Re: Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw
Good read. I think she'll choose option 3, slash and burn.
Good read. I think she'll choose option 3, slash and burn.
The Official Hillary Clinton Thread
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Hillary Should Get Out Now
Clinton has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself.
By Jonathan Alter
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:39 PM ET Feb 23, 2008
If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I'm hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career. She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place.
Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn't. To win, she would have to do more than reverse the tide in Texas and Ohio, where polls show Obama already even or closing fast. She would have to hold off his surge, then establish her own powerful momentum within three or four days. Without a victory of 20 points or more in both states, the delegate math is forbidding. In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That's how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.
The much-ballyhooed race for superdelegates is now nearly irrelevant. Some will be needed in Denver to put Obama over the top, just as Walter Mondale had to round up a couple dozen in 1984. But these party leaders won't determine the result. At the Austin, Texas, debate last week, Hillary agreed that the process would "sort itself out" so that the will of the people would not be reversed by superdelegates. Obama has a commanding 159 lead in pledged delegates and a lead of 925,000 in the popular vote (excluding Michigan and Florida, where neither campaigned). Closing that gap would require Hillary to win all the remaining contests by crushing margins. Any takers on her chances of doing so in, say, Mississippi and North Carolina, where African-Americans play a big role?
The pundit class hasn't been quicker to point all this out because of what happened in New Hampshire. A lot of us looked foolish by all but writing Hillary off when she lost the Iowa caucuses. As we should have known, stuff happens in politics. But that was early. The stuff that would have to happen now would be on a different order of magnitude. It's time to stop overlearning the lesson of New Hampshire.
Hillary has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself. Nothing in the last 14 months suggests he will. He has made plenty of small mistakes, but we're past the point where a "likable enough" comment will turn the tide. When Obama bragged in the Austin debate about how "good" his speeches were, the boast barely registered. He has brought up his game so sharply that even a head cold and losing the health-care portion of the debate on points did nothing to derail him. Hillary's Hail Mary pass—that Obama is a plagiarist—was incomplete.
So if the Clintonites were assessing with a cold eye, they would know that the odds of Hillary's looking bad on March 4 are high. Even Bill Clinton said last week that Texas and Ohio are must-win states. If she wants to stay in anyway, one way to go is to play through to June so as to give as many people as possible a chance to express their support. While this would be contrary to the long-stated wish of many Democrats (including the Clintons) to avoid a long, divisive primary season, it's perfectly defensible.
But imagine if, instead of waiting to be marginalized or forced out, Hillary decided to defy the stereotype we have of her family? Imagine if she drew a distinction between "never quit" as it applies to fighting Kenneth Starr and the Republicans on the one hand, and fellow Democrats on the other? Imagine if she had, well, the imagination for a breathtaking act of political theater that would make her seem the epitome of grace and class and party unity, setting herself up perfectly for 2012 if Obama loses?
The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon—they'll give it up only when it's wrenched from their cold, dead fingers. When I floated this idea of her quitting, Hillary aides scoffed that it would never happen. Their Pollyanna-ish assessment of the race offered a glimpse inside the bunker. These are the same loyalists who told Hillary that she was inevitable, that experience was a winning theme, that going negative in a nice state like Iowa would work, that all Super Tuesday caucus states could be written off. The Hillary who swallowed all that will never withdraw.
But in her beautiful closing answer in the Austin debate, I glimpsed a different, more genuine, almost valedictory Hillary Clinton. She talked about the real suffering of Americans and, echoing John Edwards, said, "Whatever happens, we'll be fine." She described what "an honor" it was to be in a campaign with Barack Obama, and seemed to mean it. The choice before her is to go down ugly with a serious risk of humiliation at the polls, or to go down classy, with a real chance of redemption. Why not the latter? Besides, it would wreck the spring of all her critics in the press. If she thinks of it that way, maybe it's not such an outlandish idea after all.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/114725
-VG
Clinton has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself.
By Jonathan Alter
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:39 PM ET Feb 23, 2008
If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I'm hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career. She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place.
Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn't. To win, she would have to do more than reverse the tide in Texas and Ohio, where polls show Obama already even or closing fast. She would have to hold off his surge, then establish her own powerful momentum within three or four days. Without a victory of 20 points or more in both states, the delegate math is forbidding. In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That's how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.
The much-ballyhooed race for superdelegates is now nearly irrelevant. Some will be needed in Denver to put Obama over the top, just as Walter Mondale had to round up a couple dozen in 1984. But these party leaders won't determine the result. At the Austin, Texas, debate last week, Hillary agreed that the process would "sort itself out" so that the will of the people would not be reversed by superdelegates. Obama has a commanding 159 lead in pledged delegates and a lead of 925,000 in the popular vote (excluding Michigan and Florida, where neither campaigned). Closing that gap would require Hillary to win all the remaining contests by crushing margins. Any takers on her chances of doing so in, say, Mississippi and North Carolina, where African-Americans play a big role?
The pundit class hasn't been quicker to point all this out because of what happened in New Hampshire. A lot of us looked foolish by all but writing Hillary off when she lost the Iowa caucuses. As we should have known, stuff happens in politics. But that was early. The stuff that would have to happen now would be on a different order of magnitude. It's time to stop overlearning the lesson of New Hampshire.
Hillary has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself. Nothing in the last 14 months suggests he will. He has made plenty of small mistakes, but we're past the point where a "likable enough" comment will turn the tide. When Obama bragged in the Austin debate about how "good" his speeches were, the boast barely registered. He has brought up his game so sharply that even a head cold and losing the health-care portion of the debate on points did nothing to derail him. Hillary's Hail Mary pass—that Obama is a plagiarist—was incomplete.
So if the Clintonites were assessing with a cold eye, they would know that the odds of Hillary's looking bad on March 4 are high. Even Bill Clinton said last week that Texas and Ohio are must-win states. If she wants to stay in anyway, one way to go is to play through to June so as to give as many people as possible a chance to express their support. While this would be contrary to the long-stated wish of many Democrats (including the Clintons) to avoid a long, divisive primary season, it's perfectly defensible.
But imagine if, instead of waiting to be marginalized or forced out, Hillary decided to defy the stereotype we have of her family? Imagine if she drew a distinction between "never quit" as it applies to fighting Kenneth Starr and the Republicans on the one hand, and fellow Democrats on the other? Imagine if she had, well, the imagination for a breathtaking act of political theater that would make her seem the epitome of grace and class and party unity, setting herself up perfectly for 2012 if Obama loses?
The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon—they'll give it up only when it's wrenched from their cold, dead fingers. When I floated this idea of her quitting, Hillary aides scoffed that it would never happen. Their Pollyanna-ish assessment of the race offered a glimpse inside the bunker. These are the same loyalists who told Hillary that she was inevitable, that experience was a winning theme, that going negative in a nice state like Iowa would work, that all Super Tuesday caucus states could be written off. The Hillary who swallowed all that will never withdraw.
But in her beautiful closing answer in the Austin debate, I glimpsed a different, more genuine, almost valedictory Hillary Clinton. She talked about the real suffering of Americans and, echoing John Edwards, said, "Whatever happens, we'll be fine." She described what "an honor" it was to be in a campaign with Barack Obama, and seemed to mean it. The choice before her is to go down ugly with a serious risk of humiliation at the polls, or to go down classy, with a real chance of redemption. Why not the latter? Besides, it would wreck the spring of all her critics in the press. If she thinks of it that way, maybe it's not such an outlandish idea after all.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/114725
-VG
Hillary Already Making Excuses/Lowering Expectations For March 4
Clinton Campaign: "Obama Must Win All States on March 4"
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 03 March 2008
Austin, Texas - Huh? That's what Clinton's campaign is saying, talk about lowering expectations.
For almost a month, the Clinton campaign has been pointing to March 4 as its "firewall." It pretty much wrote off its chances of winning any of the last 11 contests, citing built-in advantages for Obama. As March 4 nears, we are starting to hear the same excuses from the Clinton campaign.
In a memo sent to the media, the Clinton campaign said the same thing it has been saying for a month, "we were out spent two to one". Someone needs to tell Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson excuses only work a couple of times, not 15 times in a row. The being outspent and doing better than expected argument is best for a candidate who isn't well-heeled. Three months ago, Senator Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee, and had the best funding. So, to be outspent is a sign of weakness for her.
Here is the memo the Clinton campaign sent to the media:
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: Friday, February 29, 2008
RE: Obama Must-Wins
The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he's playing the part.
With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.
The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.
Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.
If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem.
Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:
Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.
This is clearly an attempt to move the goal posts back for Obama. The political reality is Senator Clinton must win Texas and Ohio, and win them by a lot. Obama leads by 160 delegates among those allotted by the voting to date. For Clinton to make that up she needs 60 percent of the vote in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. A win by Obama in any of those three states will make it nearly impossible for Clinton to catch him.
Texas Air War
On Friday, Senator Clinton started airing a commercial that attempted to argue her experience in foreign policy makes her the best candidate to handle a crisis. It didn't take long for Senator Obama to counter with an ad that argues his superior judgment makes him the better candidate to handle a crisis.
Throughout the campaign, Senator Clinton has attempted to argue her experience prepares her to be "president on day one," but that argument has successfully been countered by Senator Obama's argument that its more important to be "right on day one."
Clinton has not been able to put her vote to authorize the war in Iraq behind her. In his ad, Senator Obama pointed to Clinton's judgment on the war as the reason he would be the one most capable to handle a crisis.
Clinton's Ad:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/142.aspx.
Obama's Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=879o1_pxO0c.
Fund-Raising
The Clinton campaign had a great month, raising 36 million dollars, but the Obama campaign has announced it has raised significantly more. In good news for the Democrats, the all but assured Republican presidential nominee John McCain only raised 12 million dollars in February.
The Democratic fund-raising numbers should make Republicans very nervous. Democratic donors may have contributed more than $80 million in a single month. The Obama campaign boasts over one million donors, an unprecedented number. Most of these contributions have come in small amounts, leaving the donors room to contribute more under campaign finance laws.
If all of Obama's donors maxed out, which they won't ... he could raise 2 billion dollars.
