Clintons' Squabbles: Not Funny

Hillary Clinton's "Bill Clinton Problem" is a joke that has become not so funny. In a debate earlier this year, Mitt Romney got a huge laugh line when he said, "The idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I can't imagine." Hillary Clinton answered with a joke of her own when she assured David Letterman, "Well, look, you know, in my White House, we will know who wears the pantsuits."

Yet, it was reported this week that Bill Clinton has worked hard to promote the Colombia Free Trade deal, while Sen. Clinton says she has worked to oppose it. Yes, this is the same Colombia pact that cost her top campaign adviser his job when it was revealed that he was working on the side for the Colombian government.

According to the Huffington Post, Bill Clinton received $800,000 to take part in a speaking tour sponsored by Gold Service International, a Colombian outfit that supports the free trade deal. Just after, his Clinton Global Initiative announced millions of dollars of investment, including in Colombia. Just last year, Clinton participated in an event for, and received an award from, Colombian President Uribe -- a man whose human and labor rights record is so odious that Al Gore backed out of an environmental event when he found out Uribe would be there. The award Clinton received was described as ABC News as part of a PR effort to "counter [Colombia's] negative image among Washington Democrats."

The Clinton campaign's press secretary, Jay Carson, offered a petulant response, telling Ben Smith of The Politico, "Yawn."

Excuse me if this problem doesn't make me as drowsy as Sen. Clinton's spokesperson. I would expect, and even welcome, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton arguing about policy behind closed doors. It can only help the senator form a more informed, wise position on critical issues. But, this is not a marital squabble.
At some point, when Sen. Clinton claims she was trying to defeat the Colombian free trade deal, Bill Clinton must have told her that he was planning on making some money to promote the deal, and helping the Colombian president deflect attention from his offensive record. What did Sen. Clinton tell the former president at that point?

Either she told him that it was OK, and she didn't mind him working to pass the trade deal, which calls into question just how opposed to this policy proposal she really is. Or, she told Bill Clinton that she didn't want him doing that, and he did it anyway. Certainly, during this campaign, Bill Clinton seems to have gone off on his own, saying and doing things that Hillary Clinton later had to apologize for. The former president's crass comparison of Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson, in South Carolina, comes to mind.

Whatever the case, this is problematic. In this critical time, we cannot afford to have a president who says one thing, while the first spouse publicly works towards an opposite end. Sen. Clinton must better explain to voters why the former president goes off on his own like this, and how she will better control him if she should find herself in the Oval Office.

This is now serious, and answering this question with jokes won't cut it anymore.

Flavia Colgan is a member of the Philadelphia Daily News editorial board. Check out her blog, CitizenHunter, at www.citizenhunter.com.

Comments

[S1m0n]

Or he was doing an Abramoff-style lobbying fraud:: getting paid to promote something, working against it, and then asking for more money because the problem is getting worse.

[BatedBreath]

Of course it's important. And it's important we know how Bill would handle his foundation and consulting business _before_ he gets into the WH again and any super who commits to Hillary damn well better be asking these questions. How curious is it that the press hasn't been asking? Perhaps they think she doesn't have a chance and wouldn't answer if they asked.

I have never thought that BC's presence in the picture was funny - funny as a heart attack, maybe but otherwise very scary.

[PhDiva]

Thank you for insisting on somebody recognizing that this is a serious issue and a serious conflict of interest. I can't believe that everybody is giving her a free pass on this one. It's worse than her campaign manager.

[efranklin]

This is Hillary's new two-pronged strategy: appear more personable, while pivoting around the honesty question. Take her appearance on Leno, when she acted to satirize her own inflated resume. Nobody buys this garbage. And as for her comedic skills, she gets a "D minus" for delivery.

[plafayette]

Flavia, you are very right. Unfortunately Americans are beginning to support political candidates in the same way that we support our favorite sports team. The only thought is that they must WIN..WIN..WIN! Politics is not a game without consequences and the loser in this instance will again be the American people, home and abroad. This election is not about the personalities and like-ablity of the candidates. For me.....It is about Washington and government. I just think we need new people, new ideas, new strategies. We can't turn the clock back and going forward we need to step up to 21st century thinking about behavior, governance and ecological sustainability. We MUST change. Psychologist have long said that this is the single most frightening thing for many people...Fear of the UN-KNOWN. This why we keep voting for more of the same misery. Or we can say, "Not This Time".

[patrice37]

And I can't believe anyone is having a serious discussion about these two corrupt, delusional has-beens.

[PioneerKing]

Flavia:

The Clinton's hubris, their arrogance, their sheer dishonesty. Flavia, why do you support them?

The dishonesty problem is once again front and center - America does not want another Clinton presidency shrouded in disception; especially after suffering through the lies of the Bush/Cheney era.

