Hillary Clinton will be among the first Obama Cabinet nominations before the Senate. Her confirmation is assured since Democrats will hold the largest majority in the upper chamber in decades, however Senators should ask the tough questions out of duty to their offices.

The confirmation of Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, was the most contentious Secretary of State conformation in US history, with 13 nay votes. This, despite her qualifications in terms of education, ability, and experience (having served as a National Security Adviser). Furthermore, her combined race and gender were a first for the position, something Democrats usually celebrate above all else.

Sen. Boxer wondered aloud at Rice’s confirmation whether she had any “respect for the truth” after serving President Bush. More than a powerful insult, especially for someone with an academic background, her question was baseless compared to Clinton’s brushes with dishonesty. Sen. Boxer should ask Clinton these questions, given her passion for honesty:

• What of Clinton’s astronomical profits trading cattle futures? Analysts have concluded that such profits were not only preposterously unlikely, they were impossible without waiving market mandated margin requirements.
• What of Clinton’s lucrative book deal? Clinton took an $8 million advance from Simon and Schuster in the brief window between her 2000 Senate victory and taking that office. While the technical structure of the advance was legal due to its careful timing, it was a serious conflict of interest. Numerous groups called on her to return the money, to no avail.
• What of Marc Rich and the hundreds of thousands of dollars his ex-wife donated to Clinton prior to his inexcusable pardon? What was the role of Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham? Did he lobby Pres. Clinton for pardons in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars (which he later returned).

Jon Stewart, part comedian and part pundit, claimed that because Rice was childless, she could not understand the nature of the Iraq war. Aside from violating the Democratic dogma that a woman’s choice to remain single is a badge of honor, Stewart impugned Rice’s qualifications based on her experiences. Stewart might pass along these questions for Clinton:

• Has Clinton actually ever flown in an airplane under gunfire? An understanding of the nature of war should include the distinction between being shot at and not.
  Does she still believe in the “vast right wing conspiracy?” Democrats like to pretend that international terrorist conspiracies either don’t exist or are misunderstood. Will Clinton address these terrorist groups or only right wing conspirators gunning for her political career?
• Is crying at the opportune moment a diplomatic skill, or just for domestic politics?

Aside from Clinton’s questionable character, Senators should question her judgment. Clinton, as well as her husband, is famous for straddling the fence on important issues. In the years before the invasion of Iraq, even before Pres. Bush’s election, Clinton was an advocate of the removal of Sadam Husein. When the war turned ugly, she changed her tune, turned defeatist, and blamed everyone but herself for her support of the war. In 2006, Clinton advocated stronger sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, contrary to Obama’s open door policy for rogue nations. Except when a war is going badly, Clinton is a hawk. Democrats might ask her how her consistently interventionist policies jibe with the role of Secretary of State, whose job is diplomacy.

Indeed, Clinton is no diplomat. She is combative, vindictive, and aggressively ambitious to a fault. She has little aptitude or qualification to run the foreign service, especially compared to Rice. Why, then did Obama nominate her at all?

Clinton’s nomination is Obama’s political master stroke and a canny admission of defeat from both Clintons. The Clintons know that, barring the assassination Sen. Clinton pined for during her campaign, she cannot run again for President for eight years. Furthermore, a Democrat has not succeeded a Democrat to the Presidency by election since James Buchanan in 1857. In other words, Clinton’s best shot at the White House is spent, but her defeat would not stop her husband from agitating and kibitzing, as is his wont. Obama, by nominating Clinton, has silenced a nettlesome magpie or two, and given the Hillary wing of his party a sop.

Will the mainstream media comment on Sen. Clinton’s weak credentials? Will her fellow Senators grill her like they did Dr. Rice? Will as many as 13 Senators vote against her confirmation? Most unlikely. Clinton will sail through her confirmation with the fawning breeze of self serving praise from her colleagues. Still, here’s hoping that a few Senators ask the tough, but appropriate questions to expose this marriage of convenience and burst the Clinton mystique.

Cheap oil is one of the few silver linings in the current worldwide recession. That is unless you are Hugo Chavez or one of his US bashing comrades. When oil traded for above $100 per barrel, Chavez was a powerful figure in Latin America. He solidified his dictatorship over Venezuela by selling an oil funded socialist dream. He pulled publicity stunts by giving free oil to New England states represented by far left congressmen. He funded leftist rebels to destabilize US friendly Columbia.