The bottom line is, if Obama wins Texas or Ohio, he will be the nominee. If he loses these narrowly and holds on to the pledged delegate lead, super delegates will flock to him because he is expanding the base of the party. His fund-raising and impressive campaign organization is another factor they can't ignore.
Clinton Campaign: "Obama Must Win All States on March 4"
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 03 March 2008
Austin, Texas - Huh? That's what Clinton's campaign is saying, talk about lowering expectations.
For almost a month, the Clinton campaign has been pointing to March 4 as its "firewall." It pretty much wrote off its chances of winning any of the last 11 contests, citing built-in advantages for Obama. As March 4 nears, we are starting to hear the same excuses from the Clinton campaign.
In a memo sent to the media, the Clinton campaign said the same thing it has been saying for a month, "we were out spent two to one". Someone needs to tell Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson excuses only work a couple of times, not 15 times in a row. The being outspent and doing better than expected argument is best for a candidate who isn't well-heeled. Three months ago, Senator Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee, and had the best funding. So, to be outspent is a sign of weakness for her.
Here is the memo the Clinton campaign sent to the media:
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: Friday, February 29, 2008
RE: Obama Must-Wins
The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he's playing the part.
With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.
The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.
Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.
If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem.
Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:
Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.
This is clearly an attempt to move the goal posts back for Obama. The political reality is Senator Clinton must win Texas and Ohio, and win them by a lot. Obama leads by 160 delegates among those allotted by the voting to date. For Clinton to make that up she needs 60 percent of the vote in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. A win by Obama in any of those three states will make it nearly impossible for Clinton to catch him.
Texas Air War
On Friday, Senator Clinton started airing a commercial that attempted to argue her experience in foreign policy makes her the best candidate to handle a crisis. It didn't take long for Senator Obama to counter with an ad that argues his superior judgment makes him the better candidate to handle a crisis.
Throughout the campaign, Senator Clinton has attempted to argue her experience prepares her to be "president on day one," but that argument has successfully been countered by Senator Obama's argument that its more important to be "right on day one."
Clinton has not been able to put her vote to authorize the war in Iraq behind her. In his ad, Senator Obama pointed to Clinton's judgment on the war as the reason he would be the one most capable to handle a crisis.
Clinton's Ad:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/142.aspx.
Obama's Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=879o1_pxO0c.
Fund-Raising
The Clinton campaign had a great month, raising 36 million dollars, but the Obama campaign has announced it has raised significantly more. In good news for the Democrats, the all but assured Republican presidential nominee John McCain only raised 12 million dollars in February.
The Democratic fund-raising numbers should make Republicans very nervous. Democratic donors may have contributed more than $80 million in a single month. The Obama campaign boasts over one million donors, an unprecedented number. Most of these contributions have come in small amounts, leaving the donors room to contribute more under campaign finance laws.
If all of Obama's donors maxed out, which they won't ... he could raise 2 billion dollars.
The bottom line is, if Obama wins Texas or Ohio, he will be the nominee. If he loses these narrowly and holds on to the pledged delegate lead, super delegates will flock to him because he is expanding the base of the party. His fund-raising and impressive campaign organization is another factor they can't ignore.
Re: Hillary Already Making Excuses/Lowering Expectations For March 4
done deal ya fuckin' tuna!
done deal ya fuckin' tuna!
A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser
Obama needs to work harder to beat the machine!
source: The Washington Post.com
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; Page A11
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
WPP insists that things are not quite so intertwined and that its units are strictly segregated. "The various WPP businesses are purposely run independently, and there is no risk of any conflict between clients," said Howard Paster, who is Penn's boss, an ex-aide to President Clinton and a high-level volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
"I also, personally, don't do any lobbying," added Penn, 53.
But WPP does encourage cross-referrals, especially to avoid conflicts within its firms. "We occasionally will do things with one of the other companies," said Quinn, whose firm worked with Burson-Marsteller's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, on the reelection of Italy's former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The polling firm, of which Penn remains president, is the WPP unit that will be paid millions by the Clinton campaign for Penn's attention.
Jefferson's Reprieve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reversed the conviction of a former District police detective in a case that experts believe might make it tougher for the feds to prosecute Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).
The court voted 7 to 5 on Feb. 9 to overturn the 2002 conviction of Nelson Valdes on three counts of receiving illegal gratuities. Prosecutors said he passed along information from restricted law enforcement databases to an FBI informant who paid him $450.
But the court ruled that the gratuities law did not apply to Valdes's conduct -- his use of the databases was not "an official act" because it did not spur a police investigation.
The same issue hovers around Jefferson. He's under investigation for allegedly taking cash -- $90,000 of which was famously found in his freezer -- in exchange for using his congressional clout to arrange business deals. Two businessmen have pleaded guilty to giving Jefferson money to promote a company marketing new technology in Africa. But was that promotion an "official act"?
Earmarks Were Us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Against Government Waste is Washington's leading opponent of pork-barrel spending. Its annual Pig Book, which lists the government's narrow giveaways, is used by news outlets worldwide to ridicule federal earmarks.
But now that these pet projects are being scaled back -- the Pig Book this year will be more a pamphlet than a book -- CAGW is expanding its other efforts against government wastefulness. It is stepping up campaigns against farm subsidies and federal interference on the Internet. It's also going global, fostering affiliates as far flung as South Korea and Jamaica.
Democratic Hires of the Week
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats, who are now in demand thanks to their takeover on Capitol Hill, are shuffling jobs all over town. Bruce Andrews was stolen away from Quinn Gillespie & Associates to run the Washington office of Ford Motor Co. He will be replaced at Quinn Gillespie by Chris McCannell, former chief of staff to Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.).
Elsewhere, Stephen Brown left Dutko Worldwide to open the Washington office for Tesoro, an oil refining and marketing firm. R. Scott Silverthorne left the Capital One Financial's lobby shop to become vice president for government affairs of MasterCard Worldwide. And Broderick Johnson, a former chief House lobbyist for President Bill Clinton, is moving to Bryan Cave Strategies from AT&T. Johnson, one of Washington's top African American lobbyists, was pursued for weeks by several firms and was represented by superlawyer Robert Barnett.
It's All in a Name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RightClick Strategies, a consulting firm that has long helped Republican lawmakers design their Web sites, changed its name after last year's elections to Adfero Group, erasing any implication that it's only right-leaning. The firm said the switch was planned before the Democratic sweep.
Parry, Romani DeConcini & Symms, on the other hand, is extremely straightforward. Its Web site is LobbyCongress.com.
Obama needs to work harder to beat the machine!
source: The Washington Post.com
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; Page A11
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
WPP insists that things are not quite so intertwined and that its units are strictly segregated. "The various WPP businesses are purposely run independently, and there is no risk of any conflict between clients," said Howard Paster, who is Penn's boss, an ex-aide to President Clinton and a high-level volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
"I also, personally, don't do any lobbying," added Penn, 53.
But WPP does encourage cross-referrals, especially to avoid conflicts within its firms. "We occasionally will do things with one of the other companies," said Quinn, whose firm worked with Burson-Marsteller's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, on the reelection of Italy's former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The polling firm, of which Penn remains president, is the WPP unit that will be paid millions by the Clinton campaign for Penn's attention.
Jefferson's Reprieve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reversed the conviction of a former District police detective in a case that experts believe might make it tougher for the feds to prosecute Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).
The court voted 7 to 5 on Feb. 9 to overturn the 2002 conviction of Nelson Valdes on three counts of receiving illegal gratuities. Prosecutors said he passed along information from restricted law enforcement databases to an FBI informant who paid him $450.
But the court ruled that the gratuities law did not apply to Valdes's conduct -- his use of the databases was not "an official act" because it did not spur a police investigation.
The same issue hovers around Jefferson. He's under investigation for allegedly taking cash -- $90,000 of which was famously found in his freezer -- in exchange for using his congressional clout to arrange business deals. Two businessmen have pleaded guilty to giving Jefferson money to promote a company marketing new technology in Africa. But was that promotion an "official act"?
Earmarks Were Us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Against Government Waste is Washington's leading opponent of pork-barrel spending. Its annual Pig Book, which lists the government's narrow giveaways, is used by news outlets worldwide to ridicule federal earmarks.
But now that these pet projects are being scaled back -- the Pig Book this year will be more a pamphlet than a book -- CAGW is expanding its other efforts against government wastefulness. It is stepping up campaigns against farm subsidies and federal interference on the Internet. It's also going global, fostering affiliates as far flung as South Korea and Jamaica.
Democratic Hires of the Week
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats, who are now in demand thanks to their takeover on Capitol Hill, are shuffling jobs all over town. Bruce Andrews was stolen away from Quinn Gillespie & Associates to run the Washington office of Ford Motor Co. He will be replaced at Quinn Gillespie by Chris McCannell, former chief of staff to Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.).
Elsewhere, Stephen Brown left Dutko Worldwide to open the Washington office for Tesoro, an oil refining and marketing firm. R. Scott Silverthorne left the Capital One Financial's lobby shop to become vice president for government affairs of MasterCard Worldwide. And Broderick Johnson, a former chief House lobbyist for President Bill Clinton, is moving to Bryan Cave Strategies from AT&T. Johnson, one of Washington's top African American lobbyists, was pursued for weeks by several firms and was represented by superlawyer Robert Barnett.
It's All in a Name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RightClick Strategies, a consulting firm that has long helped Republican lawmakers design their Web sites, changed its name after last year's elections to Adfero Group, erasing any implication that it's only right-leaning. The firm said the switch was planned before the Democratic sweep.
Parry, Romani DeConcini & Symms, on the other hand, is extremely straightforward. Its Web site is LobbyCongress.com.
Billary money changers: Hsu, Spitzer, Cuomo, Quinn etc...
Clinton, Spitzer Try to Hsu Fugitive Money Away
Thought Governor Eliot Spitzer and Senator Hilary Clinton appeared at a press conference to discuss health coverage of New York children, they had to answer questions about campaign donations they accepted from fugitive apparel executive Norman Hsu. Clinton received $23,000 from Hsu and announced that she would donate the money to charity after revelations that Hsu has been wanted in California for defrauding California investors since 1991. Hsu has fled to Hong Kong but has been living in New York as a high-profile donor since 2003. Guess when those cases grow cold, they stay cold.
