Did Bill Clinton just shoot Hillary's chances for the 2008 election?

Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal

Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.

It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.

Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman.
On Sunday, DP World agreed with the White House to undertake the lengthy review, a move which has assuaged some of the opposition from the US Congress.

However, Mrs Clinton remains a leading voice against the deal, and this week proposed legislation to block it, arguing that the US could not afford to “surrender our port operations to foreign governments”.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html

Not winning, for sure, but not running? She's probably the biggest sure thing to run there is, no?

unless you are a Republican, like KKKarl, and are obsessed with her candidacy.

Try to reply with something intelligent this time.

to see how the right wing (and KKKarl) thinks they will benefit if she runs for prez in 2008. I also am smart enough to realize she has made no announcement and is focusing on her Senate campaign.

I also hate to feed the RW propaganda. But you are free to do so if you desire.

Only that I hate it when I get knee-jerk reactions on serious issues. It's understood on both sides of the aisle that Hillary plans to run. Acknowledging it does not ally one with the dark side.

And I already said she won't win.

But I asked Xultar.

Hard to take that as anything but an implication about my intelligence :eyes:

Now, who on our side of the aisle is saying she is going to run? I had not heard that. I just hear the rw boosting her campaign every chance they get.

in with the right wing, so we're even.

Here's one poll that suggests Democrats think she will run:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1162548&tw=wn_wire_story

And she has been mentioned as a potential candidate by our side a good deal.

Here's an article about Bill Clinton and Joe Biden (who I can't stand) saying just that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7041441/

That's it, lots and lots and lots of talk about a Hillary run in '08,including an awful lot by the right wingers who would love it because they think another northern generally liberal Senator and this time a woman named Hillary Clinton who would have little chance of turning any significant number of red states blue (which MUST happen if we are going to win in '08) wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election, but by no means anything definite, and it's VERY early. Bill and Hill are very savvy, and if they run they'd want to win. And they know full well how challenging it would be. Let's remember, again, that's it's VERY early, and there are many other formidable possibilities out there. Personally, I think this party MUST learn from the past once and for all and look again to Governors who could have a real chance of carrying some red states (i.e. Warner/Richardson/Vilsack types). That's just plain reality. I like Hillary a lot, but I don't think she makes it in a general election. And this time it MUST be about WINNING!!

I'm just pointing out that she is very likely to run, as are Kerry, Feingold, Warner, and Bayh.

But... I'll vote for Hillary if she runs for president.

Hillary has that in mind - posturing as an occasional right winger because she believes that the candidate chosen by the grass roots will appear as soft on security.

she said..rove was obsessed with her and wanted to make the 2006 elections about hillary running in 2008. Sounds about right. They can't run on any merits so rove comes up with the idea that they better vote repukes in or hillary gets that much closer to the white house.

I wonder why?

Yesterday BC said something about nationalizing ALL the ports.

And to what extent would nationalization occur (what facilities to be nationalized)? Could the government run them profitably? In light of Katrina and Amtrak, how sure are we that nationalization would not be even worse?

"So, Mr. Freeper, Whose position do you support on this ports thing? Bill or Hillary?"
:evilgrin:

the same. Hillary is adamantly opposed to this, Clinton can go either way. I don't see how that's going to help Hillary.

"He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally” state-owned companies would not own US port operations."

flip-flop is just an upgraded version of waffler. You remember the waffle tag they labeled Bill Clinton with?

This ain't going to sell in Peoria.

<snip>

He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally” state-owned companies would not own US port operations.

<snip>

See also http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-28-clinton-ports_x.htm

They flap thier jaws 24/7 saying whatever they want for political advantage. I was stuck in a car listening to Limbag yesterday, it is really quite tiresome what "they" say. And really, not all that credible. And something tells me it is starting to wear out its welcome with more and more people.

At any rate, Bill Clinton isn't running for anything, so I guess it doesn't matter what "They" say.

(1) What they say matters if you're not prepared with a quick comeback to shut them up.

