Friday, February 15, 2008

How Far Will the Clintons Go?

By Robert Parry
February 15, 2008

Hillary Clinton, who has built her case for the presidency on her superior “ready on Day One” management skills, burned through almost $130 million of campaign money, had to kick in $5 million from her own murky family funds, and is now pressing her chief financial backers to find creative ways to raise more money.

Some of those financial schemes appear to skirt the law – as some backers consider putting money into “independent” entities that can spend unlimited sums but aren’t supposed to coordinate with the campaign – while other ideas are more traditional, like appealing to wealthy donors involved with the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby.

Read on.

7 comments:

Tommy said...

You raise the most important question, Robert, and we appreciate that. Unfortunately, it's starting to look like a rhetorical one: they most likely will stop at nothing short of . . . short of . . . help me out here.

Howard Dean?

Anonymous said...

I am sure the Republican are happy that you helping them do their dirty work for them.Gee, I guess the Clintons are the most evil people in the world and are determind to wreck the democratic party. yeah,right
Gosh things would be a lot better now if you could have prevented Bill from winning in 92 and 96.I don't think much of your critical thinking abilities.

jason said...

hey, here is the site i was talking about where i made the extra cash......

this site ..

Anonymous said...

What a cruel blog, or set of comments.

the Clintons are doing well, and this is an unfair set of comments.

Probably anything that AIPAC wants, AIPAC gets.

When the Clintons were in the White House, it was AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES.

Now, with the neocons ordering Bush around, what do we have? Not only Chaos, but nihilism.

we want the Clintons back!!!

Anonymous said...

I almost had to check to be sure I had not stumbled onto a Republican site when I read How Far Will The Clintons Go.

Let me start by stating I question the underlying assumption of the commentary as a whole. While you assert the reason for Sen. Clinton's run for the presidency is motivated solely by the desire for power ("putting ambitions ahead of what's good for the party and the country") I and many others look at her years of public service, at the fights she has fought for health care (winning the S chip battle), women's issues, etc. etc. and see this run for the presidency as a driving desire to defeat GWB's clones and begin to put her experience to work in cleaning up the mess. I see it as her belief in her ability, vs.the ability of her challenger to deal with the fall out of the past 8 years and fight the inevitable fights a Democrat will face in dealing with the Republicans. Why, given the prosperity and peace of the Clinton years do you pick, pick, at Sen. Clinton. Where are your arguments about her policie? With the exception of health care, there is little of substance to differentiate between Clinton and Obama. Note I am speaking specifically of differences in policy.

Yes, Sen. Clinton backers are looking for legal ways to support her campaign - you noted these individuals were "consulting with lawyers about how they can create 'independent' groups that can spend unlimited money in support of her campaign" Your point? If there are legal ways to support the Clinton campaign - so be it. The gratuitous comment about these independent groups raising the specter of "swift boaters" reminded me of the connection GWB, Cheney et al, insinuated between Sadham and 9/11. Your bias is showing!

As for the family "murky" finances, you contend that the Clintons "have amassed virtually their entire multi-million-dollar fortune in the seven years after leaving the White House" and that "While some of that money is explained from book contracts, the bulk of the family’s post-presidential income appears to come from Bill Clinton’s lucrative speaking engagements and financial deals with political backers" We all know of book deals and speaking engagements. As for the "deals with political backers" you assert, an example please What former President, Vice President, etc. has not been handsomely paid for writing books, making the lecture circuit etc.? Again what is your point?

The Clinton's have been in public service most of their adult lives, hardly as lucrative as working in the private sector, especially as an attorney! Remember too, they do not have the benefit of a moneyed family to fall back on. Yes they have to earn an income.
.
This commentary also proposes that Sen. Clinton is prepared to "overturn the majority will" if necessary to secure the nomination.

From everything I have read and seen regarding the issue of delegates (i.e. the two "types" of delegates) it is not straightforward. Both candidates have issues with delegates and as I understand it neither candidate can win without the superdeligates.

Sen. Obama is unhappy with the system of superdeligates. I use the following example because it is one all will recognize. While the Kennedy's, superdelegates, are supporting Sen. Obama, Massachusetts chose Sen. Clinton. Should superdeligates vote, as any Democrat has the right to do, for the individual they chose, or as a representative of a state for the individual the voters chose. What about delegates who are not representatives of a state?

To complicate matters further, the way delegates are apportioned does not necessarily reflect the popular vote, the "majority will." A democratic contender who secures less than a majority of primary votes may receive a disproportionate number of delegates. Sometimes, the delegates are divided evenly among the 2 contenders, even when one is not that close to the forerunner. So...Delegates are not strictly apportioned based on the percentage of votes the candidates receive.

Of course there is the question of Florida and Michigan which the Democratic party will have to sort out. Michigan, because only Sen. Clinton was on the ballot is the most challenging. Florida, on the other hand had both candidates on the ballot, and neither electioneered in the state. The will of the people was clear here. Ah, but how to reconcile the Party sanction with the Democratic principal of not disenfranchising voters - of counting every vote. The people did vote after all.

EvilPoet said...

The Clintons are politicians.

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." -H.L. Mencken

Anonymous said...

By AVNI PATEL and REHAB EL-BURI, ABC News Analysis
Jan. 25, 2008
Font Size

E-mail
Print
Share
Months after reporters started asking Sen. Barack Obama to account for contributions raised by longtime friend and donor Antoin "Tony" Rezko, questions remain about the full extent of the accused Illinois political fixer's role as a patron of Obama's political career.

Related Stories
The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel?What Did Obama Know? When Did He Know It?2008: 'Dirtiest Presidential Campaign in History'Dirty Tricks on the Campaign TrailWhose Push Poll Is It Anyway? Going Negative on Clinton, Obama; Positive on EdwardsEx-Con Leaves Thompson CampaignObama Campaign Promises New Disclosure on BundlersHolly Jolly Congressional FestivitiesTax Debts Follow Drug-Dealing Thompson Fundraiser'Longtime Friend,' Thompson Adviser Has Rap SheetPHOTOS: Thompson Fundraiser Has Rap SheetTop Blotter stories
Lawmakers Call for Congress to Probe Bodies Shows in Wake of '20/20' ReportObama Discloses New Rezko DetailsExclusive: Drug Smugglers Dig Record Number of Tunnels in 2007
"We have returned any money that we know was associated to Mr. Rezko," Obama told Diane Sawyer on Wednesday morning during an appearance on "Good Morning America." "That is something that if there's additional information we don't know about, we'd be happy to return the money."

The Obama campaign says it has given away more than $85,000 in Rezko-linked contributions since Rezko was indicted on federal fraud and extortion charges in the fall of 2006.

An ABCNews.com review, however, has identified an additional $100,000 in contributions made to Obama from Rezko's associates that have not been returned, including $19,500 in contributions from Rezko's wife and employees of Rezko's business enterprises. The ABCNews.com review includes individuals who have been linked to Rezko in news reports, court documents and public records.

Other news organizations have reviewed Obama's campaign finance records and have also found Rezko-linked contributions that are more than double what the campaign has publicly acknowledged. The Chicago Sun-Times, which published its review last June, found that "Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle," and earlier this week the Los Angeles Times reported that it had found that Rezko and his associates had given "Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995."
I am wondering, Is Obama still hide money that Rezko gave him???