North Korea signaled its desire to have Mr. Clinton act as a special envoy in conversations with Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee, who relayed that message to their families in the middle of July, according to a senior administration official. The message was passed to Mr. Gore, who contacted the White House, which then explored whether such a mission would be successful.
Mr. Obama did not speak directly with Mr. Clinton before the mission. But his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, contacted the former president to sound him out. The senior official said the administration did “due diligence” with the North Koreans to ensure that if Mr. Clinton went, he would return with the journalists. - - New York Times
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
With All the Positive Press for Hill & Bill Are We Sure Clinton Won't Run in 2012?
When Bill Clinton went to North Korea to meet with Kim Jong-il was that a sign of what's to come? He was successful in getting journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling released. Did that seem a little easy at the end? A photo op and a declaration of "defeat" so North Korea would be "victorious"? As a reader pointed out it's not like either Bush would've been able to speak on behalf of the United States. Not after Shrub dubbed NK part of the "Axis of Evil".
Our current President certainly could not be seen directly negotiating. Apparently even Al Gore wasn't enough of a heavyweight even though he founded Current TV and was the de-facto employer of Lee and Ling. No, the administration needed to send the big guns. Love them or hate them that would be the Clintons. Yes, I'm including Hillary on equal par with Bill because their entire political careers have been tied to each other from the beginning. This is despite the ongoing dispute about the NK nuclear program and some of their officials speaking harshly of Mrs. Clinton. As I've stated in an earlier post, they are a sovereign nation and have just as much right to defend themselves as any other country.
It just goes to show you can never really write someone off. Last year's primary for the Democratic nomination was certainly a low point for the Clintons. They had alienated many many voters. Billy Jeff lost his "black cred". Of course he should've never had any to begin with. Now Obama certainly emerged the "winner" at that time. We were still reeling over Hillary's alluding to assassinations happening in June and preparing for the Democratic National Convention in Denver. That was a magical time I have to admit, but I also remember how pissed off a lot of women were. Not just the PUMAS. All of that seemed to be knocked over by the Obama juggernaut. The increased craziness from the McCain camp by unleashing Sarah Palin on an unsuspecting public certainly took up a lot of attention. Then the first wave of the economic collapse hit and Obama rode to victory.
Due to the continued white backlash against having a black President that isn't going to simmer down anytime soon, a return to the familiar (however dysfunctional) has a certain appeal. One thing we do know about the Clintons: they fight hard and dirty with NO regrets. Clinton went before a national audience and lied to us about Monika Lewinsky - and he was believable! Obama has already sputtered and apologized.
I think the next few months are going to be very interesting. If the healthcare plans crash and burn, the economy is still bad for middle-class whites (because let's face it none of them care as much about the poor or non-whites since a majority rules) and if Obama doesn't exert more control over the Democrats his weakness as a President will be cemented. So the question remains: will Hillary run for President in 2012 or what will she demand from Obama to not run?