(2) Clinton's wife had an effect of Clinton's presidency, so I don't see why it wouldn't go the other way.

office holder. Clinton is supposed to support his wifes positions...and since I don't believe much that comes out of her mouth...I'm sure they actually do have the same position, which is why he's out lobbying for the deal.

Trends are against.

That's my extent of interest in it.

Clinton encouraged Dubai to submit to 45 day review -- what the heck is wrong with that?

Article also tries to make it sound like he has a sinister contract with dubai in 2002, when in reality he went to speak at a summit on 9/11, and while there made a speech at a charity for children.

LINK DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2140525

of the questionable writing style of this piece.

So, which is it? Does Clinton support the deal or is he against giving the ports to companies that are foreign controlled?

Or is it both? Which, of course, will give him the label of being a waffler.

The article makes it seem like they're working from total opposite sides of an issue when they're not.

From the article linked (bolding mine):

We are the fools for still debating this character trait that Bill and Hillary share.

He apparrently only advised them to say they would accept the 45 day investigation - which was smart of them.

There are two problems that are more real:
1) Clinton's glowing praise of Dubai, concentrates on the glittering wealthy city that tourists can see, ignoring the web of connections to terrorists that lurk beneath it. Only 5 years ago, the royal families there were publicly socializing with Al Qaeda and they were one of three countries that recognized the Taliban. In the early 1990s, Abu Dhabi earned it's own chapter in Kerry's BCCI report. Kerry, heroicly fighting everybody, perservered and gave his information to Morgenthau who was able to close the Pakistan based BCCI. Kerry's committee was taken away and later, he could not convince Clinton to re-open the investigation or to back the Kerry's international banking legislation (later inacted as a non-controversial part of the Patriot act)to catch these things. Bin Laden's network that financed 911 and other attacks mimiced BCCI and was active in the UAE.

Clinton's statements, seeing only the sparkle and saying they're a good ally (when they are likely on our side because we have (or had) power and because they make money off it), helps make the charge that our objections are racist. The dark side of UAE is the real legitamate reason.

2) The NYT in its editorial today mentions that the Coast Guard had raised concerns about intelligence going to a British company. The comment was in parenthesis and wasn't the main point. The question is that the deal with the British company was in 2000. If the CG surfaced that concern then, it was discounted by the Clinton administration and the deal was approved. (If the CG hadn't brought up the concern, you could say it was pre- 911, but as they did bring it up, it should have lead to security concerns.

At minimum, these points do put into perspective Clinton's claim that Kerry was weak on national security, unlike Hillary and himself.

It reveals thinking people.

He is not going to attack a company that has been following his
advice.

If so, I would like to see a link on that, please.

TC

.....compltely get the deal thrown out or gut it somehow. I'd like to think he especially means this and sticks to it. At the very least he suggested they submit to a full scrutiny investigation. Notice he goes on to say, "....ideally state-owned companies would not own US port operations". So he really isn't for this deal.

".........Mr Clinton’s spokesman said: “President Clinton is the former president of the US and as such receives many calls from world leaders and leading figures every week. About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called him and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal.”

He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally” state-owned companies would not own US port operations......."

After all, it's not Reuters, BBC or another large news org... I wouldn't be surprised if 'ole Bill was somehow associated, however, because it gives the repukes another chance to start screaming "BILL DID IT TOO!" same old game... I don't really like the crowd he publicly hangs with anyhow and, for me, those public relationswhips have always jaded and dimmed Hillary's light a bit... I wish he'd have decided to hang with Carter but that's like mixing fire and ice, as people go.

She won't win a general election. Putting her up as our nominee is an exercise in futility - and proof that we haven't learned a thing.

no big dog, no President Hillary Clinton. Stand by your man!

They could get divorced and I don't think she'd lose a vote because of it. Now whether or not she'd get enough votes to win, well that's another story.

those who gain comfort from knowing that the person in charge "has been there before". I think Bill Clinton is a huge asset to Hillary.

because she would almost certainly win the primaries, but she would lose in the generals.

It would be nice to win.

Repukes Want Her BAD!

I've not been appreciating a good bit of what he's been doing since he left office and the Dubai Port deal is just one more. Bah! I think they both need a HUGE wake-up call.