Spitzer said he would donate $62,000 received from Hsu to charity and Clinton said, "I wish Mr. Hsu well in dealing with the problems he is confronting. Obviously we were all surprised by this news. We will continue to analyze all contributions and take action if that's warranted." Many other politicians who have benefited from Hsu's largesse have said they will donate or refund the money. They include Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, City Council member John Liu, City Comptroller William Thompson and Representative Anthony Weiner.
Councilman Liu told the NY Times that he last spoke to Hsu "a few months ago at a gathering of Asian-American Clinton supporters": "He actually told me he doesn’t get involved in municipal elections the first time I met him, but then he went ahead and gave to my campaign, and others." Hsu had also donated money to Senator John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and the New School. The New School president, former Senator Bob Kerrey, said, "So much of the university is about the immigrant culture, and I liked his personal story, coming from China, and he had an interest in fashion as well. It all intrigued me.”
The LA Times has an article about the mystery surrounding Hsu
http://gothamist.com/2007/08/31/clinton_spitzer.php
-VG
Clinton, Spitzer Try to Hsu Fugitive Money Away
Thought Governor Eliot Spitzer and Senator Hilary Clinton appeared at a press conference to discuss health coverage of New York children, they had to answer questions about campaign donations they accepted from fugitive apparel executive Norman Hsu. Clinton received $23,000 from Hsu and announced that she would donate the money to charity after revelations that Hsu has been wanted in California for defrauding California investors since 1991. Hsu has fled to Hong Kong but has been living in New York as a high-profile donor since 2003. Guess when those cases grow cold, they stay cold.
Spitzer said he would donate $62,000 received from Hsu to charity and Clinton said, "I wish Mr. Hsu well in dealing with the problems he is confronting. Obviously we were all surprised by this news. We will continue to analyze all contributions and take action if that's warranted." Many other politicians who have benefited from Hsu's largesse have said they will donate or refund the money. They include Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, City Council member John Liu, City Comptroller William Thompson and Representative Anthony Weiner.
Councilman Liu told the NY Times that he last spoke to Hsu "a few months ago at a gathering of Asian-American Clinton supporters": "He actually told me he doesn’t get involved in municipal elections the first time I met him, but then he went ahead and gave to my campaign, and others." Hsu had also donated money to Senator John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and the New School. The New School president, former Senator Bob Kerrey, said, "So much of the university is about the immigrant culture, and I liked his personal story, coming from China, and he had an interest in fashion as well. It all intrigued me.”
The LA Times has an article about the mystery surrounding Hsu
http://gothamist.com/2007/08/31/clinton_spitzer.php
-VG
Billary needs link to TurboTax
The Clinton Tax Returns: What's the Holdup?
Pressure Is High for Clinton to Release Her Tax Returns Since She Loaned Her Campaign $5 Million
By AVNI PATEL
March 10, 2008—
After weeks of intense pressure, and more than a year after announcing her presidential candidacy, Sen. Hillary Clinton has offered little explanation for why she has delayed releasing the tax returns made public by most other Democratic presidential candidates in recent years.
"What is the holdup?" said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. "She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them."
Past Democratic presidential candidates have set a precedent for releasing their tax returns before or during the primary season. Sen. John Kerry released his in December of 2003, and former Vice President Al Gore's were in the public domain while he was in office. Clinton's opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, released his 2006 return last April.
"This is a level of disclosure the American people have come to expect and deserve from those in the White House, or those who aspire to the White House," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a government reform advocacy group.
The pressure on Clinton to release her tax returns has been intensifying since it was revealed that she loaned her campaign $5 million in January. Clinton had repeatedly stated that she would release her tax returns upon becoming the Democratic nominee, but her spokesman Howard Wolfson said last week that the campaign now planned to release the returns "in or around April 15." Wolfson did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
The lack of disclosure leaves the public with an obscure picture of how the Clintons have managed the multi-million-dollar fortune they have amassed since leaving the White House, say government watchdog groups. Personal financial disclosure filings, required by government ethics rules, only offer a broad glimpse of the Clintons' finances. Since 1999, the couple's net worth has increased from somewhere between $1.25 million and $5.7 million to between $10 million and $50 million, according to filings. In 2006, the Clintons earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from book royalties, and former President Bill Clinton made $10 million in dozens of paid speeches.
The disclosures shed some light on President Clinton's role in two companies run by longtime friends and fundraisers. Clinton earned an unspecified amount as a consultant for InfoUsa, a data company run by longtime friend and fundraiser Vin Gupta, according to the filings. The forms also showed ten of thousands of dollars invested in funds with the Yucaipa Companies, a private equity firm run by another close friend, Ron Burkle.
Many of the specific details surrounding the Clintons' income and assets remain unknown. "The disclosure forms are so limited in what they require," says Krumholz. "For example, there's nothing about your primary house or other houses you live in or use."
Tax forms would help fill in the blanks where the disclosure forms leave off, says Boyle, including exact amounts for income and stock gains and losses as well as details like how much was paid in mortgage interest, charitable deductions and personal exemptions taken.
"In this very extended primary season and competitive environment where people are really struggling to weigh these two candidates, this would be helpful for people to know," said Boyle.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4421457&page=1
-VG
The Clinton Tax Returns: What's the Holdup?
Pressure Is High for Clinton to Release Her Tax Returns Since She Loaned Her Campaign $5 Million
By AVNI PATEL
March 10, 2008—
After weeks of intense pressure, and more than a year after announcing her presidential candidacy, Sen. Hillary Clinton has offered little explanation for why she has delayed releasing the tax returns made public by most other Democratic presidential candidates in recent years.
"What is the holdup?" said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. "She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them."
Past Democratic presidential candidates have set a precedent for releasing their tax returns before or during the primary season. Sen. John Kerry released his in December of 2003, and former Vice President Al Gore's were in the public domain while he was in office. Clinton's opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, released his 2006 return last April.
"This is a level of disclosure the American people have come to expect and deserve from those in the White House, or those who aspire to the White House," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a government reform advocacy group.
The pressure on Clinton to release her tax returns has been intensifying since it was revealed that she loaned her campaign $5 million in January. Clinton had repeatedly stated that she would release her tax returns upon becoming the Democratic nominee, but her spokesman Howard Wolfson said last week that the campaign now planned to release the returns "in or around April 15." Wolfson did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
The lack of disclosure leaves the public with an obscure picture of how the Clintons have managed the multi-million-dollar fortune they have amassed since leaving the White House, say government watchdog groups. Personal financial disclosure filings, required by government ethics rules, only offer a broad glimpse of the Clintons' finances. Since 1999, the couple's net worth has increased from somewhere between $1.25 million and $5.7 million to between $10 million and $50 million, according to filings. In 2006, the Clintons earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from book royalties, and former President Bill Clinton made $10 million in dozens of paid speeches.
The disclosures shed some light on President Clinton's role in two companies run by longtime friends and fundraisers. Clinton earned an unspecified amount as a consultant for InfoUsa, a data company run by longtime friend and fundraiser Vin Gupta, according to the filings. The forms also showed ten of thousands of dollars invested in funds with the Yucaipa Companies, a private equity firm run by another close friend, Ron Burkle.
Many of the specific details surrounding the Clintons' income and assets remain unknown. "The disclosure forms are so limited in what they require," says Krumholz. "For example, there's nothing about your primary house or other houses you live in or use."
Tax forms would help fill in the blanks where the disclosure forms leave off, says Boyle, including exact amounts for income and stock gains and losses as well as details like how much was paid in mortgage interest, charitable deductions and personal exemptions taken.
"In this very extended primary season and competitive environment where people are really struggling to weigh these two candidates, this would be helpful for people to know," said Boyle.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4421457&page=1
-VG
Bill Clinton Tells 'Paranoid Hecklers' that Bilderberg Didn't Influence NAFTA Deal
Campaigning for his wife in Erie, Pennsylvania, Bill Clinton returned fire at a heckler who began shouting about the former president's attendance at a 1991 invitation-only conference of wealthy powerbrokers -- "1991 Bilderberg" -- implying that discussion there led to unfair trade policy such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
As the audience booed, Clinton replied: “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… This is the deal folks. All these folks that are paranoid at the world folks, come and scream at me everywhere. You said you would go if I answered the question, right? You said you would go if I answered the question…"
"All right, here’s the answer. I happened to be in Europe then on my way to Russia I was invited to go to Bilderberg by Vernon Jordan, a friend of mine and a genuine hero of the civil rights movement. And to the best of my knowledge NAFTA was not discussed by anybody in my presence. I happened to be on my way to Europe where people do not give a rip about NAFTA.
"Number two, okay. Number two. I tried to get labor and environmental standards in the agreement but I couldn’t because it was all negotiated when I got there.
"Number three. When I was president, we enforced our trade laws five times as much as the Bush Administration did… Family incomes went up $7,500 a year when I was president, they’re down $1,000 now. So I was not… I had a very good time talking to those Europeans about European affairs and what was going to happen to Russia but I was not somehow polluted by it into sacrificing America’s economic interests. America did a lot better when I was president than they did in this decade. And that’s the truth. Now. Goodbye. Thank you."
This video is from ABCNews.com, broadcast March 12, 2008.
Campaigning for his wife in Erie, Pennsylvania, Bill Clinton returned fire at a heckler who began shouting about the former president's attendance at a 1991 invitation-only conference of wealthy powerbrokers -- "1991 Bilderberg" -- implying that discussion there led to unfair trade policy such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
As the audience booed, Clinton replied: “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… This is the deal folks. All these folks that are paranoid at the world folks, come and scream at me everywhere. You said you would go if I answered the question, right? You said you would go if I answered the question…"
"All right, here’s the answer. I happened to be in Europe then on my way to Russia I was invited to go to Bilderberg by Vernon Jordan, a friend of mine and a genuine hero of the civil rights movement. And to the best of my knowledge NAFTA was not discussed by anybody in my presence. I happened to be on my way to Europe where people do not give a rip about NAFTA.
"Number two, okay. Number two. I tried to get labor and environmental standards in the agreement but I couldn’t because it was all negotiated when I got there.
