Bill Clinton, Middle East Envoy?
The vice presidential guessing game has reached fever pitch, with many betting Barack Obama is going to make his pick known this week, before the Olympics start. But I'd like to suggest another appointment for Obama to announce, which he should do before he selects his running mate. Obama should announce that, if elected, he will offer the job of special envoy to the Middle East to former president Bill Clinton.
This could reap many rewards for Obama, and for the Clintons as well. First of all, it would be impossible to find someone better qualified and better suited to be America's face in the region. Bill Clinton would likely be acceptible to both the Palestinians and Israelis, which goes a long way toward moving the peace process along from the very start. Clinton could oversee the entire region, and try to put Bush's Humpty-Dumpty foreign policy mess back together again. Not being an ambassador to any one county, but rather having a portfolio of the whole Middle East, would give him a regional focus on one of the most important (if not the most important) regions of the world for the near future. Clinton could sit down with Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and all the other countries who have a stake in what happens in Iraq, and address their concerns in a fair-handed way. While achieving total peace in the Middle East may be an unrealistic goal in four years (or even eight), achieving stability in the region is indeed possible. It would take a master statesman to do it, but luckily we have one of those available -- Bill Clinton.
The second reason this makes a lot of sense is that Bill himself would probably throw himself into the job with enthusiasm. He really, really wanted a peace deal at the very end of his presidency, and he got pretty darn close to achieving it. What better way is there to cement his legacy in history than by getting a chance to go back and finish the job, under another Democratic president? And, if tales are true, Bill Clinton's legacy is something that both Clintons are acutely aware of, and would like to protect. And this wouldn't just protect his legacy, it would actually expand it and make it greater.
The third reason this would be a brilliant move for Obama is that it would pre-empt the likely fury out there waiting for him when he announces his running mate... and the name he speaks is not "Hillary Clinton." There are a lot of supporters of Hillary from the primaries who are still seriously annoyed at Obama, and some of them are currently on the fence -- "if he picks Hillary as his running mate, I'll support him, otherwise I'm staying home and not voting this year." While naming Bill Clinton to such a prestigious diplomatic post wouldn't completely blunt the reaction of diehard Hillaryites, it might at least lessen it to some extent.
Politically, this would give both the Clintons a personal stake in the race, and would go a long way towards healing the wounds inflicted in the primaries on both sides. It would show Barack Obama is just as serious about protecting Bill's legacy as both the Clintons are. It would show them respect, and would be an incentive for them to put their heart into campaigning for Obama where they are needed.
In fact, it's really hard to see anything wrong with choosing Bill as Chief Middle East Negotiator. As I said, there is just no one who is more qualified and who has a better chance of achieving some degree of success in the job. Bill Clinton would get a chance to shine, and Barack Obama could pick up some support from former Hillary supporters. And if Obama makes the announcement before he announces his running mate, then it will help heal the divide between the two camps instead of widening it.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
Chris
First I think Bill is smart enought to stay away from the middle east, he'd quietly say hell no.
Second this is not the bone that would pasify the HRC faithful. VP or nothing, some will get it and vote Obama, some may be fooled by McCain, but I really think (maybe not the majority) but a hellva alot will stay home. Which is why I think he is making a BIG mistake by not picking Hilary. I swear if he messes up what should have been a blow out, I'm moving to Brazil (how hard is Portiguese?)
Thanks Always
loslobo,
You really think Bill is smart enough to turn down that gig? Because, frankly, I think he deserves it - if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do!
As for VP...I still believe that the only way Senator Obama messess this thing up is by not choosing Joe Biden to be at his side as Vice President with Special Portfolio on Iraq...in waiting.
...okay...that's the last spelling mistake I'll be making tonight...or...today!
loslobo -
First off, "obrigado!" That is the sum total of my Portugeuse... you're on your own after that...
Elizabeth -
I was at a party this weekend, with some die-hard Hillaryites, some Obamamaniacs, and some in-betweens. While various opinions were raised about Obama and other political subjects, when the talk turned to VP, Biden was the #1 pick of almost everyone. Some thought it might go to others, but it was almost universal that Biden would make a great VP pick for Obama. Now, this wasn't a scientific survey by a long shot, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Out of the top three the media has latched onto (Biden, Bayh, Kane), Biden was by far the most popular choice. Make of it what you will....
-CW
CW,
That must have been some party - I’m jealous.
And, just out of curiosity and other less flattering motivations, I’m wondering if anyone voiced any ill-informed concerns about the national myth of Biden’s propensity toward being a gaffe-prone (often with racial overtones) blowhard Washington insider whose ego and arrogance are second in magnitude only to his love for the sound of his own voice and doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. Did anyone wonder out loud about an imagined bout with plagiarism and the presumed fact that he is owned by the credit card industry? Was the concept of bankruptcy a part of the conversation, by any chance?
