Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (official)

[shetuck]

There are a couple of good opinion pieces in the Journal today ripping HRC. Here's the better one, imo...

WSJ: The Whitewater Proxy

The Whitewater Proxy
March 28, 2008; Page A12

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Hillary Clinton's been all the news this week, after she "misspoke" about Whitewater, Travelgate, missing files, suspicious pardons, Johnny Chung and cattle futures. Oh wait, after she "misspoke" about Bosnia. Oh wait, same thing.

That's one way to make sense of the unrelenting, unforgiving, 24/7 news coverage of Mrs. Clinton's fictional telling of Bosnian sniper fire and the subsequent debunking of her every word. In a nasty primary battle that has already featured racial slurs and Chicago slum lords, missing tax documents, and a "monster," you might expect this slip-up to have been yet another blip in the media cycle.

But that would have been to deny the press, the pundits, Democrats, and even Barack Obama, the catharsis of finally -- finally! -- getting a chance to confront the Clintons' questionable mores. Hillary's and Bill's scandals have been the elephant in the primary room ever since she first signaled a run. Yet up to now everyone has been too scared, or too loyal, or too weary to touch the ugly past. Her Bosnia misspeak is now serving as proxy for all the truths about the Clintons' non-truths, allowing even liberals to break free from their Clinton dependence.

[...]

This is hangover from the remarkable job the Clintons did in painting themselves as the victims of the so-called "right-wing attack machine." They, and their devotees, have carried that victim mentality into the present, and have made clear that anyone who revives the issues of billing records or cattle futures is little more than the second coming of Ken Starr. They've done such a remarkable job of portraying any investigation into their undeniable shenanigans as a "partisan" venture that even the press has looked away and whistled.

[...]

No more apologizing. Now comes the euphoria, the liberation, the freedom of . . . Bosnian snipers! Suddenly, liberals all over are remembering that they never really liked the Clintons, even as they defended them in the 1990s. Suddenly, they can sidle into a discussion about Mrs. Clinton's ethics, and all on a subject that (bonus!) is relevant to today's race. Suddenly, they can break free of the Clintons, much as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson did earlier this week, with a look of ecstasy, as he ran toward the daylight and endorsed Mr. Obama.

Which is why it is no surprise that this week also saw the beginning of a tide of Democrats, many of them one-time Clinton defenders, calling on her to abandon her bid, laying out the reasons for why she cannot win this race, and telling her to let go for the good of the party. Mrs. Clinton, being a Clinton, may well ignore them. But what is clear is that questions about her character and honesty are no longer verboten. If she does stay in, answering them will become the new reality of her campaign.

[redskinbucksfan]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

That's alright. I'd be disappointed if you were anything but confused.

Clinton did preside over a decent economy that was a mile wide and an inch deep--productivity gains not being passed on to consumers, tech stock bubble, NAFTA.

While he and Rubin did have their all-star moments (the response to the Asian/Ruble meltdown; organizing the Wall Street bailout of LTCM) they also, in the service of Bill Clinton always putting his own political survival ahead of his party or any of its principals, signed off on the repeal of Glass-Steagall and turned a blind eye to the "shadow banking" sector that created much of the environment (i.e. lack of oversight) for the combination of bad judgment and abuses that have landed us in our current situation.

This criticism is nothing new. Clinton was excoriated among liberals for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall with just these kinds of dire results predicted. The idea that all Democrats worshiped Bill Clinton and felt that he could do no wrong is far, far from the truth. I've always viewed him as a weak, ineffectual president who always put his own personal survival first no matter how much damage that did to the Democratic party.

Being a loyal member of a party that tends to create blind cults of personality around its leaders (Bush Sr. the sole recent exception), I wouldn't expect you to understand that some can actually think for themselves and find critical fault with the leaders of their own party.

Thanks for taking the bait and once again demonstrating that you are a pompous, arrogant dbag with a massively inflated sense of self importance. You do realize that your "I know what's best for you because I'm smarter than you" attitude places you on the exact plane of those you despise so greatly: Politicians and your caricature of students who go to college in Ohio but not at Ohio State. Condescension to the point of hypocrisy...

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Originally Posted by redskinbucksfan

Thanks for taking the bait and once again demonstrating that you are a pompous, arrogant dbag with a massively inflated sense of self importance.

Uncalled for imo.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by redskinbucksfan

Thanks for taking the bait and once again demonstrating that you are a pompous, arrogant dbag with a massively inflated sense of self importance. You do realize that your "I know what's best for you because I'm smarter than you" attitude places you on the exact plane of those you despise so greatly: Politicians and your caricature of students who go to college in Ohio but not at Ohio State. Condescension to the point of hypocrisy...