"Number three. When I was president, we enforced our trade laws five times as much as the Bush Administration did… Family incomes went up $7,500 a year when I was president, they’re down $1,000 now. So I was not… I had a very good time talking to those Europeans about European affairs and what was going to happen to Russia but I was not somehow polluted by it into sacrificing America’s economic interests. America did a lot better when I was president than they did in this decade. And that’s the truth. Now. Goodbye. Thank you."
This video is from ABCNews.com, broadcast March 12, 2008.
Re: Bill Clinton Tells 'Paranoid Hecklers' that Bilderberg Didn't Influence NAFTA Dea
LoL, very interesting.
LoL, very interesting.
Re: Bill Clinton Tells 'Paranoid Hecklers' that Bilderberg Didn't Influence NAFTA Dea
It used to be that if you mentioned New World Order groups such as Bilderberg, you were called a conspiracy theorist and a nut.
Now you go forward a few years and what do you have? You have a former president admitting that he attended a meeting held by an Illuminist group. It doesn't get any more damning than that.
It used to be that if you mentioned New World Order groups such as Bilderberg, you were called a conspiracy theorist and a nut.
Now you go forward a few years and what do you have? You have a former president admitting that he attended a meeting held by an Illuminist group. It doesn't get any more damning than that.
Hillary, Rendell & Farrakhan
As Senator Barack Obama prepares to deliver an historic address on America’s tortured racial history and the ongoing controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s mesmerising sermons, Minister Louis Farrakhan ~ in this 1997 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert ~ reminds the world that Hillary Clinton’s chief supporter, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, invited the Nation of Islam leader to Philadelphia on 15 April of that year to aid in reconciliation efforts following a series of violent incidents that were threatening to explode into all-out racial warfare. Will Hillary Clinton ~ having rebuked Obama for his failure to fulsomely "reject & denounce" Farrakhan ~ now distance herself from Governor Rendell or compel him to disavow his overture to Farrakhan? Or will she attempt to spin her way out of this conundrum and keep faith with a man on whom she is going to depend for victory in the upcoming 22 April primary in Pennsylvania?
SEE, HEAR & LEARN MORE AT:
http://www.afristok-7.blogspot.com/
As Senator Barack Obama prepares to deliver an historic address on America’s tortured racial history and the ongoing controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s mesmerising sermons, Minister Louis Farrakhan ~ in this 1997 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert ~ reminds the world that Hillary Clinton’s chief supporter, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, invited the Nation of Islam leader to Philadelphia on 15 April of that year to aid in reconciliation efforts following a series of violent incidents that were threatening to explode into all-out racial warfare. Will Hillary Clinton ~ having rebuked Obama for his failure to fulsomely "reject & denounce" Farrakhan ~ now distance herself from Governor Rendell or compel him to disavow his overture to Farrakhan? Or will she attempt to spin her way out of this conundrum and keep faith with a man on whom she is going to depend for victory in the upcoming 22 April primary in Pennsylvania?
SEE, HEAR & LEARN MORE AT:
http://www.afristok-7.blogspot.com/
Re: Hillary, Rendell & Farrakhan
GOOD POST fam. They downplay the reference and without mentioning the adverse comparison with Obama - punt. That's the best thing she can do.
And after she wins, she'll just slide out the back door. They only need to hide the facts with bullshit until it's over. It doesnt have to last.
It's amazing to see the local politicians all slide toward WHATEVER Rendell is pushing. A week ago in Pittsburgh, there were A HEL OF ALOT more support for Obama than Clinton. Blacks AND WHITES both but now - the move has been undercut by Rendell and his bullshit. Now, a week later you feel the swell going to Clinton. Everyone just falls in line like good lil stooges and hold their hands out for more bull shit.
I used to like Hillary too
oNE
GOOD POST fam. They downplay the reference and without mentioning the adverse comparison with Obama - punt. That's the best thing she can do.
And after she wins, she'll just slide out the back door. They only need to hide the facts with bullshit until it's over. It doesnt have to last.
It's amazing to see the local politicians all slide toward WHATEVER Rendell is pushing. A week ago in Pittsburgh, there were A HEL OF ALOT more support for Obama than Clinton. Blacks AND WHITES both but now - the move has been undercut by Rendell and his bullshit. Now, a week later you feel the swell going to Clinton. Everyone just falls in line like good lil stooges and hold their hands out for more bull shit.
I used to like Hillary too
oNE
Team Clinton just accepted $500,000.00 from Wal-Mart
Clinton Foundation Received $500,000 From Wal-Mart
March 18, 2008 02:24 PM
Lost amid the blistering pace of campaign news was the announcement, made this past Saturday, that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer had donated a half-million dollars to former President Clinton's global foundation.
The donation was made to the Clinton Global Initiative University for educational purposes, including funding college students and encouraging universities to engage on issues such as energy and climate change, global health, and poverty alleviation. And they reflect what some observers say is a growing effort by the retail giant to soften its image within progressive circles.
But Wal-Mart, to a large extent, still remains a pariah among Democrats for its poor labor and environmental practices. And a donation of $500,000 to an individual so closely associated with a leading White House candidate, is more than enough to raise the eyebrows of watchdog organizations.
"We are concerned with all contributions that are this large," said Mary Boyle, the VP of Communications at the non-profit, Common Cause. "They are typically used to buy access and influence. Now I think the question here is what is Wal-Mart trying to gain here? Are they trying to gain access and influence to Sen. [Hillary] Clinton, or do they have another agenda, which could be trying to establish a track record of doing better in the causes of global warming and human rights and poverty. So, I don't know what they are trying to do, but certainly any contribution that large should pique interest."
Aides to the former presidents stressed that neither Clinton nor his foundation would see a dime of Wal-Mart's money and, subsequently, would have no reason to be beholden to the company's political interests.
"The money doesn't go to the foundation. It comes from the Wal-Mart foundation and it will be used to fund those student made commitments and university made commitments," said one aide. "CGI is the entity that makes this all happen. But they don't collect money from Wal-Mart... They are a facilitator."
It is a point watchdog groups concede, but not something that completely alleviates their anxiety. "Is [Wal-Mart] trying to use other vehicles to give large amounts to the other candidates?" asked Boyle. "Certainly Bill Clinton's charity provides a unique vehicle for this."
Complicating this donation is both the lengthy history the Clintons have with Wal-Mart. While serving as first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton also held a position on the Wal-Mart's board. Her tenure, fellow board members have described, was spent pushing the company to appoint more women in management and become more environmentally conscious in its practices. But, given the company's scorned status among Democrats and union-members, Clinton hardly ever talks about this part of her resume.
The former president, in contrast, has not shied away from Wal-Mart. According to Michael Barbaro of the New York Times, he frequently speaks to the realtor's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., about issues like health care. And he has taken on a public presence in pushing for and praising the company's new environmental practices.
But not everyone is buying into the idea of a new-and-improved Wal-Mart. Some see donations like those the company made to the Clinton foundation as merely a ploy to distract attention from the company's still far-from-progressive policies.
"It follows in Wal-Mart's recent attempts to make themselves look like a responsible corporation with their environmental efforts, and then you have Lee Scott who is announcing at meetings that Wal-Mart is not sure when they will reduce their emissions," said Meghan Scott, a spokesperson for Wake-up Wal-Mart, a watchdog group for the organization. "It is important to look at two things; whether their press releases turn into action, or whether it is simply an attempt to curry favor."
-VG
Clinton Foundation Received $500,000 From Wal-Mart
March 18, 2008 02:24 PM
Lost amid the blistering pace of campaign news was the announcement, made this past Saturday, that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer had donated a half-million dollars to former President Clinton's global foundation.
The donation was made to the Clinton Global Initiative University for educational purposes, including funding college students and encouraging universities to engage on issues such as energy and climate change, global health, and poverty alleviation. And they reflect what some observers say is a growing effort by the retail giant to soften its image within progressive circles.
But Wal-Mart, to a large extent, still remains a pariah among Democrats for its poor labor and environmental practices. And a donation of $500,000 to an individual so closely associated with a leading White House candidate, is more than enough to raise the eyebrows of watchdog organizations.
"We are concerned with all contributions that are this large," said Mary Boyle, the VP of Communications at the non-profit, Common Cause. "They are typically used to buy access and influence. Now I think the question here is what is Wal-Mart trying to gain here? Are they trying to gain access and influence to Sen. [Hillary] Clinton, or do they have another agenda, which could be trying to establish a track record of doing better in the causes of global warming and human rights and poverty. So, I don't know what they are trying to do, but certainly any contribution that large should pique interest."
Aides to the former presidents stressed that neither Clinton nor his foundation would see a dime of Wal-Mart's money and, subsequently, would have no reason to be beholden to the company's political interests.
"The money doesn't go to the foundation. It comes from the Wal-Mart foundation and it will be used to fund those student made commitments and university made commitments," said one aide. "CGI is the entity that makes this all happen. But they don't collect money from Wal-Mart... They are a facilitator."
It is a point watchdog groups concede, but not something that completely alleviates their anxiety. "Is [Wal-Mart] trying to use other vehicles to give large amounts to the other candidates?" asked Boyle. "Certainly Bill Clinton's charity provides a unique vehicle for this."
Complicating this donation is both the lengthy history the Clintons have with Wal-Mart. While serving as first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton also held a position on the Wal-Mart's board. Her tenure, fellow board members have described, was spent pushing the company to appoint more women in management and become more environmentally conscious in its practices. But, given the company's scorned status among Democrats and union-members, Clinton hardly ever talks about this part of her resume.
The former president, in contrast, has not shied away from Wal-Mart. According to Michael Barbaro of the New York Times, he frequently speaks to the realtor's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., about issues like health care. And he has taken on a public presence in pushing for and praising the company's new environmental practices.
But not everyone is buying into the idea of a new-and-improved Wal-Mart. Some see donations like those the company made to the Clinton foundation as merely a ploy to distract attention from the company's still far-from-progressive policies.
"It follows in Wal-Mart's recent attempts to make themselves look like a responsible corporation with their environmental efforts, and then you have Lee Scott who is announcing at meetings that Wal-Mart is not sure when they will reduce their emissions," said Meghan Scott, a spokesperson for Wake-up Wal-Mart, a watchdog group for the organization. "It is important to look at two things; whether their press releases turn into action, or whether it is simply an attempt to curry favor."
