FARK.com: (4141440) Obama is serious about having the Clintons in his cabinet. You can tell because he's wearing his chin down, don't-fark-with-the-One, I'm-serious frowny face, instead of his chin-up, gazing-at-the-stars, yes-we-can leadership face

It's Not News, It's Fark

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Obama is serious about having the Clintons in his cabinet. You can tell because he's wearing his chin down, don't-fark-with-the-One, I'm-serious frowny face, instead of his chin-up, gazing-at-the-stars, yes-we-can leadership face (online.wsj.com)		52
		More: Amusing

• • •

2028 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jan 2009 at 6:02 PM (14 years ago) | Favorite | share:

52 Comments (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

Sensei Can You See

2009-01-13 2:50:37 PM

*checks TFA*

By gum, submitter is right:

Nabb1

2009-01-13 3:02:18 PM

You mean this face:

Sensei Can You See

2009-01-13 3:05:21 PM

Lock and load, baby!

Sensei Can You See

2009-01-13 4:39:36 PM

I usually sit down to pee, so I REALLY hope Obama isn't watching it.

co-conspirator

2009-01-13 4:59:01 PM

I, for one, am going to miss the "frozen-like-a-deer-in-the-headlights-stare" of the past eight years.

Weaver95

2009-01-13 5:03:13 PM

All the more so because under terms of his agreement with ~~Mr. Obama~~ Mr. Bush, ~~Mr. Clinton~~ Mr. Cheney will be able to keep raising foreign cash as long as the donors send the checks to a ~~Clinton~~ Cheney entity other than the "~~Clinton~~ Cheney Global Initiative." Instead of being immediately disclosed, future donations will only be made public once a year and the exact amounts and dates of previous donations will never be made public.

Now, granted - my alterations were complete fiction. But consider for a moment that you would (and should) be outraged if Bush/Cheney made such an arrangement. Or if Bush had made such an arrangement with ANY of his staff.

I don't care if you think the Clintons walk on water or if Bush is pond scum. The point here is that Obama is making a scuzzy back room deal with the Clintons. Hiding fund raising numbers and sources of cash is never a good thing no matter WHO does it. If you despised Bush and Cheney's financial misdeeds and corporate connections then you MUST equally despise the fiscal skullduggery by the Clintons. You simply have no choice in the matter. If I were an Obama supporter/voter I'd be very concerned about this development. It's the first crack i've seen in his armor.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 5:06:28 PM

Weaver95: Now, granted - my alterations were complete fiction. But consider for a moment that you would (and should) be outraged if Bush/Cheney made such an arrangement. Or if Bush had made such an arrangement with ANY of his staff.

bill clinton isn't on obama's staff.

/buttsecks?

Weaver95

2009-01-13 5:10:44 PM

burndtdan: bill clinton isn't on obama's staff.

/buttsecks?

No, he's just the bag man in the bribery scheme. c'mon - don't act stupid. you know there isn't any possible way this is at all ethical.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 5:25:47 PM

Weaver95: burndtdan: bill clinton isn't on obama's staff.

/buttsecks?

No, he's just the bag man in the bribery scheme. c'mon - don't act stupid. you know there isn't any possible way this is at all ethical.

riiiiiight...

Weaver95

2009-01-13 5:32:35 PM

burndtdan: Weaver95: burndtdan: bill clinton isn't on obama's staff.

/buttsecks?

No, he's just the bag man in the bribery scheme. c'mon - don't act stupid. you know there isn't any possible way this is at all ethical.

riiiiiight...

so you're telling me - with a straight face - that you'd be ok with Cheney's wife getting massive amounts of cash and the public not having any right to know who's giving her the money or for what reason?

Because if that's what you are saying then I just lost a LOT of respect for you. This arrangement stinks to high heaven and you know it. You were right in your criticism of the Bush adminstration on their unethical (and possibly illegal) actions. Don't go soft on me now and start giving the Clintons a free pass just because Obama waved a magic wand over them.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 5:45:17 PM

Weaver95: so you're telling me - with a straight face - that you'd be ok with Cheney's wife getting massive amounts of cash and the public not having any right to know who's giving her the money or for what reason?

bill clinton is running a charitable organization, which predates obama's presidential aims, and has had the past donor list released with no untoward activities found within.

you can lose all the respect you want, you're making up controversy where it very clearly does not exist.

quickdraw

2009-01-13 5:54:41 PM

What makes you think she's not already? I mean I just assume 90% of those folks are getting it in every orifice they can lay claim to.