Personal attacks aside, I'm not quite sure how my response engenders any of what you wrote. You asked a question, in a rather sniping "gotcha" fashion I might add, and I responded with an answer. How informed or uninformed that answer was, I'll leave to the court of public opinion. You might also want to read the piece from the WSJ that Shetuck posted that specifically mentions that the Clintons enjoyed far from blind and universal support from liberals and Democrats, seemingly supporting my argument.

You, on the other hand, don't have anything more intelligent to the add to the discussion, so you come back with nothing more than a lame personal attack. I don't despise you; I pity you.

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by redskinbucksfan

Thanks for taking the bait and once again demonstrating that you are a pompous, arrogant dbag with a massively inflated sense of self importance. You do realize that your "I know what's best for you because I'm smarter than you" attitude places you on the exact plane of those you despise so greatly: Politicians and your caricature of students who go to college in Ohio but not at Ohio State. Condescension to the point of hypocrisy...

Strangely appropriate in the Hillary thread... now all you have to do is accuse ORD of calling you the same thing in your next post. Good work.

[Steve19]

I don't mean this as a show of disrespect, and remember that I am out here in the boonies, but when did Hillary Clinton pick up so much weight? They just showed a clip of her on our news and she stepped out from behind the podium. Wow! I couldn't believe how wide she appears to be now! Was that just a very bad camera angle or is she going through doors sideways?

[sandgk]

That isn't weight Steve, it's gravitas.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by sandgk

That isn't weight Steve, it's gravitas.

Don't you mean gravitass?

[Steve19]

I really didn't mean disrespect and I really am surprised. We always get those head and shoulders shots and I thought she was very slim.

[rocketman]

Yikes.

[OSUsushichic]

Originally Posted by Steve19

I really didn't mean disrespect and I really am surprised. We always get those head and shoulders shots and I thought she was very slim.

ekeen's gonna love you!

[CookyPuss]

Clinton Camp: Obama Falsely Claims He Doesn't Take Oil Money - Politics on The Huffington Post

I saw this and I thought maybe Clinton has a point for once. Then I did a little digging. The big oil CEO bundlers that she sites own relatively small companies for the "oil industry."

MISSION RESOURCES CORP stock options, MISSION RESOURCES CORP stock price, stock quote research, stoc

Kaiser-Francis - Company Overview - Hoover's

Hardly the kind of multi-billion dollar companies that Obama is talking about in his ad. The other donations cited are from employees of large companies. We are talking about a handful of donations from individuals accounting for a tiny percentage of his total donations. A quick search shows that the majority of these donations came from rank and file employees rather than "executive" types:

Campaign Donors : Fundrace 2008 - Huffington Post-Exxonmobil

Campaign Donors : Fundrace 2008 - Huffington Post-Chevron

These are hardly the type of donations that "buy" influence. But if she wants to be nit-picky she took more money from the "oil industry."

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Yikes.

Probably shouldn't read too much into these daily figures. Measures like this aren't very reliable or valid indicators of actual voting behavior. However, given the hit Clinton put on Obama over his pastor, it looks like the trust issue may hit her harder.

One wonders what voters are thinking? He can control where he goes to church but not what the pastor says. Should he have moved to another church? She can control what she says. Why does she say these things that she has been saying? Was she fair to pile on her opponent for attending the church of a pastor who her hubby asked for forgiveness?

I guess my question is, are these things that really matter to voters and become differentiating factors in an election? Given what I know about the effects of trust in the marketing arena, I would think that we may see Clinton as the focal person in some "Al Gore invented" type threads, if these things keep coming out.

For both candidates, the big question appears to be, how these revelations affect Pennsylvania? If Obama were able to turn that one around, I think she would find a lot of pressure to quit.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Steve19

For both candidates, the big question appears to be, how these revelations affect Pennsylvania? If Obama were able to turn that one around, I think she would find a lot of pressure to quit.

Rasmussen tracking polls there show a modest tightening of the gap - with March 14th a 13 point lead for Clinton, March 24th a 10 point spread.
From the Obama camp, their perspective is that any loss with less than a ten point spread in the Keystone State is a moral victory.

Tighter than that and the pressure really comes on to Clinton.

Should Obama pull out a win there (unlikely as that seems) then the cornerstone of her argument becomes undercut - ability to deliver "major" states.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by sandgk

Should Obama pull out a win there (unlikely as that seems) then the cornerstone of her argument becomes undercut - ability to deliver "major" states.

She'll win Pennsylvania for the same reason she won Ohio. All these desperate union guys have been hoodwinked into thinking Bill will bring back their jobs.