-VG
Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows — Or Should Know
http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-painful-things-hillary-clinton-knows-—-or-should-know/
Re: Hillary: The Movie has dissappeared from Google Video
HILLARY THE MOVIE DVDRIP
<HR NOSHADE COLOR="#FF0000" SIZE="1O"></HR>
HILLARY THE MOVIE DVDRIP
Code:
http://rapidshare.com/files/101824387/hillary_the_movie.part1.rar.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/101826479/hillary_the_movie.part2.rar.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/101828524/hillary_the_movie.part3.rar.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/101830355/hillary_the_movie.part4.rar.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/101831983/hillary_the_movie.part5.rar.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/101833627/hillary_the_movie.part6.rar.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/101834940/hillary_the_movie.part7.rar.html<HR NOSHADE COLOR="#FF0000" SIZE="1O"></HR>
Does any 1 else see Slick Willy's fingerprints all over this recent Obama debacle?
I hate when ppl say Clinton is the 1st Blk Prez. Like he gave a fuck about us
I hate when ppl say Clinton is the 1st Blk Prez. Like he gave a fuck about us
HRC parody on SNL
<embed allowNetworking="all" allowScriptAccess="always" src="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4828690625f98f2" width="384" height="283" quality="high" wmode="transparent" id="W4828690625f98f2" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>
<embed allowNetworking="all" allowScriptAccess="always" src="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4828690625f98f2" width="384" height="283" quality="high" wmode="transparent" id="W4828690625f98f2" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>
Florida, Michigan delegates cannot save Clinton
May 16, 5:53 AM (ET)
By NEDRA PICKLER
(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., walks from her campaign plane...
Full Image
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sorry, Sen. Clinton. Michigan and Florida can't save your campaign. Interviews with those considering how to handle the two states' banished convention delegates found little interest in the former first lady's best-case scenario.
Her position, part of a formidable comeback challenge, is that all the delegates be seated in accordance with their disputed primaries.
And even if they were, it wouldn't erase Barack Obama's growing lead in delegates over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, a 30-member panel charged with interpreting and enforcing party rules, is scheduled to meet May 31 to consider how to handle Michigan and Florida's 366 delegates.
Last year, the panel imposed the harshest punishment it could render against the two states after they scheduled primaries in January, even though they were instructed not to vote until Feb. 5 or later. Michigan and Florida lost all their delegates to the national convention, and all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, stripping them of all the influence they were trying to build by voting early.
But now there is agreement on all sides that at least some of the delegates should be restored in a gesture of party unity and respect to voters in two general election battlegrounds.
Clinton has been arguing for full reinstatement, which would boost her standing. She won both states, even though they didn't count toward the nomination and neither candidate campaigned in them. Obama even had his name pulled from Michigan's ballot.
The Associated Press interviewed a third of the panel members and several other Democrats involved in the negotiations and found widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years.
"We certainly want to be fair to both candidates, and we want to be sure that we are fair to the 48 states who abided by the rules," said Democratic National Committee Secretary Alice Germond, a panel member unaligned with either candidate. "We don't want absolute chaos for 2012.
"We want to reach out to Michigan and Florida and seat some group of delegates in some manner, at least most of us do. These are two critical states for the general (election) and the voters of those states who were not the people who caused this awful conundrum to occur deserve our attention and deserve to be a part of our process and deserve to be at the convention," she said.
Just as Democrats across the country have been divided over which candidate would make the better nominee, most of the panel members also bring personal preferences and political allegiances to the table.
Many are long-standing party officials with close ties to the Clintons. The former first lady has 13 members publicly supporting her, including campaign advisers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy who are working to build her delegate count. Eight are openly aligned with Obama. Nine others are officially undeclared.
"We have to have delegates, and they have to be delegations that reflect the opinions of those two states," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a committee member supporting Clinton. "How we get there is very different because everyone sees these questions of who it helps and who it hurts. I don't think the formulation has been found that will get around the piece at this point." But he said a solution is probably possible among the diverse interests.
Because Obama is in the lead for the nomination, his camp heads into the meeting in a position of strength. It is possible the Illinois senator could clinch the nomination by the time the panel meets if he picks up the pace of superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks.
But Obama has such a lead that he may be able to afford to be generous and give Clinton most of the delegates. That would help put the issue behind them and help him build good will in Michigan and Florida heading into the November election.
Still, some of Obama's supporters think the fairest solution is to disregard the primary votes and split the delegations evenly between the two candidates.
"It has to be a fair process for both candidates," said member Yvonne Gates, an Obama supporter from Nevada who said she wasn't sure what position she would support at the meeting. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other. In my opinion that wasn't an election when they didn't have a chance to get out and talk to the people of that community."
It's also possible that any vote that recognizes the Michigan and Florida results would legitimize their elections. Clinton has been arguing that she leads in the popular vote, but that's only when both states are included and it is very slim - fewer than 5,000 votes out of 34 million cast.
Her accounting also doesn't include some caucus states that favored Obama and where the popular vote wasn't tallied. The measure of winning the nomination is not the popular vote but the delegate count, and Obama leads 1,898 to 1,718, with 2,026 needed for the nomination. Still, Clinton is trying to use the popular vote argument to win over some delegates.
So far, Obama's campaign has not been giving direction publicly or privately to panel members. The Clinton campaign's official position has been full reinstatement, but her advisers acknowledge they are considering an idea before the panel to seat the delegates with half a vote each. Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that they "certainly might" accept a compromise to seat half the delegates.
If their elections had been held according to party rules, Michigan and Florida would have allocated a total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of the vote. Using the results of the January elections, Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a 111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180 delegates, so that would not catch her up even under that unlikely scenario.
The plans before the committee will be more generous to Obama. The Michigan Democratic Party has proposed giving 69 of its 128 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama, an advantage of 10 delegates for Clinton.
A proposal from Florida would halve its 185 delegates. From that, Clinton would get 52.5 and Obama 33.5, a 19-delegate advantage for Clinton.
"I think it's a reasonable solution to the problem that was created, and my hope is that we'll be able to get past this and move on," said Allan Katz, an Obama supporter who serves on the panel but won't be able to vote on any Florida solution because he is from the state.
The committee is not bound to select the proposals offered and has authority to reinstate any number of delegates and divide them in any way.
An open question is how to handle the other type of delegates each state lost - the superdelegates who are party leaders not bound by the outcome of the vote and are free to support whatever candidate they personally choose. Michigan has 28 superdelegates, and Florida 25. A total of eight have declared for Obama, seven for Clinton and the rest are undeclared.
Germond said she hopes the meeting will begin the process of unifying the party.
"Probably what we will come up with will not make everybody or anybody completely happy, which will mean that we did a good job," she said. "It is mighty unfortunate that at this point in our nominating process we are talking about people who did not abide by the process instead of talking about (beating Republican presidential candidate) John McCain."
from Drudge
-VG
May 16, 5:53 AM (ET)
By NEDRA PICKLER
(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., walks from her campaign plane...
Full Image
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sorry, Sen. Clinton. Michigan and Florida can't save your campaign. Interviews with those considering how to handle the two states' banished convention delegates found little interest in the former first lady's best-case scenario.
Her position, part of a formidable comeback challenge, is that all the delegates be seated in accordance with their disputed primaries.
And even if they were, it wouldn't erase Barack Obama's growing lead in delegates over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, a 30-member panel charged with interpreting and enforcing party rules, is scheduled to meet May 31 to consider how to handle Michigan and Florida's 366 delegates.
Last year, the panel imposed the harshest punishment it could render against the two states after they scheduled primaries in January, even though they were instructed not to vote until Feb. 5 or later. Michigan and Florida lost all their delegates to the national convention, and all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, stripping them of all the influence they were trying to build by voting early.
But now there is agreement on all sides that at least some of the delegates should be restored in a gesture of party unity and respect to voters in two general election battlegrounds.
Clinton has been arguing for full reinstatement, which would boost her standing. She won both states, even though they didn't count toward the nomination and neither candidate campaigned in them. Obama even had his name pulled from Michigan's ballot.
The Associated Press interviewed a third of the panel members and several other Democrats involved in the negotiations and found widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years.
"We certainly want to be fair to both candidates, and we want to be sure that we are fair to the 48 states who abided by the rules," said Democratic National Committee Secretary Alice Germond, a panel member unaligned with either candidate. "We don't want absolute chaos for 2012.
"We want to reach out to Michigan and Florida and seat some group of delegates in some manner, at least most of us do. These are two critical states for the general (election) and the voters of those states who were not the people who caused this awful conundrum to occur deserve our attention and deserve to be a part of our process and deserve to be at the convention," she said.
Just as Democrats across the country have been divided over which candidate would make the better nominee, most of the panel members also bring personal preferences and political allegiances to the table.
Many are long-standing party officials with close ties to the Clintons. The former first lady has 13 members publicly supporting her, including campaign advisers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy who are working to build her delegate count. Eight are openly aligned with Obama. Nine others are officially undeclared.
"We have to have delegates, and they have to be delegations that reflect the opinions of those two states," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a committee member supporting Clinton. "How we get there is very different because everyone sees these questions of who it helps and who it hurts. I don't think the formulation has been found that will get around the piece at this point." But he said a solution is probably possible among the diverse interests.
Because Obama is in the lead for the nomination, his camp heads into the meeting in a position of strength. It is possible the Illinois senator could clinch the nomination by the time the panel meets if he picks up the pace of superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks.
But Obama has such a lead that he may be able to afford to be generous and give Clinton most of the delegates. That would help put the issue behind them and help him build good will in Michigan and Florida heading into the November election.
Still, some of Obama's supporters think the fairest solution is to disregard the primary votes and split the delegations evenly between the two candidates.
"It has to be a fair process for both candidates," said member Yvonne Gates, an Obama supporter from Nevada who said she wasn't sure what position she would support at the meeting. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other. In my opinion that wasn't an election when they didn't have a chance to get out and talk to the people of that community."
It's also possible that any vote that recognizes the Michigan and Florida results would legitimize their elections. Clinton has been arguing that she leads in the popular vote, but that's only when both states are included and it is very slim - fewer than 5,000 votes out of 34 million cast.
