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.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[SamThornton]

While for the purposes of domestic politics this might seem like an attractive idea, I'm not sure Mr. Clinton has enough credibility with the Palestinian side to be an effective facilitator. I seem to recall that it was the Palestinian rejection of his last efforts as peacemaker, leading to new rounds of violence, that put paid to those attempts. Now, with Hamas in the mix, it remains to be seen whether any U.S. politician has enough cleverness to be able to square this particular circle.

[PennP]

Do you honestly feel that, Bill Clinton has earned ANYTHING from Barack Obama? Do you disrespect Obama so much that you place this tarnished ex-president's future ahead of his, and ours? Appointing either Clinton to anything in his administration would be self-sabotage, undermining his authority and his agenda--our future. Can you imagine Bill or Hillary Clinton subsuming their own interests to present Obama's, and only Obama's? It's just not tenable, and the risks definitely outweigh the possible benefits.

I wish Clinton partisans would stand back and look long and hard at how both Clintons have treated Obama and Obama's candidacy, in word and deed. I'd like to know how the things they've done to him merit his ongoing appreciation, his respect, and his trust--or ours. The Clintons can fight their own battles. We need to focus on a bright future, not the oxidized past.

[Dap]

Dear Chris,

With all due respect, this is without a doubt (in my opinion) a extremely bad notion, not at all very well thought out, sorry there ol'buddy, political expediency is *NOT* a good reasson or reasoning.

Best man for this job would be Zbigniew Brzezinski, if he would take on the task. Agape.

[LaurettaK]

Excellent idea. Bill Clinton came closer than anyone in recent history to resolving the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. It was widely reported that his knowledge of the dispute was remarkably in depth, and that he familiarity with each disputed neighborhood. The talks got hung up on the right of return for millions of Palestinians still living in exile. The Bush administration dropped the ball. Ehud Barak was left to attend an important meeting in Egypt essentially without American support. His failure at peace led Sharon back to power. Once Sharon was elected, the Bush administration no-peace-agreement policy was cemented. Eight years later, the area is in even greater tumult because of Bush"s Iraq war. (If don"t think Iraq affected this dynamic, google "Shia crescent.")

The haters on the Clintons should take a history lesson. Stop talking about "change" and "future" and do a little reality check. There are only a handful of Americans who are experienced and knowledgeable enough to take on this task. Among them, James Baker, Jimmy Carter, possibly Colin Powell, and BILL CLINTON.

The Isreali-Palestinian conflict is the sourse of great anti-American sentiment. If Bill Clinton can get the job done there, let him have at it!

[AlwaysFairDem]

I could not disagree more with your idea mainly because we want to leave in the future not in the past.

[aquarius2001]

That would be a horrible idea!! Can't trust ol Billy to behave himself over there...hell, we couldn't even trust him to behave himself over here...in the White House...as President!

[TommyMcCarthy]

Heavens Chris!

Hope you're prepared to take some heat for this suggestion.
Around these parts that usually indicates you're onto a stellar idea (which it is!)
tm

[RumiSouth]

You're more right than you know, Mr. Weigant.

While studying the history of US diplomacy a few years ago, I found that (1) Ambassador posts have become a reward for political patronage, making our "official" representatives to the world irrelevant (2) because of modern communications technology, our diplomatic efforts are centralized in Washington in a way not possible 100 years ago.

Long story short, there are no more John Quincy Adamses out there, using their immense personal and technocratic talents to further American policy by out-negotiating the Brits in Paris. They've been replaced by flunkies with email who do the bidding of someone in DC.

What we need is a new kind of diplomat -- a Bill Clinton, for example -- empowered to act as "satrap" for an entire region and allowed the policy room to build the best solution without Washington looking over his shoulder.

The idea wasn't mine, or yours. It's been building in the diplomatic world for a long time now. Your suggestion not only has merit, it has momentum.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

RumiSouth -

You may be right, but I don't think I'd use the term "satrap" in that part of the world. Perhaps "Ambassador, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary"? I dunno..

-CW

[foreffectivegovernment]

How ironic is it that the same people who conspired with the Republicans to destroy the Clintons and their legacy are now begging them to save Obama's a$$ in the general election?
Just because you selected a lightweight candidate as the nominee of the Democratic Party because it was "cool" and historic", don't expect the Clinton's and their supporters to pull your candidate out of the fire.
For me to be loyal to a Democratic Party that did everything it could to stack the deck in favor of the Republican choice for Democratic nominee is asking way too much. To berate the Clintons and their supporters for having hard feeling about the viseral hatred expressed by Obama supporters is the most hypocritical thing I have witnessed in my adult life of 60+ years.
You bought him, you got him, so leave the Clintons alone while Obama sinks into the hole you all created for him. I personally will not throw you or him a lifeline. Sink or Swim is my motto!

[LizM]

But, putting everything else aside for the moment, don't you think Joe Biden would be the perfect choice for Vice President with Special Portfolio on Iraq? ...just curious as to what you might think about that prospect.