With oil trading 75% off its peak, the party is over for Chavez, Putin, and Ahmadinejad. They wrongly assumed that they could rely on oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Indeed, not content to wait for their regular checks to arrive, many oil despots like Chavez and Putin nationalized their oil industries by confiscating private oil producing assets. Sovereign risk, as economists call such thievery, is a powerful disincentive to future investment, meaning these bad actors’ troubles are here to stay.

Venezuela is in economic collapse and can’t keep the lights on. Russia may have food shortages this winter. Iran’s poetic justice is that it can’t refine enough gasoline to fuel its cars, plus the runaway inflation typical of a collapsing regime. All this points to the fact that mineral wealth is no substitute for the broader wealth of functioning capitalist states. Even though countries like the US, Japan, and Singapore rely heavily on foreign oil, they generate great profits from such imports (see the previous blog on T. Boone Pickens). The rule of law, adequate infrastructure, and an educated population are always more valuable than proven reserves of oil.

So, the next time politicians like Pelosi and Reid threaten to punish an oil company for selling its product at the market price, consider weather their ideas are so far removed from those of Chavez. The reasonable expectation of keeping lawful profits is a cornerstone of the US economy. Both these Democrats, like Chavez, pumped up popular frustrations in order to confiscate oil assets. Such irresponsible intrusions into private property rights pave the road to the kind of misery found in Venezuela and other failed states.

The suffering of the people led astray by the populist call of the oil despots is a tragedy. The US should take note of their errors and avoid them. Far left politicians should learn that profits are not to be punished, lawful contracts and private property are not to be molested, and that free enterprise should not be traded for a temporary boost to the government coffers.

To be filed under ‘silver lining,’ this blog wants to thank Gov. Blagojevich for choosing the best kind of corruption. Unlike so many of his peers, both Republican and Democrat, Blagojevich chose to peddle his influence in broad daylight and in exchange for cash. Unless the FBI criminal complaint is completely false, the case against the Illinois Governor seems airtight and likely to take a few others down with it. Anyone can understand and condemn this brazen criminality. If only the other corrupt politicians could follow suit.

Instead of Gov. Blagojevich’s smash and grab style, most players in the political sphere operate in the shadows, achieving the same dishonest ends mostly within the law. Washington is the most corrupt place on earth by volume, yet it protects itself because it makes its corruption legal.

Consider the UAW’s latest veiled threat against the GOP Senators who hatefully refused to throw a dozen or so billions of dollars down a rat hole to prevent union labor contracts from adjusting to market wages. The UAW illegally skims members’ paychecks for the sole purpose of financing political operations (the Supreme Court ruled this is illegal, but nobody in Washington has the guts to enforce the law). With the hundreds of millions of dollars big unions spend each election cycle, the power of their wrath seems mighty compared to the paltry $14bln it would take to placate them for a few months. Functionally, the politicians direct money to illegitimate causes in exchange for indirect campaign funds (or in the GOP’s case, absence of attack ads against them). This is Gov. Blagojevich’s crime, but whitewashed and legalized just enough to pass under the scrutiny of the media.

Consider the Department of Agriculture, with its $95 bln outlay budget. As widely reported in 2007, dozens of farmers receive subsidies to till the thin topsoil of Manhattan (just kidding, the subsidized farm owners have homes and offices in Manhattan). Ted Turner and multi-billion dollar firms like ADM receive the bulk of farm subsidies from Washington. Legislation to phase out subsidies for the extremely profitable was eliminated from the latest farm bill. Why subsidies for the rich? Because the millionaires can afford to buy them. When ADM’s executives and its PAC give hundreds of thousand’s of dollars to farm state candidates, they get results. Considering the billions of dollars in subsidies and ethanol mandates that largely benefit ADM, a paltry few millions of dollars in 527 donations is an extreme bargain. By comparison, $1 million for a junior Illinois senate seat is no deal at all.

The Magna Carta notwithstanding, the ruling classes have always held their minions to higher standards than themselves. While prison is probably the best place for people like Gov. Blagojevich, thanks to him for making the moral distinction easy. Political corruption runs much deeper than his overt alleged crimes, though. The more profound truth is that the only way to reduce politicians’ perennial corruption is to reduce their power. Voting to cut taxes and wasteful government programs saps the currency of corruption upon which Washington thrives. Not only is a vote for limited government good for prosperity and freedom, a vote for limited government is also a vote for morality and justice.