Her accounting also doesn't include some caucus states that favored Obama and where the popular vote wasn't tallied. The measure of winning the nomination is not the popular vote but the delegate count, and Obama leads 1,898 to 1,718, with 2,026 needed for the nomination. Still, Clinton is trying to use the popular vote argument to win over some delegates.
So far, Obama's campaign has not been giving direction publicly or privately to panel members. The Clinton campaign's official position has been full reinstatement, but her advisers acknowledge they are considering an idea before the panel to seat the delegates with half a vote each. Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that they "certainly might" accept a compromise to seat half the delegates.
If their elections had been held according to party rules, Michigan and Florida would have allocated a total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of the vote. Using the results of the January elections, Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a 111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180 delegates, so that would not catch her up even under that unlikely scenario.
The plans before the committee will be more generous to Obama. The Michigan Democratic Party has proposed giving 69 of its 128 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama, an advantage of 10 delegates for Clinton.
A proposal from Florida would halve its 185 delegates. From that, Clinton would get 52.5 and Obama 33.5, a 19-delegate advantage for Clinton.
"I think it's a reasonable solution to the problem that was created, and my hope is that we'll be able to get past this and move on," said Allan Katz, an Obama supporter who serves on the panel but won't be able to vote on any Florida solution because he is from the state.
The committee is not bound to select the proposals offered and has authority to reinstate any number of delegates and divide them in any way.
An open question is how to handle the other type of delegates each state lost - the superdelegates who are party leaders not bound by the outcome of the vote and are free to support whatever candidate they personally choose. Michigan has 28 superdelegates, and Florida 25. A total of eight have declared for Obama, seven for Clinton and the rest are undeclared.
Germond said she hopes the meeting will begin the process of unifying the party.
"Probably what we will come up with will not make everybody or anybody completely happy, which will mean that we did a good job," she said. "It is mighty unfortunate that at this point in our nominating process we are talking about people who did not abide by the process instead of talking about (beating Republican presidential candidate) John McCain."
from Drudge
-VG
Hillary: Uncensored
You must watch it.
--- On Wed, 5/21/08, YouTube Service <service@youtube. com> wrote:
From: YouTube Service <service@youtube. com>
Subject: speciallady23 sent you a video!
To: callmyname1@ yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 11:58 PM
YouTube Broadcast Yourself™
speciallady23 wants to share a video with you
watch video
Video Description
PART 1 -
Hillary! Uncensored, the unedited trailer that has been ranked #1 video in Google Top 100 in the World, will debut as a 1 hour documentary on http://www.youpervi ew.com on November 5, 2007. Copyright T2P Media Inc. Presented by Equal Justice Foundation of America. http://www.ejfa. org
Refer to Hillary Clinton Accountability Project - http://www.hillcap. org - for link to DVD and other evidence of the frauds Hillary directed to win her senate seat
------------ --------- --------- ------
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Then, there's the Clintons...
PLEASE RATE THIS VIDEO : )
The Roughcut Trailer for - Hillary! Uncensored - the Documentary.
This is the video that's been buzzing around the blogs for the past few months, becoming one of the most viewed on Google Video. It shows the Peter Paul side of the issue, which involves allegations that Hillary Clinton has committed numerous federal election law violations, has lied about them to cover them up, all culminating in what might be felonious conduct on her part. Paul makes a strong case here. Will the media continue to do its best to bury what might be the largest election fraud in US history? Stay tuned...
This is the most shocking expose on the blatant corruption surrounding Hillary Clinton. Includes exclusive home videos of Hillary to expose the illegalities that elected Hillary to the Senate and the obstructions of justice that keep her there. The full documentary, at (www.hillcap. org) and (www.peterfpaul. com) will be released on November 1, 2007 by Equal Justice Foundation of America - CONTRIBUTE TO EJFA, NON-PROFIT WHISTLEBLOWER FOUNDATION - https://www. registrationfact ory.com/v3/ ?EventUUID= 2A54FEC2 .
TO ADVERTISE AND PUBLICIZE the ONLY documentary that dares to expose the evidence of Hillary's misconduct to the American people - Banned by the Mainstream Media!
Equal Justice Foundation of America
www.hillcap. org
.
Last edited by TEN : 05-22-2008 at 03:12 PM.
You must watch it.
--- On Wed, 5/21/08, YouTube Service <service@youtube. com> wrote:
From: YouTube Service <service@youtube. com>
Subject: speciallady23 sent you a video!
To: callmyname1@ yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 11:58 PM
YouTube Broadcast Yourself™
speciallady23 wants to share a video with you
watch video
Video Description
PART 1 -
Hillary! Uncensored, the unedited trailer that has been ranked #1 video in Google Top 100 in the World, will debut as a 1 hour documentary on http://www.youpervi ew.com on November 5, 2007. Copyright T2P Media Inc. Presented by Equal Justice Foundation of America. http://www.ejfa. org
Refer to Hillary Clinton Accountability Project - http://www.hillcap. org - for link to DVD and other evidence of the frauds Hillary directed to win her senate seat
------------ --------- --------- ------
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Then, there's the Clintons...
PLEASE RATE THIS VIDEO : )
The Roughcut Trailer for - Hillary! Uncensored - the Documentary.
This is the video that's been buzzing around the blogs for the past few months, becoming one of the most viewed on Google Video. It shows the Peter Paul side of the issue, which involves allegations that Hillary Clinton has committed numerous federal election law violations, has lied about them to cover them up, all culminating in what might be felonious conduct on her part. Paul makes a strong case here. Will the media continue to do its best to bury what might be the largest election fraud in US history? Stay tuned...
This is the most shocking expose on the blatant corruption surrounding Hillary Clinton. Includes exclusive home videos of Hillary to expose the illegalities that elected Hillary to the Senate and the obstructions of justice that keep her there. The full documentary, at (www.hillcap. org) and (www.peterfpaul. com) will be released on November 1, 2007 by Equal Justice Foundation of America - CONTRIBUTE TO EJFA, NON-PROFIT WHISTLEBLOWER FOUNDATION - https://www. registrationfact ory.com/v3/ ?EventUUID= 2A54FEC2 .
TO ADVERTISE AND PUBLICIZE the ONLY documentary that dares to expose the evidence of Hillary's misconduct to the American people - Banned by the Mainstream Media!
Equal Justice Foundation of America
www.hillcap. org
.
Last edited by TEN : 05-22-2008 at 03:12 PM.
Re: Hillary: Uncensored
The evidence of her true identity mounts and the Clintons have a filthy following...
The evidence of her true identity mounts and the Clintons have a filthy following...
Dems Compromise on Florida & Michigan; Angers Hillary
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews">link</A>
</IFRAME>
Happy muckraker10021? You thought you were pissing on the Clintons. Now your type has fucked all of us!
source: Mother Jones
The Man Who Took Down Campaign Finance Reform
The conservative lawyer behind the Supreme Court case that will flood elections with corporate cash.
Thu Jan. 21, 2010 9:42 AM PST
Thursday's Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate spending in elections marks the latest in a remarkable string of victories for a Republican lawyer in Terre Haute, Indiana. James Bopp Jr. did not argue Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission before the high court, but the case was entirely his brainchild.
Bopp, the longtime counsel to the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, has now almost singlehandedly obliterated many of the nation's relatively modest restrictions on corporate election spending, including the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. And he's done it all in the name of the First Amendment. In 2007, Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to eliminate limits on corporate funding of television ads in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, arguing that the rules were an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. A few months later, he represented Citizens United in its battle with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over its efforts to air a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton on television during the election season—the case that led to Thursday’s major Supreme Court decision.
As with so many of Bopp's cases, few people took the Citizens United challenge seriously in the beginning. During one hearing in early 2008, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth actually laughed at Bopp for comparing the Citizens United film—which portrayed Hillary Clinton as a European Socialist—to investigative news shows like 60 Minutes. Since then, judges, good government groups and various other political actors have learned that Bopp is not to be laughed at. After the Supreme Court decided to take the case, Citizens United hired renowned high court litigator Ted Olson to handle the oral arguments, but the case bears all the trademarks of Bopp’s handiwork.
Bopp has a knack for finding provisions in campaign finance laws that have been taken for granted for decades as acceptable restrictions on corporate speech. Then, he makes ACLU-like arguments that such rules violate the First Amendment. Part of Bopp's genius lies in his choice of clients. Although his cases ultimately benefit powerful corporations, their public faces are usually small advocacy groups like Wisconsin Right to Life or Citizens United that are seeking to participate in political debate. Perhaps most impressive, he crafts cases that appear persuasive to people who do not share his agenda (he is a staunch conservative and member of the Republican National Committee). As a journalist and civil libertarian, I was deeply conflicted about the Citizens United case. After viewing the Hillary documentary, I thought Americans ought to be able to watch it on television if they wanted to, and was sympathetic to Bopp's argument that the campaign finance rules in this case resulted in censorship. Clearly the Supreme Court was, too.
Not content with blasting 100 years of campaign-finance precedent out of the water, Bopp is taking aim at other established principles of American election law. His firm is currently representing anti-gay marriage forces in Washington State, California and Maine, where he has filed lawsuits challenging basic transparency provisions in those states' election laws. In October, Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision allowing the disclosure of the names of people who signed petitions to put an anti-gay marriage measure on the Washington State ballot. In California, Bopp has sued state elections officials in an attempt to have state donor disclosure rules deemed unconstitutional. Bopp has argued that laws requiring donor names to be made public subjected supporters of Proposition 8—which struck down gay marriage in the state—to harassment that violated their free speech rights. That case is still pending.
Bopp's firm has filed a similar suit in Maine, where the state's ethics and election commission is investigating the National Organization for Marriage for failing to register as a political committee and reveal its donors during its work on a ballot initiative that outlawed gay marriage in that state. As he did in California, Bopp has argued that the disclosure law is unconstitutional. A federal judge disagreed and ordered the National Organization for Marriage to reveal its donors, but Bopp's firm is fighting the decision. That case is likely to also end up before the Supreme Court in the not-so-distant future. As with Citizens United, it's hard to imagine that such a core provision of election law—in this case donor disclosure—could be struck down. But good government groups and campaign finance watchdogs would do well not to underestimate Bopp's power of persuasion.
source: Mother Jones
The Man Who Took Down Campaign Finance Reform
The conservative lawyer behind the Supreme Court case that will flood elections with corporate cash.