As your HuffPost collegue put it "...we can dismiss Clinton, just as Harry Truman memorably dismissed Richard Nixon, as a "no-good, lying bastard" who can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time even when there's no particular reason to..." Unfortunately, Hillary also a fantastic liar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/the-swill-from-bill_b_96284.html

[hopeless277]

Why do you hate Hillary so much? A true patriotic American would not bring up such sorted details of a married couples intimate relationship. Bill and Hillary are just trying to cover all the bases so they won't end up on the wrong side of this issue. Your transparent attempt at smearing our one truely patriotic candidate will fail. The misogyny of your post is apparent and we Clinton supporters will not let you get away with it. Both Bill and Hillary have extremely long memories. Your post will be one of them.

[noo]

Are you threatening that a US president will threaten one of their constituents for practicing free speech? Are you serious? Is this the fascism you are trying to promote as you try to defend the Clintons?

[OtayPanky]

If you can't suss out satire, you might want to confine your participation to reading.

[sfbayani]

Again, I am saying this.
Hear ye, hear ye - all Billaryites there, especially here in California.
I still could not find a reason why you still can fight for her to get the
Dem nomination. (And of course, the Billaryites will always resurrect
the Reverend Wright controversy to question Obama's patriotism.)

and how about the Clintons' lies and hypocrisy about all these
trade deals that do not benefit Americans.
That is unpatriotic to me.
almost along the line of the Bush-Cheney squandering America's
goodwill in pursuit of oil's wealth.

[bailey2006]

As a fellow Californian, I can tell you that there are many, many, many who voted for Hillary on Super Tuesday and now regret that vote.

This is a perfect example to those in office here in California as to why we should have stuck with the June primary. Talk about our votes counting!!!

[belicheat]

Also, it should be mentioned that Bill Clinton did not make $800,000 supporting the trade deal, Hillary made $800,000 supporting the trade deal as well. They file shared tax returns and maintain shared assets. Ostensibly part of that $800,000 made its way into her campaign funds as part of the $5 million dollar loan she gave herself.

[Siryn]

Yawn - business as usual, Flavia.

[timm0]

"This is now serious, and answering this question with jokes won't cut it anymore."

Well, there's only three answer options from the clinton gang. One is jokes. The others are arrogant, contemptuous rants and lies.

OK, so they combine the three as well.... so there's really 4 options.

[Liberal2]

And you must have a conflict with the free trade deal because it might interfere with your potentil sex tours in Columbia....See how easy it is to "suggest" something one has no evidence with which to support? There are enough real issues to lay against Senator Clinton without making one up. Shame on you, shame on HuffPost for publishing your article.

[timm0]

Using your logic, all the bush administration debacles are all hogwash. For example, signing statements don't PROVE that bushies have not abided by the laws to which they were affixed.

If you don't think conflicts of interest involving millions of dollars of personal enrichment (some of which is underwriting the woman's campaign right now) are real issues, then that puts you in a small intellectual community.

[belicheat]

What?

[CaptainObvious]

You should really wait for your talking points - your comment makes absolutely no sense. Just for future reference, I think most Clintonista apologists would usually resort to attacking Obama when they can't think of a defense themselves.

[JimR]

It's a legitimate question about conflict of interest. Shame on you for trying to suppress the truth. We've had 8 years of that already.

[DemandTruth]

Puh leeze. Some of us - regardless of what Clinton supporters always "suggest" - are intelligent enough to examine the evidence and the previous facts, and extrapolate and infer based on the record.

For instance: We KNOW both Clintons were always in favor of NAFTA. Bill Clinton actively campaigned for it as President, and Hillary actively campaigned for it as First Lady. We have her meeting schedule and several quotes on record to prove it. Fact.

We KNOW that Hillary Clinton has recently claimed she was NEVER in favor of NAFTA. Based on the evidence, we also KNOW that this claim is a LIE. So. What we've got is a Hillary Clinton who favors large free trade deals, but claims otherwise to our faces.

We KNOW Mark Penn has run her entire campaign, and is still playing a large part in the campaign and his JOB was to promote and pass CAFTA. He got paid a lot of money to do that job. And apparently Clinton thinks he's pretty good at what he does - and she's counting on him to ultimately be successful at what he does, right?

I think we could reasonably assume based on the facts we have that Clinton -despite what she claims now about NAFTA and CAFTA is in favor of both of these trade deals - and we have every reason based on the evidence not to trust what she's saying to our faces to get elected.

[SCharb]

Bill Clinton's job in Washington is to act as an unofficial Mega-lobbyist. No surprise.

[MPeter]

Bill is a ginomous lobbyist; he dwells in the gutter like the worst of them. But, thank you for calling the Clintons out on this one.

[wingman1]

Well said Flavia