Why are the Clinton's so secretive?
Hillary has been asked to release their tax returns multiple times during the campaign. In the last debate, she said she was "busy". OK -- I can buy that argument for the 2007 taxes. But all the prior years had already been filed. I'm sure that she could easily produce finished documents in no time. It isn't like she is the ONLY person running her campaign.
So why are the Clintons so secretive with their money? The facts are going to come out eventually, aren't they? Or are they planning to hide their money forever?
If there is nothing there, why are they putting themselves through the press hell for no reason? Why didn't she just release the tax statements 6-7 months ago and be done with it?
Maybe there is nothing, but then we look at the secrecy behind the Clinton Foundation donations, and the White House documents related to Hillary. There are lots of excuses, but ultimately, there is a complete lack of disclosure.
Recently, Obama disclosed all the earmarks he sponsored, take a couple lumps for it in the process. Hillary again refuses to disclose.
This secrecy seems to run deep within Hillary's blood. Even her famous "health care plan" was done behind closed doors, one of the reasons behind its failure.
The Clintons seem to have a lot to hide. We put up with that in the 1990s, but we're in a new world now. Obama's full disclosure is refreshing and really speaks to a new way of looking at our politicians.
So why are the Clintons being so secretive? Why are they hiding important information from their constituents? Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Update: Apparently Hillary is releasing the White House documents -- finally. Took you long enough.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bill Clinton is also a victim
This weekend, Bill Clinton joined in with Hillary and Ms. Ferraro in declaring themselves victims in this campaign. But I'm only going to talk about Bill Clinton here.
Bill Clinton says his comments were twisted. Here is a the YouTube video of his answer.
So in answer to the question "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?", he said "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign. He's run a good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with good organization."
So, what was the reason for even brining up Jesse Jackson? His answer would have been right on target without the mention of Jesse Jackson. But Bill Clinton wanted to link the two together.
It's all spin now that he meant it as a compliment of some sort, but the truth is he was trying to link the two together, to say the Obama is like Jesse Jackson and will quickly fade like him, that a black candidate isn't a viable choice.
Now, Bill Clinton claims *he* is the victim of Obama using the race card. Sorry, but the facts just don't seem to hold here. Obama goes out of his way to avoid the race issue. He has not called any of the statements made against him as racist.
I can't decide if Bill Clinton is subconsciously wrecking his wife's run or if he's just a shrewd politician who believes that playing the victim will bring him and her campaign sympathy.
Either way, it's important to look at how the candidates behave during the campaign. Look at how the Clinton campaign has handled the ups and downs of the campaign. Then look at the Obama campaign and compare. These are glimpses into their future administrations.
If Clinton were somehow elected, expect to see a lot of playing the victim of the conspiracy of the press, of the right wing, of anyone who disagrees with them.
Come to think of it, that's how King George thinks.
Bill Clinton says his comments were twisted. Here is a the YouTube video of his answer.
So in answer to the question "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?", he said "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign. He's run a good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with good organization."
So, what was the reason for even brining up Jesse Jackson? His answer would have been right on target without the mention of Jesse Jackson. But Bill Clinton wanted to link the two together.
It's all spin now that he meant it as a compliment of some sort, but the truth is he was trying to link the two together, to say the Obama is like Jesse Jackson and will quickly fade like him, that a black candidate isn't a viable choice.
Now, Bill Clinton claims *he* is the victim of Obama using the race card. Sorry, but the facts just don't seem to hold here. Obama goes out of his way to avoid the race issue. He has not called any of the statements made against him as racist.
I can't decide if Bill Clinton is subconsciously wrecking his wife's run or if he's just a shrewd politician who believes that playing the victim will bring him and her campaign sympathy.
Either way, it's important to look at how the candidates behave during the campaign. Look at how the Clinton campaign has handled the ups and downs of the campaign. Then look at the Obama campaign and compare. These are glimpses into their future administrations.
If Clinton were somehow elected, expect to see a lot of playing the victim of the conspiracy of the press, of the right wing, of anyone who disagrees with them.
Come to think of it, that's how King George thinks.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Hillary's Scorched Earth Policy
Hillary seems hell bent on win at all costs, even if it means feeding the Republican opposition quotes for the general election.
It sure seems that Hillary is using a Scorched Earth Policy with this election. If she can't be the nominee, then she's determined to make sure that the Democrats don't win this fall.