Thu Jan. 21, 2010 9:42 AM PST
Thursday's Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate spending in elections marks the latest in a remarkable string of victories for a Republican lawyer in Terre Haute, Indiana. James Bopp Jr. did not argue Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission before the high court, but the case was entirely his brainchild.
Bopp, the longtime counsel to the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, has now almost singlehandedly obliterated many of the nation's relatively modest restrictions on corporate election spending, including the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. And he's done it all in the name of the First Amendment. In 2007, Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to eliminate limits on corporate funding of television ads in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, arguing that the rules were an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. A few months later, he represented Citizens United in its battle with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over its efforts to air a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton on television during the election season—the case that led to Thursday’s major Supreme Court decision.
As with so many of Bopp's cases, few people took the Citizens United challenge seriously in the beginning. During one hearing in early 2008, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth actually laughed at Bopp for comparing the Citizens United film—which portrayed Hillary Clinton as a European Socialist—to investigative news shows like 60 Minutes. Since then, judges, good government groups and various other political actors have learned that Bopp is not to be laughed at. After the Supreme Court decided to take the case, Citizens United hired renowned high court litigator Ted Olson to handle the oral arguments, but the case bears all the trademarks of Bopp’s handiwork.
Bopp has a knack for finding provisions in campaign finance laws that have been taken for granted for decades as acceptable restrictions on corporate speech. Then, he makes ACLU-like arguments that such rules violate the First Amendment. Part of Bopp's genius lies in his choice of clients. Although his cases ultimately benefit powerful corporations, their public faces are usually small advocacy groups like Wisconsin Right to Life or Citizens United that are seeking to participate in political debate. Perhaps most impressive, he crafts cases that appear persuasive to people who do not share his agenda (he is a staunch conservative and member of the Republican National Committee). As a journalist and civil libertarian, I was deeply conflicted about the Citizens United case. After viewing the Hillary documentary, I thought Americans ought to be able to watch it on television if they wanted to, and was sympathetic to Bopp's argument that the campaign finance rules in this case resulted in censorship. Clearly the Supreme Court was, too.
Not content with blasting 100 years of campaign-finance precedent out of the water, Bopp is taking aim at other established principles of American election law. His firm is currently representing anti-gay marriage forces in Washington State, California and Maine, where he has filed lawsuits challenging basic transparency provisions in those states' election laws. In October, Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision allowing the disclosure of the names of people who signed petitions to put an anti-gay marriage measure on the Washington State ballot. In California, Bopp has sued state elections officials in an attempt to have state donor disclosure rules deemed unconstitutional. Bopp has argued that laws requiring donor names to be made public subjected supporters of Proposition 8—which struck down gay marriage in the state—to harassment that violated their free speech rights. That case is still pending.
Bopp's firm has filed a similar suit in Maine, where the state's ethics and election commission is investigating the National Organization for Marriage for failing to register as a political committee and reveal its donors during its work on a ballot initiative that outlawed gay marriage in that state. As he did in California, Bopp has argued that the disclosure law is unconstitutional. A federal judge disagreed and ordered the National Organization for Marriage to reveal its donors, but Bopp's firm is fighting the decision. That case is likely to also end up before the Supreme Court in the not-so-distant future. As with Citizens United, it's hard to imagine that such a core provision of election law—in this case donor disclosure—could be struck down. But good government groups and campaign finance watchdogs would do well not to underestimate Bopp's power of persuasion.
US Is The Mother In Law Of Pakistan
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Laughs At The "Mother In Law " Comment .
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Laughs At The "Mother In Law " Comment .
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/331X1_mDTcA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Translation:
She did not want a government issued device, because it does have backdoors placed on it to monitor and track her location. Since she did not want to use this government issued device, she was forced to use this offsite server for her communications.
She also wanted to protect herself from any vendettas that President Obama may have had over the campaign. Many political opponents are gotten rid of through assassination plots or spurious prosecution. She has been a vocal opponent of many of his policies.
Translation:
She did not want a government issued device, because it does have backdoors placed on it to monitor and track her location. Since she did not want to use this government issued device, she was forced to use this offsite server for her communications.
She also wanted to protect herself from any vendettas that President Obama may have had over the campaign. Many political opponents are gotten rid of through assassination plots or spurious prosecution. She has been a vocal opponent of many of his policies.
Last edited:
Wayne LaPierre’s grotesque warning:
Hillary Clinton ‘will bring a permanent
darkness of deceit and despair’
National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre railed against the possibility of Hillary Clinton becoming president during his remarks at the group’s annual leadership forum in Nashville on Friday, Right Wing Watch reported.
“She will not bring a new dawn of promise and new opportunity,” LaPierre argued. “Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair, forced upon the American people to endure.”
The former secretary of state is expected to formally announce her entry into the presidential race on Sunday, but LaPierre argued that she was unfit for office because she was tainted by controversy.
LaPierre also played up the fact that the NRA event had drawn several possible Republican contenders, saying the upcoming primary season would ensure that the GOP would field its best candidate.
“I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we’ve got,” he argued. “And in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
LaPierre’s remarks, as posted online, can be seen in their entirety below.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/...g-a-permanent-darkness-of-deceit-and-despair/
“She will not bring a new dawn of promise and new opportunity,” LaPierre argued. “Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair, forced upon the American people to endure.”
The former secretary of state is expected to formally announce her entry into the presidential race on Sunday, but LaPierre argued that she was unfit for office because she was tainted by controversy.
“‘Whitewater-gate,’ ‘Cattle-gate,’ ‘Jenifer Flowers-gate,’ ‘Nanny-gate,’ ‘Lincoln bedroom-gate,’ ‘Travel-gate,’ ‘Trooper-gate,’ ‘File-gate,’ ‘Paula Jones-gate,’ ‘Vince Foster-gate’, ‘Helicopter-gate,’ ‘White House Coffee-gate,’ ‘Web Hubbell Hush Money-gate,’ ‘Pardon-gate,’ ‘Illegal Gift-Gate,’ ‘Monica-gate,’ ‘Benghazi-gate,’ ‘Email-gate,’ ‘Wiped Server-gate,’” he said.
“Hillary Clinton has more ‘gates’ than a South Texas cattle ranch, and Americans know it.”
“Hillary Clinton has more ‘gates’ than a South Texas cattle ranch, and Americans know it.”
LaPierre also played up the fact that the NRA event had drawn several possible Republican contenders, saying the upcoming primary season would ensure that the GOP would field its best candidate.
“I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we’ve got,” he argued. “And in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
LaPierre’s remarks, as posted online, can be seen in their entirety below.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SU-s95v01yU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/...g-a-permanent-darkness-of-deceit-and-despair/
Can Hillary Clinton generate enthusiasm among black voters?
Can Hillary Clinton generate enthusiasm among black voters?
African-American voters came out in historic numbers for Barack Obama and some analysts have posited that Clinton may not attract the same enthusiasm from the critical voting bloc.
By Francine Kiefer
July 14, 2015 10:04 AM
Hillary Clinton returns to her stomping grounds on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, meeting with House and Senate Democrats, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus – an early sign of outreach to a critical voter group for the presidential candidate.
One challenge for Mrs. Clinton is that it will be tough to repeat the historic turnout among African-Americans that flocked to Barack Obama, and that could make all the difference in a close general election. (It’s not an issue for the primaries. Even her closest rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, admits he’s not well known in the black community).
“The question is the degree to which she can really generate enthusiasm among African-Americans,” says David Bositis, a political analyst who wrote a book on the Congressional Black Caucus.
What Clinton may not be able to generate through enthusiasm, however, she’s trying to make up for through sheer hard work – outreach, mobilization, messaging.
“African-American turnout is an issue, and it’s very smart to start early,” says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake in an e-mail.
African-Americans may vote in fewer numbers in 2016 not only because Mr. Obama is no longer on the ballot, but because new black voters, especially, have become frustrated, analysts say. Their high hopes have been dashed by high unemployment and racial violence in places such as Baltimore, Md., and Charleston, S.C.
Other issues may come into play, such as insensitive remarks by the Clintons in the 2008 presidential campaign about then-candidate Obama and President Clinton’s tough-on-crime policies that have been widely criticized as having contributed to high incarceration rates for blacks. African-American votes for Obama overpowered Hillary Clinton in the southern states during their 2008 contest.
Clinton has tried to counter that with speeches on voting rights and criminal justice reform, by bringing African-Americans into top posts in her campaign, reaching out to key figures such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, and building black support in early states – for instance meeting local NAACP members in Iowa.
Her Monday economic speech on the middle class and income inequality, in which she praised Obama for his policies but said the nation had to go further on issues such as wages and pay inequality for women – particularly women of color – speaks to African-American concerns, analysts say.
“Clinton is making the effort to reach out to the Democratic Party's most loyal voting bloc because she doesn't want to take their vote for granted – a charge that is often levied against Democrats,” writes Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, in an e-mail.
Some analysts don’t think the challenge for Clinton with black voters is as great as it’s made out to be. Yes, African-Americans may have been frustrated with joblessness under the Obama administration, but their turnout in 2012 was about the same as in 2008, points out Cornell Belcher, a former Obama pollster.
“I heard all this talk about the African-Americans disappointed with Obama in 2012,” says Mr. Belcher. “You hear that from the chattering classes.”
Black approval of Obama has remained high throughout his presidency, and African-Americans have benefited from policies such as the Affordable Care Act and the auto industry bailout. This week, the president commuted the sentences of 46 nonviolent federal drug offenders in an effort to make the criminal justice system fairer.
Clinton is smart to build on Obama’s legacy, Belcher says.
The marks against the Clintons from the 2008 campaign and earlier are also not indelible, according to pollsters.
“Water under the bridge,” comments Mr. Bositis, while Ms. Lake says the Clintons are still “very popular” with African-American voters. Those voters believe the economy was much better for them under the Clinton presidency and they think “it’s great” that Hillary Clinton worked for Obama as secretary of State even after a hard-fought battle.
