What do the Clintons have on Obama?

[Dr. Shane]

What do the Clintons have on Obama?

As an Obama supporter and contributor, I've been very gratified by his dignified deportment and steadiness at the helm to date. But I must admit to puzzled disappointment with his recycling of Clinton era veterans, who reek of déjà vu. Surely we might have expected a better mix of fresh faces and progressive voices? Obama's team may have underestimated the labyrinthine personal interconnections and habit-worn loyalties of that cliquish crew.

As for Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, what sense does that make except within parochial Democratic politics? Awarding such a prize plum to Hillary may be a sop to her aggrieved fan base, but what exactly are her credentials for that position? Aside from being a mediocre senator (who, contrary to press reports, did very little for upstate New York), Hillary has a poor track record as both a negotiator and a manager. And of course both Clintons constantly view the world through the milky lens of their own self-interest. Well, it's time for Hillary to put up or shut up. If she gets as little traction in world affairs as Condoleezza Rice has, Hillary will be flushed down the rabbit hole with her feckless husband and effectively neutralized as a future presidential contender. If that's Obama's clever plan, is it worth the gamble? The secretary of state should be a more reserved, unflappable character -- not a drama queen who, even in her acceptance speech, morphed into three different personalities in the space of five minutes.

Given Obama's elaborate deference to the Clintons, beginning with his over-accommodation of them at the Democratic convention in August, a nagging question has floated around the Web: What do the Clintons have on him? No one doubts that the Clinton opposition research team was turning over every rock in its mission to propel Hillary into the White House. There's an information vacuum here that conspiracy theorists have been rushing to fill.

[text taken from link]

[Woody]

[Bravus]

Funny that the exact same tactics that were 'Bush-hate' when employed against Bush are proper political discourse when directed against Obama.

[Kountzer]

If the Clinton's have anything on Obama it would of been revealed by now, during the primaries. Hillary's goal was to become president. sec'y of state is just a consolation prize. The Clinton's are very powerful politically. You can't just defeat a tandem like that without conceding something.

DB

[Woody]

Funny that the exact same tactics that were 'Bush-hate' when employed against Bush are proper political discourse when directed against Obama.

I think it was the Bush haters who established the rules of 'proper' behaviour.

[Bravus]

Hmm, so we take our definition of what is right from our enemies? Odd. I thought we opposed them because they were wrong.

[Dr. Shane]

If the Clinton's have anything on Obama it would of been revealed by now, during the primaries. Hillary's goal was to become president. sec'y of state is just a consolation prize.

DB

I agree with this. The link I posted at the beginning of this thread is from Salon.com which typically is not a good source of balanced and well-thought-out commentary. They typically have some far extremist commentators and I think this is just one more example of that.

I think it is highly likely that Clinton and Obama made a "deal" before the convention but that is about the extent of it. I don't see any scandal here.