Frankly I would rather have Bill's activities subject to at least some scrutiny. If Hillarity was still a Sen. He would be doing the same thing and we wouldn't have any ability to know any of it. This way he is always being watched - and that's a good thing.

Weaver95

2009-01-13 5:57:19 PM

burndtdan: bill clinton is running a charitable organization, which predates obama's presidential aims, and has had the past donor list released with no untoward activities found within.

Bill Clinton fought tooth and claw to prevent *anyone* from seeing that donor list for a long, long time. And even now, he's STILL limiting access. You don't find it all those limitations the least bit suspicious? If this was someone in the Bush adminstration, you'd be all over the story. If there was even a HINT that someone there was hiding cash from mysterious donors, you'd demand an investigation. And you'd be right to do so. But again - you give this one a pass.

It's sad to see that happen. I was hoping to see Obama's people push for maintaining those high ethical standards for the next couple of years, but we're not even to the inauguration yet and already the excuses are starting.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf

2009-01-13 6:08:55 PM

As opposed to Bush's blank, deer-in-the-headlights, I-have-no-idea-WHAT-the-fark-I-am-doing look, subby?

rjShadow

2009-01-13 6:10:16 PM

/Am I doing this right?
// Omg just about burned myself with that link

Radioactive Ass

2009-01-13 6:11:09 PM

rjShadow: /Am I doing this right?

No.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 6:11:57 PM

Weaver95: Bill Clinton fought tooth and claw to prevent *anyone* from seeing that donor list for a long, long time.

because he had promised the donors that the donations were confidential.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 6:13:37 PM

Weaver95: It's sad to see that happen. I was hoping to see Obama's people push for maintaining those high ethical standards for the next couple of years, but we're not even to the inauguration yet and already the excuses are starting.

excuses for what? what am i excusing? what are you alleging? can you at least make a specific allegation for me to excuse?

i mean, you're basically just waving your hands in the air saying "WOOGETY BOOGETY!"

Nemo's Brother

2009-01-13 6:13:54 PM

Weaver95: burndtdan: bill clinton is running a charitable organization, which predates obama's presidential aims, and has had the past donor list released with no untoward activities found within.

Bill Clinton fought tooth and claw to prevent *anyone* from seeing that donor list for a long, long time. And even now, he's STILL limiting access. You don't find it all those limitations the least bit suspicious? If this was someone in the Bush adminstration, you'd be all over the story. If there was even a HINT that someone there was hiding cash from mysterious donors, you'd demand an investigation. And you'd be right to do so. But again - you give this one a pass.

It's sad to see that happen. I was hoping to see Obama's people push for maintaining those high ethical standards for the next couple of years, but we're not even to the inauguration yet and already the excuses are starting.

The only change is that the blue team will make you bend over more than the red team. If there was a way out of this two-party system, I would do about anything to achieve it.

InteriorDesignNinja

2009-01-13 6:18:59 PM

FTFY

Aidan

2009-01-13 6:28:03 PM

I loled. You are awesome, subby.

proteus_b

2009-01-13 6:45:45 PM

burntdan

the past donor list was recently released after years of pressure, and only in exchange for this appointment. and future donors won't have to be made public unless donations exceed previous amounts. pretty fishy.

i wonder who clinton purports to represent. is it the shot-downing townie she portrayed during parts of the campaign? the cosmopolitan author of "it takes a village"? is it the sheiks who give them millions of dollars?

it just seems to me that after having spent a trillion dollars assisting some corporations to better their coffers in iraq, that we shouldn't rush to do the same in whichever undisclosed places the clintons' friends need help. of course, we will do it, i'm just suggesting that we shouldn't.

Weaver95

2009-01-13 6:56:28 PM

burndtdan: i mean, you're basically just waving your hands in the air saying "WOOGETY BOOGETY!"

*sigh*

It's just sad to see you drink the koolaid this soon.

Obama shouldn't allow the Clintons to hide money from Bill's fundraising efforts. But we'll have to wait for Bill to mire the Obama administration in corruption before you'll wake up to what's going on. 2 years, maybe 3 at the outside - we'll be sitting here and you'll be wondering how in the hell Obama ever let the Clintons get the better of him...and then you'll remember my warning. And I'll just wink and order another beer.

But until that day, you won't listen to me or anyone else. it's just how these things go. I don't hold it against you, but I am somewhat disappointed about it.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 7:24:24 PM

Weaver95: burndtdan: i mean, you're basically just waving your hands in the air saying "WOOGETY BOOGETY!"