I can’t say that I’m surprised Biden’s name came up when talk turned to VP selections. But, even if the above fantasies were not given voice, I would be surprised if the group and conversation you described went much beyond paying the obligatory and token attention to Biden, much less entertained any serious thoughts about a Biden vice presidency.
I've said this many times, I was a Biden supporter from day one. When the primaries came my way there was only two choices and I went with Hillary mainly because I thought she was least likly to back down (FISA anyone?).
Here is a real perverted thought...Did any of you see Molly Ivins speach "Laughing or cring"? I know she has been gone for awhile but it is alway worth a view...Anyway she says in there that if Hillary was chosen President that the hate around her was so vast and deep that she would be assasinated. My thought was basicly the Cheney factor. Hillary is the buffer that stops them from doing to Obama what happened to RFK and JFK...
Thanks always
Elisabeth,
As far as Bill deserving it, did you see Chris Rock's Bigger and Blacker? I refer to Hillary saying "I got this.."
"Hillary is the buffer that stops them from doing to Obama what happened to RFK and JFK… "
Uh... "them" wouldn't be the problem. Hillary's cronies would be the ones Obama would have to worry about. Sorry, far too many people have died around the Clintons in a far too convenient way for the Clintons.
Seriously. Even the MSM has made comments like "Obama would need a food tester".
Elizabeth -
Nope, the responses ranged from what I would call name recognition (Bayh and Kane are just not that well-known) "Oh, Biden, yeah, I know him," to what can only be described as ouright enthusiasm "Biden would definitely be the BEST pick for VP Obama could make." "Biden would shore up his foreign policy" "Biden would make me feel better about voting for Obama" "Biden's a solid guy" "Biden? Definitely."
Seriously, I was kind of surprised at what seemed to be Biden's almost-near-universal appeal. Not surprised because I think badly of Biden, but surprised that so many people (many of whom didn't pay a whole lot of attention to politics) already knew who he was, knew he was a stand-up guy, and knew he had solid foreign policy credentials. Maybe his earlier candidacy was more effective than previously thought, I dunno. But I knew you'd want to hear this story, even though it's totally "anecdotal" evidence. Hillary's name came up, for instance (also well-known to everyone) and she didn't have nearly the same enthusaism or support. Like I said, I never try to make too much chowder out of one clam (as a Kennedy might say), but I thought I'd at least pass it along to you in the comments here...
-CW
BLaws
I take your in the shoe soles were clean camp. I was never convinced. I didn't see the real gain in Foster's death for the Clintons. If ya got links I'll revisit it.
Chris,
Thanks for the scoop! It is indeed surprising to me that Biden would get that kind of response without any mention of the media-driven national myths that have been built up over the course of many years and which have been, in no small part, taken up - hook, line, and sinker - by a vast number of the electorate.
Actually, I am very heartened to hear about this and I'm gonna go right ahead and make the sound assumption that you hang with an incredibly exceptional and influential group of people!
:-)
Obama is faced with two choices; one go as Carter a president with great ideas but no real support, or go with Hillary a person he doesn't like very much. The difference is 12 or 4. 12 years in the White House means Universal health care. 12 years in the White House means peace in the Middle East. 12 years in the White House means oil independce. Does Obama just want to be president for the sake of being president or does he want to do some good?
Yeah right -
OK, accepting your premise here for the moment... why would it be only 12 years? You thinking Obama for two terms, with Hillary as VP? Then Hillary as president?
But why wouldn't Hillary win a second term too? Like I said, I'm not arguing with your basic premise, just wondering why you didn't argue it as "16 versus 4"?
-CW
Elizabeth -
Honest... I heard some "disparagin' words" about both Obama and Hillary, but everybody seemed to like Biden, with no snide comments or qualifications.
I don't know about "influential" but I would have to agree with "exceptional"...
-CW
Because America is ready for Change but neither Obama or Hillary is FDR. Although, I believe Obama has some of the right ideas. A Democrate will not be able to take the office in four years (unless his has Hillary). There is always some crisis, some impending doom and Republicans will play this to Obama's inexperience. Think of Regan and Bush 1. Bush 1 was a man to fear. He was impolite when Regan had to be (CIA credentials). Consider Bush 2 and Cheaney. I am not sure if Bush 2 could push the bottom but Cheaney could. Hillary is the type of strong arm Obama needs. I don't see this in any of his other VP choices except for maybe Biden.
Furthermore, Hillary will be not able to secure the White House in 8 years if she is not Obama running mate. The Republicans are on the run now but how long do you think this can last once Obama is blamed for all the troble that Bush has caused.
@Yeah right
I couldn't agree more with you that Senator Obama's choice for VP is a critical one and, I would argue, one of the most critical VP selections in the history of the US! I really think that this presidential election is different in that the challenges that face the US - and the world - in the coming decade are unique and difficult and we will need strong and competent political leadership to overcome them.
I would be very interested in your thoughts about all that Senator Obama should be looking for in a running mate to ensure both victory in November and a successful administration.