To Be or Not To Be?

That does seem to be the question these days regarding the possibility of Hillary Clinton becoming Obama's Secretary of State. It's the big question everywhere, there's talk and analysis, pros and cons everywhere you look and in everything you read. Personally, I have some doubts about how wise a choice it would be -- just not sure whether Hillary would really be doing her best to help Obama or whether she still has her eye on the presidency eight years down the road. Does Obama really want to deal with the Clintons for another eight years? I'm not taking anything away from the fact that Hillary most definitely has the qualifications, but the big question for me -- and apparently many others, is how would she manage the relationship with Bill and his own globe trotting, speaking, fund-raising, philanthropic agenda etc. etc. It would seem to be without question that he would have to curb some of his activities and would he really be willing to do that? How much does he feel he owes Hillary? Lots of questions and I'm sure I'm not the only one asking them. Thomas Friedman has a great Op-Ed piece today on the subject and it's definitely worth reading.

On Huffington Post, Al Giordana posted this:

There are many annoying aspects of the noise machine that is blaring that arrogant and cacophonous yet familiar mantra: "Clinton is inevitable."

We heard it for all of 2007 when they told us that Senator Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee for president.

And we're hearing it all over again regarding that same Senator Clinton and the position of Secretary of State...
"It's a done deal. It's inevitable. He's already offered it. She's already taken it."

I say to you now as I told you and so many others then: It is not inevitable.
And there's a very interesting twist in the story tonight because one Chicagoan of gigantic integrity has stepped forward to insert some reality into the noise.

Abner Mikva - former federal judge, law professor, member of Congress, reformer of Chicago politics, chairman of the Illinois Human Rights Commission... and former White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton - told the New York Times today:

The vetting of Mr. Clinton's myriad philanthropic and business dealings is "complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides," said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama's closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration.

"There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they'd have to be made public."

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton's activities abroad.

Associates of the Clintons said that Mr. Clinton was likely to have to make significant concessions and that he was inclined to do so. Among other things, they said, he would probably have to agree not to take money for speeches from foreign businesses that have a stake in the actions of the American government. Another obvious issue, Democratic lawyers said, would be whether Mr. Clinton's foundation should accept money from foreign governments, businesses or individuals for the foundation's philanthropic activities and if it should disclose those donors publicly.

"The problem is it's going to require some sacrifice by him," said a former Clinton aide who is not involved in the discussions but did not want to be identified because the talks are confidential. "If he's not willing to do that, it could blow up."

One proposal, floated by Mr. Mikva and several other aides involved in the vetting process, would be for Mr. Clinton to separate himself from the activities of his foundation, including raising money.

"It's not just what he does or says - it's the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy," Mr. Mikva said. "It's more than a legal problem - there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

Just another interesting series of twists and turns in this ongoing political tale.