*sigh*

It's just sad to see you drink the koolaid this soon.

Obama shouldn't allow the Clintons to hide money from Bill's fundraising efforts. But we'll have to wait for Bill to mire the Obama administration in corruption before you'll wake up to what's going on. 2 years, maybe 3 at the outside - we'll be sitting here and you'll be wondering how in the hell Obama ever let the Clintons get the better of him...and then you'll remember my warning. And I'll just wink and order another beer.

But until that day, you won't listen to me or anyone else. it's just how these things go. I don't hold it against you, but I am somewhat disappointed about it.

he shouldn't "allow" them? is he emperor or something?

bill clinton is a private citizen. he is allowed to do anything that the law allows him to do.

and until the day that something actually happens, you're damn right i won't sit here yammering like something happened. because until the day something happens, you're full of crap and presuming guilt when you can't even say what exact guilt you're presuming.

Weaver95

2009-01-13 7:30:45 PM

burndtdan: bill clinton is a private citizen. he is allowed to do anything that the law allows him to do.

not only is that a cop out, it's a lame one at that.

and until the day that something actually happens, you're damn right i won't sit here yammering like something happened. because until the day something happens, you're full of crap and presuming guilt when you can't even say what exact guilt you're presuming.

*sigh*

koolaid. powerful stuff.

Cyborg77

2009-01-13 7:37:52 PM

[image from is1.okcupid.com too old to be available]

burndtdan

2009-01-13 7:38:28 PM

Weaver95: burndtdan: bill clinton is a private citizen. he is allowed to do anything that the law allows him to do.

not only is that a cop out, it's a lame one at that.

and until the day that something actually happens, you're damn right i won't sit here yammering like something happened. because until the day something happens, you're full of crap and presuming guilt when you can't even say what exact guilt you're presuming.

*sigh*

koolaid. powerful stuff.

what cop out? under what authority are you suggesting that obama force bill clinton to do anything?

and the only koolaid i'm drinking is the koolaid of demanding reasonable cause for suspicion. so far, you have provided none.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 7:42:32 PM

and by the way, if you want to talk about who is drinking "koolaid", perhaps you should first tell us why you are ignoring the fact that clinton did release his donors, they were extensively reviewed, and nothing suspicious was found? why can't you factor that into your perception?

if it were all hidden to us, you would at least have an understandable suspicion, even if you couldn't back it up. but considering that it is not hidden to us, your suspicion is not even understandable. it's pure wingnut territory.

you're really not acting any different than the people who insist obama's birth certificate is fake, because they can't admit that the evidence proved them wrong.

Weaver95

2009-01-13 7:48:42 PM

burndtdan: and the only koolaid i'm drinking is the koolaid of demanding reasonable cause for suspicion. so far, you have provided none.

If you really, honestly don't see a problem with this arrangement, then you're too far gone already. seriously - letting Bill Clinton take GOD knows how much money from who knows where with no oversight to speak of? Do you realize how easy it would be to buy influence from Hillary that way? Or maybe you just don't want to make that connection. I know it's not a very comfortable one to make.

Obama's ethical standard was made abundantly clear when he voted for this. so in theory at least, he forsaw a problem with spouses acting in a lobbying capacity. This deal he struck with Bill and Hillary essentially allows Bill to continue as an unregistered lobbyist (a crime, by the way) AND to avoid the very sort of oversight legislation that Obama once supported.

THAT is why this is a bad sign. Obama either ignored the ethical conflicts or simply forgot about them. either way, it's not good.

whidbey

2009-01-13 8:01:03 PM

Great. More pre-inaugural guesswork.

burndtdan

2009-01-13 8:12:36 PM

Weaver95: If you really, honestly don't see a problem with this arrangement, then you're too far gone already.

why do you refuse to provide even a single shred of anything beyond assumption?

you say that there should be oversight of bill clinton's business dealings? why? under what law?

you say that it's possible to buy influence from hillary... well, yes, it's technically possible. but what can you show that will move it out of the range of possible? you are acting as if it's not only possible, it's not only probable, but it's a certainty. what do you base your certainty on? why do you refuse to let us in on this well of evidence?

and bill clinton is an unregistered lobbyist now? what causes you to come to that conclusion? what evidence do you have that his activities have changed?

basically, why do you refuse to back up anything you are saying? why do you think it's ok that you can't, or won't?

