knows enough about the two candidates to make a choice, and holding out will not encourage them at this point to take up his war on poverty any more than they already have.
Is he angling to be a kingmaker at the convention? Not likely, all but a handful of his pledged delegates are gone, and none would take direction from him in any case. Does he want to be sure to back the winner and end up in the cabinet, perhaps as Attorney General? Bad strategy. They don't give medals for showing up after the battle. Or is he just planning to become the 21st century Harold Stassen, a perennial Presidential candidate?
Jonathan Prince, Edwards’ former deputy campaign manager, thinks his man has clout, asserting "that before Ohio and Texas, the campaigns told me that the most popular Democrat in Ohio was John Edwards. And he was tied for the most popular Democrat in Texas. I would imagine that what was true in Ohio is true in Pennsylvania, too.
“One candidate is trying to show he’s got it wrapped up. I think John Edwards would help to do that. The other candidate is trying to show that things are breaking her way. I think John Edwards would help to do that also.”
Most of all, by choosing now he would set an example for his party to encourage settling their squabbles sooner rather than later to unite against the possibility of another Republican in the White House. John Edwards has dedicated himself to bringing together the two Americas. Is it too much to ask him to do something for the two Democratic parties?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Hillary's Next Mate
It’s been like waiting in line to get tickets for a rock concert. Yesterday the “Hillary Is 44” site promised: “Tomorrow we will address potential Vice President choices. Don’t miss it!”
So here we are with knapsacks, water bottles and eager faces, and the winner is...
James Webb, the junior senator from Virginia, who makes Barack Obama look like Robert Byrd when it comes to experience in elected office--less than six months—although he did serve as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan years.
After considering Obama (“many questions he must answer, soon and thoroughly”), Bill Richardson (“solidifies the Latino vote for an already popular with Latinos Hillary”) Evan Bayh (“made some dumb personnel decisions for his campaign but quickly corrected them, which we found impressive”) and Tom Vilsack (“might bring in Iowa’s 7 electoral votes”), the Pink Brain Trust decided on Webb, citing “Republican David Ignatius,” a Washington Post columnist, commenting on Webb’s Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Class Struggle”:
“’The Democrats need to embrace the fact that the greatest issue in America today is economic fairness,’ he says. He argues that if the Democrats construct a ‘fairness agenda’ that tilts toward workers and away from corporations and the rich, ‘they will win big.’ John Edwards hasn’t had much luck so far with the issue, which he has made the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. But some influential Democrats, including former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, share the focus on fairness.”
Senator Webb, decorated Vietnam war veteran, author of eight books and philosophically an admirer of the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, is an impressive man who, on his first Senatorial trip to the White House had a publicized run-in with the President about Iraq, where his son is serving.
Vice President? Sen. Clinton may want to wait until she wins the nomination before thinking too much about it.
So here we are with knapsacks, water bottles and eager faces, and the winner is...
James Webb, the junior senator from Virginia, who makes Barack Obama look like Robert Byrd when it comes to experience in elected office--less than six months—although he did serve as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan years.
After considering Obama (“many questions he must answer, soon and thoroughly”), Bill Richardson (“solidifies the Latino vote for an already popular with Latinos Hillary”) Evan Bayh (“made some dumb personnel decisions for his campaign but quickly corrected them, which we found impressive”) and Tom Vilsack (“might bring in Iowa’s 7 electoral votes”), the Pink Brain Trust decided on Webb, citing “Republican David Ignatius,” a Washington Post columnist, commenting on Webb’s Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Class Struggle”:
“’The Democrats need to embrace the fact that the greatest issue in America today is economic fairness,’ he says. He argues that if the Democrats construct a ‘fairness agenda’ that tilts toward workers and away from corporations and the rich, ‘they will win big.’ John Edwards hasn’t had much luck so far with the issue, which he has made the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. But some influential Democrats, including former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, share the focus on fairness.”
Senator Webb, decorated Vietnam war veteran, author of eight books and philosophically an admirer of the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, is an impressive man who, on his first Senatorial trip to the White House had a publicized run-in with the President about Iraq, where his son is serving.
Vice President? Sen. Clinton may want to wait until she wins the nomination before thinking too much about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)