Meanwhile, Clinton may actually have an edge among African-American voters because 60 percent of that electorate is female.
“The Hillary campaign has some challenges. Yes, you want to see enthusiasm. But the minority electorate is determined not to turn the clock back,” says pollster Belcher. “I like determination over enthusiasm.”
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-generate-enthusiasm-among-black-voters-140443143.html
Can Hillary Clinton generate enthusiasm among black voters?
African-American voters came out in historic numbers for Barack Obama and some analysts have posited that Clinton may not attract the same enthusiasm from the critical voting bloc.
By Francine Kiefer
July 14, 2015 10:04 AM
Hillary Clinton returns to her stomping grounds on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, meeting with House and Senate Democrats, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus – an early sign of outreach to a critical voter group for the presidential candidate.
One challenge for Mrs. Clinton is that it will be tough to repeat the historic turnout among African-Americans that flocked to Barack Obama, and that could make all the difference in a close general election. (It’s not an issue for the primaries. Even her closest rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, admits he’s not well known in the black community).
“The question is the degree to which she can really generate enthusiasm among African-Americans,” says David Bositis, a political analyst who wrote a book on the Congressional Black Caucus.
What Clinton may not be able to generate through enthusiasm, however, she’s trying to make up for through sheer hard work – outreach, mobilization, messaging.
“African-American turnout is an issue, and it’s very smart to start early,” says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake in an e-mail.
African-Americans may vote in fewer numbers in 2016 not only because Mr. Obama is no longer on the ballot, but because new black voters, especially, have become frustrated, analysts say. Their high hopes have been dashed by high unemployment and racial violence in places such as Baltimore, Md., and Charleston, S.C.
Other issues may come into play, such as insensitive remarks by the Clintons in the 2008 presidential campaign about then-candidate Obama and President Clinton’s tough-on-crime policies that have been widely criticized as having contributed to high incarceration rates for blacks. African-American votes for Obama overpowered Hillary Clinton in the southern states during their 2008 contest.
Clinton has tried to counter that with speeches on voting rights and criminal justice reform, by bringing African-Americans into top posts in her campaign, reaching out to key figures such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, and building black support in early states – for instance meeting local NAACP members in Iowa.
Her Monday economic speech on the middle class and income inequality, in which she praised Obama for his policies but said the nation had to go further on issues such as wages and pay inequality for women – particularly women of color – speaks to African-American concerns, analysts say.
“Clinton is making the effort to reach out to the Democratic Party's most loyal voting bloc because she doesn't want to take their vote for granted – a charge that is often levied against Democrats,” writes Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, in an e-mail.
Some analysts don’t think the challenge for Clinton with black voters is as great as it’s made out to be. Yes, African-Americans may have been frustrated with joblessness under the Obama administration, but their turnout in 2012 was about the same as in 2008, points out Cornell Belcher, a former Obama pollster.
“I heard all this talk about the African-Americans disappointed with Obama in 2012,” says Mr. Belcher. “You hear that from the chattering classes.”
Black approval of Obama has remained high throughout his presidency, and African-Americans have benefited from policies such as the Affordable Care Act and the auto industry bailout. This week, the president commuted the sentences of 46 nonviolent federal drug offenders in an effort to make the criminal justice system fairer.
Clinton is smart to build on Obama’s legacy, Belcher says.
The marks against the Clintons from the 2008 campaign and earlier are also not indelible, according to pollsters.
“Water under the bridge,” comments Mr. Bositis, while Ms. Lake says the Clintons are still “very popular” with African-American voters. Those voters believe the economy was much better for them under the Clinton presidency and they think “it’s great” that Hillary Clinton worked for Obama as secretary of State even after a hard-fought battle.
Meanwhile, Clinton may actually have an edge among African-American voters because 60 percent of that electorate is female.
“The Hillary campaign has some challenges. Yes, you want to see enthusiasm. But the minority electorate is determined not to turn the clock back,” says pollster Belcher. “I like determination over enthusiasm.”
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-generate-enthusiasm-among-black-voters-140443143.html
Reminiscent of the Bill Clinton Era . . .
special counsel was called for and appointed to investigate - White Water
and ended up with the impeachment of Bill Clinton over a - White Woman
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas
calls for special counsel
ups ante in Clinton email inquiry
McClatchy Washington Bureau
By Greg Gordon and Marisa Taylor
September 15, 2015
WASHINGTON — In the first such call from a member of Congress, Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Tuesday asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to name an independent counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state.
“The attorney general has a special duty to pursue justice even when political considerations run counter to doing so,” Cornyn said in a letter to Lynch, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama.
A senior Republican senator, Charles Grassley of Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, came close to echoing Cornyn’s request.
The move by Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and as the Senate majority whip a member of the Republican leadership, opens a new avenue for Republicans to try and weaken Clinton’s presidential candidacy, this time by ratcheting up pressure on the Justice Department to criminally investigate her or appoint an independent prosecutor to do so.
The subject, however, is a touchy one amid the 2016 presidential race, and a number of other Republican senators declined to say Tuesday whether they would join Cornyn’s call.
Congressional Democrats have largely defended Clinton from a spate of inquiries on Capitol Hill.
Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the judiciary panel, said he did not see any “extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a special counsel,” and he called Cornyn’s request “nothing more than yet another political ploy.”
But in a statement, Cornyn insisted that Clinton’s “misconduct is evident.”
The FBI, on a referral from the inspector general for the intelligence community, has already spent weeks investigating whether national security was compromised by Clinton’s decision to conduct official business over a private email account between 2009 and 2013. Two intelligence agencies recently upheld an initial finding that two emails contained top secret information.
In March, shortly after it was disclosed that she used a private server, Clinton denied that she sent or received classified information over the server at her New York home. She said she set it up as a convenience to avoid carrying two hand-held devices, for official and personal use.
After the State Department and intelligence agencies began to classify portions of scores of her emails, she said that none of the information was marked as classified at the time it was transmitted.
Last week, Clinton apologized for her mistake.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article35368191.html#storylink=cpy
special counsel was called for and appointed to investigate - White Water
and ended up with the impeachment of Bill Clinton over a - White Woman
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas
calls for special counsel
ups ante in Clinton email inquiry
McClatchy Washington Bureau
By Greg Gordon and Marisa Taylor
September 15, 2015
WASHINGTON — In the first such call from a member of Congress, Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Tuesday asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to name an independent counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state.
“The attorney general has a special duty to pursue justice even when political considerations run counter to doing so,” Cornyn said in a letter to Lynch, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama.
A senior Republican senator, Charles Grassley of Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, came close to echoing Cornyn’s request.
“Chairman Grassley believes that the Justice Department should take whatever steps are necessary to reassure the public that the decisions about whether anyone is ultimately prosecuted in this matter are made solely on merits of the case, without regard to any political considerations,” said Beth Levine, a Judiciary Committee spokeswoman. “That includes . . . considering an independent counsel.”
The move by Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and as the Senate majority whip a member of the Republican leadership, opens a new avenue for Republicans to try and weaken Clinton’s presidential candidacy, this time by ratcheting up pressure on the Justice Department to criminally investigate her or appoint an independent prosecutor to do so.
The subject, however, is a touchy one amid the 2016 presidential race, and a number of other Republican senators declined to say Tuesday whether they would join Cornyn’s call.
Congressional Democrats have largely defended Clinton from a spate of inquiries on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said Tuesday that there’s been “no indication that Hillary Clinton is the target of a criminal investigation.”
Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the judiciary panel, said he did not see any “extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a special counsel,” and he called Cornyn’s request “nothing more than yet another political ploy.”
But in a statement, Cornyn insisted that Clinton’s “misconduct is evident.”
The FBI, on a referral from the inspector general for the intelligence community, has already spent weeks investigating whether national security was compromised by Clinton’s decision to conduct official business over a private email account between 2009 and 2013. Two intelligence agencies recently upheld an initial finding that two emails contained top secret information.
In March, shortly after it was disclosed that she used a private server, Clinton denied that she sent or received classified information over the server at her New York home. She said she set it up as a convenience to avoid carrying two hand-held devices, for official and personal use.
After the State Department and intelligence agencies began to classify portions of scores of her emails, she said that none of the information was marked as classified at the time it was transmitted.
Last week, Clinton apologized for her mistake.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article35368191.html#storylink=cpy
This is what it's all about. This is why, despite not voting, I still pay attention to politics. This moment when the Clinton's blame everyone but themselves like we knew they would.
The right wing conspiracy theory and the media. I hope Bill and Hillary never stop being sociopaths.
Bill Clinton Blames G.O.P. and Press for Wife’s Email Woes
Hillary Clinton: 'Another conspiracy theory
The right wing conspiracy theory and the media. I hope Bill and Hillary never stop being sociopaths.
Bill Clinton Blames G.O.P. and Press for Wife’s Email Woes
Hillary Clinton: 'Another conspiracy theory
Could Unelected Superdelegates Give Clinton the Nomination
Even If Sanders Wins the Primaries?
With Bernie Sanders’ double-digit victory over Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary and near tie with her in last week’s Iowa caucuses, it would seem that the race for the Democratic nomination would be neck and neck. But that is not the case. In New Hampshire, Sanders trounced Clinton 60 to 38 percent—but they split the delegates evenly thanks to unelected superdelegates siding with the former secretary of state. Overall, Clinton sits far ahead of Sanders when you factor in these superdelegates—the congressmen, senators, governors and other elected officials who often represent the Democratic Party elite. We speak to Duke professor David Rohde and Matt Karp, assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at JacobinMag.com.
.
Even If Sanders Wins the Primaries?
With Bernie Sanders’ double-digit victory over Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary and near tie with her in last week’s Iowa caucuses, it would seem that the race for the Democratic nomination would be neck and neck. But that is not the case. In New Hampshire, Sanders trounced Clinton 60 to 38 percent—but they split the delegates evenly thanks to unelected superdelegates siding with the former secretary of state. Overall, Clinton sits far ahead of Sanders when you factor in these superdelegates—the congressmen, senators, governors and other elected officials who often represent the Democratic Party elite. We speak to Duke professor David Rohde and Matt Karp, assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at JacobinMag.com.
Code:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/11/could_unelected_superdelegates_give_clinton_the.