Radioactive Ass

2009-01-13 8:35:44 PM

burndtdan: Why do you refuse to provide even a single shred of anything beyond assumption?

you say that there should be oversight of bill clinton's business dealings? why? under what law?

you say that it's possible to buy influence from hillary... well, yes, it's technically possible. but what can you show that will move it out of the range of possible? you are acting as if it's not only possible, it's not only probable, but it's a certainty. what do you base your certainty on? why do you refuse to let us in on this well of evidence?

and bill clinton is an unregistered lobbyist now? what causes you to come to that conclusion? what evidence do you have that his activities have changed?

"Secretary of State nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found." Link (^).

That doesn't sound like there's no reason to be concerned? Add in their shaky past regarding their personal finances and campaign fund raising going all the way back to his Governorship and you'd have to be crazy to not look at it as a potential problem.

whidbey

2009-01-13 8:44:33 PM

Radioactive Ass: That doesn't sound like there's no reason to be concerned?

Not until Obama is in office and actual negative effects of having "the Clintons" in his governing team are evident.

Then we can point to mistakes. Right now, this is all hot air.

Weaver95

2009-01-13 8:55:51 PM

whidbey: Radioactive Ass: That doesn't sound like there's no reason to be concerned?

Not until Obama is in office and actual negative effects of having "the Clintons" in his governing team are evident.

Then we can point to mistakes. Right now, this is all hot air.

No, right now it's an ethical quagmire. But hey - let's wait and watch Hillary spike Obama's administration. if nothing else, it should be fun to watch!

modestlivinglegend

2009-01-13 9:04:16 PM

The reason not to ever trust Bill or Hillary Clinton is that they have an extensive history of lying. Numerous women since Geniffer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monika Lewdinsky, etc., have come out with stories of affairs that Bill lied about (even on camera). Hillary lies and says she does not know about the affairs, which continue to this day, and she claims her marriage is not a sham. Hillary lies about her experience and about sniper fire. There are dozens of other lies about Whitewater and healthcare reform and everything else they make up to try to get elected to power. They collect suspicious millions of dollars from possible enemies of the USA and you think there is no reason to suspect that they are not covering up all kinds of crimes? The Clinton machine is on full force now so it is no surprise Obama is either under their influence, or afraid of them. It must be something really bad they are cover up.

SherKhan

2009-01-13 9:40:25 PM

Some headlines I love. This is one.

NYZooMan

2009-01-13 9:43:58 PM

Get the fan antiseptic ready, January 20th's coming!

carmody

2009-01-13 9:47:03 PM

It's funny how much flak a president can catch long before he's actually in office.

Baron-Harkonnen

2009-01-13 10:13:32 PM

proteus_b: the past donor list was recently released after years of pressure, and only in exchange for this appointment

Does that spin make you nauseous?

Radioactive Ass

2009-01-13 10:19:53 PM

Baron-Harkonnen: Does that spin make you nauseous?

"Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million - including millions from foreign governments". Link (again) (^).

No spin when it's the truth. He'd flat out refused to disclose who his donors were for ~6 years, he only opened up the books after Hillary got nominated for SoS. Obama wasn't going to appoint her if he didn't.

Baron-Harkonnen

2009-01-13 10:23:23 PM

proteus_b: the past donor list was recently released after years of pressure, and only in exchange for this appointment

Does that spin make you nauseous?

Weaver95: burndtdan: and the only koolaid i'm drinking is the koolaid of demanding reasonable cause for suspicion. so far, you have provided none.

If you really, honestly don't see a problem with this arrangement, then you're too far gone already. seriously - letting Bill Clinton take GOD knows how much money from who knows where with no oversight to speak of? Do you realize how easy it would be to buy influence from Hillary that way? Or maybe you just don't want to make that connection. I know it's not a very comfortable one to make.

Obama's ethical standard was made abundantly clear when he voted for this. so in theory at least, he forsaw a problem with spouses acting in a lobbying capacity. This deal he struck with Bill and Hillary essentially allows Bill to continue as an unregistered lobbyist (a crime, by the way) AND to avoid the very sort of oversight legislation that Obama once supported.

THAT is why this is a bad sign. Obama either ignored the ethical conflicts or simply forgot about them. either way, it's not good.

Weaver, where is your evidence? You've been one of my favorite posters to read for awhile now, but I just can't see where you find cause for alarm. Bill's charitable organization has done nothing illegal and ,until you come up with anything more than speculation, you're just teetering on the precipice of a tin-foil hat conspiracy.

Baron-Harkonnen

2009-01-13 10:24:25 PM

Radioactive Ass: Baron-Harkonnen: Does that spin make you nauseous?

"Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million - including millions from foreign governments". Link (again) (^).

No spin when it's the truth. He'd flat out refused to disclose who his donors were for ~6 years, he only opened up the books after Hillary got nominated for SoS. Obama wasn't going to appoint her if he didn't.

Nothing in that article backed up the claim that Obama basically sold the SecState position for a donor list. Still spinning.

Radioactive Ass

2009-01-13 10:35:16 PM

Baron-Harkonnen: Nothing in that article backed up the claim that Obama basically sold the SecState position for a donor list. Still spinning.

Why do you think he released it then? Go ahead I'll wait... Oh wait, I won't have to:

"Lifting a longstanding cloak of secrecy, Mr. Clinton on Thursday released a complete list of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an agreement to douse concerns about potential conflicts if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in the Obama administration."

Of course this comes from that right wing rag the NY Times so you might be right on the spin...

(un-fetchable link so you'll need to cut and paste the link)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/w19clinton.html?_r=1&hp

Hat Madder

2009-01-13 10:44:30 PM

Baron-Harkonnen: Nothing in that article backed up the claim that Obama basically sold the SecState position for a donor list. Still spinning.

I can't tell if you threw that out as a strawman or you are completely clueless.

"Obama basically sold the SecState position for a donor list" Where the fark did you get that???

Hillary wanted the SOS job so bad she got Bill to release parts of the list. Why would The Office Of The President Elect give a crap about the donor list if he wasn't appointing Hillary?

NYZooMan

2009-01-13 11:44:23 PM

carmody: It's funny how much flak a president can catch long before he's actually in office.

It's his free-pass period.

Just wait.

TheGreatGazoo

2009-01-13 11:57:50 PM

Wow, 2 major appointments wiped out.

I guess his 52 page anal cavity search questionaire didn't work out very well.

Well, other than discouraging anybody decent from applying part...

thatmanfromtexas

2009-01-14 12:15:50 AM

Dealing with Bill & Hill is like mainlining smack. You think you can control it until it destroys you.

//The Senate needs to stage an intervention.But they won't, they're a bunch of enablers.

cloud_van_dame

2009-01-14 2:25:03 AM

A lot of times Obama seems like he's not doing anything about a particular problem - at least outwardly, meanwhile there are plans afoot and then the problem gets annihilated. At least, that was how his campaign went a lot of the time.

Political opponent: overt attack
Obama campaign: awfully quiet around here, lalala
Political opponent: overt attack!
Obama campaign: death blow by strategic maneuvering or media leak

Not wise to assume he's sitting there all hapless.

Phil Herup

2009-01-14 7:13:59 AM

Having the Clinton's in your administration is so full of incompetent FAIL. They are corrupt liars.

Obama is weak.

I really love the Democrat Incompetence Apologists.

cloud_van_dame: Not wise to assume he's sitting there all hapless.

He has done nothing to suggest otherwise.

Nemo's Brother

2009-01-14 11:55:38 AM

Weaver95: All the more so because under terms of his agreement with Mr. Obama Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton Mr. Cheney will be able to keep raising foreign cash as long as the donors send the checks to a Clinton Cheney entity other than the "Clinton Cheney Global Initiative." Instead of being immediately disclosed, future donations will only be made public once a year and the exact amounts and dates of previous donations will never be made public.

Now, granted - my alterations were complete fiction. But consider for a moment that you would (and should) be outraged if Bush/Cheney made such an arrangement. Or if Bush had made such an arrangement with ANY of his staff.

I don't care if you think the Clintons walk on water or if Bush is pond scum. The point here is that Obama is making a scuzzy back room deal with the Clintons. Hiding fund raising numbers and sources of cash is never a good thing no matter WHO does it. If you despised Bush and Cheney's financial misdeeds and corporate connections then you MUST equally despise the fiscal skullduggery by the Clintons. You simply have no choice in the matter. If I were an Obama supporter/voter I'd be very concerned about this development. It's the first crack i've seen in his armor.

I would say it is his forth or fifth crack, but definitely the largest one so far.

/Wait until he gets into office
//Wait until Blago sings.

Displayed 50 of 52 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

If you like these links, you'll love

The next best thing to UltraFark

learn more | sign up

Report

Support Fark

learn more

Headlines of the Month
Fark NotNewsletter

Report

Like Fark!

Follow @Fark On Twitter

Report

Fark.com

Top Commented

Top Commented ▼

Top Commented
Top Clicked
Top Voted
My Recent Commented
Recent Mentions

Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.