[Dap]

What exactly don't ya get about the "NO Biden" concept, LizM? Start a Senator Joseph Biden Fan Club or something, Jeeesh, TeeHeehe :-p

[JoDeeVa]

How ironic is it that the same people who wanted the best for the country, supporting Hillary Clinton, are now willing to accept the worst for the country in John McCain..talk about hypocritical! Look, I was open to both candidates, deciding to support Hillary, in part because I felt somewhat the way you did "about the visceral hatred expressed by Obama supporters"...the denigrating behavior was a wrong, derisive mentality! I really do understand that..however, to carry out a vendetta that may end in the travesity of President McCain is a wrong, derisive mentality, as well.

Reminiscent of the 1972 election with the strategy of Democratic party pols, who felt powerless in the face of the new primary process and sabotaged George McGovern's campaign, we ended up with Ronald Reagan. 8 years of Reagan was a bitter pill to swallow, especially knowing that many Democrats didn't vote or were those "Democrats for Reagan"...are you willing to accept the same fate for the next 4-8 years, simply because you feel Hillary and her supporters were wronged?

I dare say the Clintons are the ones to decide whether they want to be left alone and that doesn't seem to be the case. If you respect Hillary Clinton, respect what she has asked of her supporters..that we support the campaign to elect President Obama, something most of us are already doing! "Sink or Swim" may be your motto, but you may just drown the rest of us...

[SusaninIN]

I'm perfectly happy with my candidate. We don't want nor do we need a lifeline. Your candidate didn't win and I'm sure that is upsetting, but Obama won this fair and square AND BY THE RULES. Someone wins and someone loses, that's part of life. I'm happy that Obama won the nomination and I believe he will win the general. If he doesn't, I will be upset, but I'm not going to stomp my feet and refuse to pay my taxes or decide to move overseas because he lost. Nor, will I vote for Hillary in 2012, not because of the hatred expressed from the Hillary supporters, but because I don't want her as my president. I don't like the way she campaigned in the general and basically I'm tired of the negativity in politics, in which she has shown such talent. Give me HOPE, GRACE, and MORALITY anyday.

[SusaninIN]

Sorry, I meant in the primaries.

[AdamWykle]

"Bill Clinton would likely be acceptible to both the Palestinians and Israelis"

Maybe with the Israelies, but he pushed the Palestinians into having Bantustans as a state, with no sovereignty over there own water, land or air. Check up on the last Camp David talks please.

[LanosIceland]

I'm so pleased to have this finally on the table, it's exactly what I've been hoping for all along.

Bill Clinton would finally have a chance to finish what he started with Arafat, Peres & Rabin, and Barak. He was so close, and suffice to say, there's never been a more honest broker since Carter facilitated the Egypt-Israeli treaty. To initiate something like this would be for Obama a sign on great leadership: The two sides recieve the one person whom they both totally trust, Bill Clinton, and Barack recieves the might, the loyalty, the wisdom and the prestige of the Clinton machine.

I'm sure Barack will also give Hillary a 2nd shot at health care; she'll get it right this time and she
sure as hell deserves it. The Clinton-Edwards(Elizabeth) Health Care Act. Wow!

The question is, will the electorate show wisdom this time! Will they choose a leader to deliver
real victories at home, or a leader who is intent on winning Vietnam!

[laksa]

I think it is a great idea. Another thing Bill can do to help himself and Obama is to campaign for him in those rural places where they are still resisting to vote for a black man and still have this perception that Obama is a Muslim. This way, Bill may begin mending bridges with the black community as well.

[SusaninIN]

I'm not so sure about that. Bill just refused to acknowledge that Obama is ready to lead. A little sour grapes?

[ofbbg]

I think this is a GREAT idea! Remember how well he did with N. Korea?

[ofbbg]

By the way, if there's no chance to steal or extort money while he's there, he won't take it!

[Lucide]

RE:
Bill Clinton, Middle East Envoy?
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust Posted August 4, 2008 | 06:27 PM (EST)
------------------------------------------
Thank you for wecloming me
And allow me to congratulate you for your present article
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDICATION

I dedicate this book entitled "BILL A RI AND THERE WAS LIGHT!" to the FORMER President Bill Clinton, to his wife Hillary and their daughter Chelsea. Leadership is the trade-mark of both the President and his whole family at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
The immediate goal of this book is to make the leaders and peoples of the West aware of their grave responsibilities in connection with Haiti"s current tragic situation. For this reason, it recalls the dominant relationship the West has had with the Black World.

Lucien Bonnet
http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca
PLEASE, SEE "Bill A Ri And There Was Light!"

[LizM]

That's an interesting suggestion. In fact, I would say that is exactly what the Clintons deserve! Sorry...I just could not resist that one...I mean, really...I can't think of another job that would completely consume Bill Clinton for the duration of the administration...every single one of his waking moments, even. It would all be a just reward for all of the crazy antics and behavior of both Clintons since Senator Obama became the presumptive nominee.

However, don't you dare go around suggesting that Bill Clinton be in charge of implementing a strategy for extricating US forces from Iraq and promoting a political solution there. That remains in the exclusive purview of some whole other foreign policy expert who had better darn well be named VP (with Special Portfolio on Iraq) by the end of this week. If not, then...by all means...give the whole damned Middle East file to both Clintons, for all I care!