Her attacks on Barack Obama follow that. Her comment that McCain has experience, she has experience, he has a speech is meant to insure that if Obama is the nominee, her quotes will be used in the general election.
A quick fact check: All three candidates are Senators and have not held an executive elected position. So technically, no one is more prepared than the other in terms of dealing with the Presidency.
Someone suggested that we might look at their campaigns (which are very large organizations spread across the states) to see their leadership skills in action. If that's the case, then I think Obama wins hands down. His campaign is more organized than either Hillary's or McCain's. Obama knew that Super Tuesday was not the end and prepared for it. Hillary was shocked come Wednesday. Obama looked at the rules and played by them -- collect the delegates. Hillary looked at the rules and said "this is where I want change."
It seems she would rather destroy the Democratic party and hand the keys over to McCain to continue the Bush policies than to concede to Obama. She says she's a fighter, but the real problem is she wants to play dirty. Welcome back to the 1990s where politics are dirty and partisan.
Oh wait, that's what we're trying to get past. The press needs to start calling her on these dirty tactics. I don't mind a clean, fair fight -- but Hillary isn't going to play that way. She wants to win at all costs, everyone else be damned in the process.
It sure seems that Hillary is using a Scorched Earth Policy with this election. If she can't be the nominee, then she's determined to make sure that the Democrats don't win this fall.
Her attacks on Barack Obama follow that. Her comment that McCain has experience, she has experience, he has a speech is meant to insure that if Obama is the nominee, her quotes will be used in the general election.
A quick fact check: All three candidates are Senators and have not held an executive elected position. So technically, no one is more prepared than the other in terms of dealing with the Presidency.
Someone suggested that we might look at their campaigns (which are very large organizations spread across the states) to see their leadership skills in action. If that's the case, then I think Obama wins hands down. His campaign is more organized than either Hillary's or McCain's. Obama knew that Super Tuesday was not the end and prepared for it. Hillary was shocked come Wednesday. Obama looked at the rules and played by them -- collect the delegates. Hillary looked at the rules and said "this is where I want change."
It seems she would rather destroy the Democratic party and hand the keys over to McCain to continue the Bush policies than to concede to Obama. She says she's a fighter, but the real problem is she wants to play dirty. Welcome back to the 1990s where politics are dirty and partisan.
Oh wait, that's what we're trying to get past. The press needs to start calling her on these dirty tactics. I don't mind a clean, fair fight -- but Hillary isn't going to play that way. She wants to win at all costs, everyone else be damned in the process.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Waterboarding
Dear Mr. Bush,
Thank you for finally standing up for torture. Torture gets such a bad reputation, what with its cruel and unusual punishment nature. Sure, we executed Japanese after World War II for waterboarding our soldiers, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to commit the same acts.
Most people would just say no to torture, but you stood up and proudly proclaimed; I am the President and I will condone torture. Of course, it might completely undercut any moral standing you want to have in the world, but screw them. Screw the world and their morals and values. We have some torturing to do.
No, we need to stand up for the right to torture, no matter what. Because what kind of nation would we be if we just lived by a higher moral code. I'm mean do we really want to imitate Roosevelt as he stood up to the torturing Hitler? Oh.. never mind.
A concerned citizen.
I know these things sometimes go over your head, this was sarcasm. Mr. Bush, you have effectively given the terrorists another victory as we continue our retreat from freedom and our moral code for what is called "safety". Too bad you weren't paying real good attention when you swore to protect the Constitution -- not once, but twice.
Thank you for finally standing up for torture. Torture gets such a bad reputation, what with its cruel and unusual punishment nature. Sure, we executed Japanese after World War II for waterboarding our soldiers, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to commit the same acts.
Most people would just say no to torture, but you stood up and proudly proclaimed; I am the President and I will condone torture. Of course, it might completely undercut any moral standing you want to have in the world, but screw them. Screw the world and their morals and values. We have some torturing to do.
No, we need to stand up for the right to torture, no matter what. Because what kind of nation would we be if we just lived by a higher moral code. I'm mean do we really want to imitate Roosevelt as he stood up to the torturing Hitler? Oh.. never mind.
A concerned citizen.
I know these things sometimes go over your head, this was sarcasm. Mr. Bush, you have effectively given the terrorists another victory as we continue our retreat from freedom and our moral code for what is called "safety". Too bad you weren't paying real good attention when you swore to protect the Constitution -- not once, but twice.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
From the President's February Press Conference
I wanted to quote the entire contents between point A and B.
Point A: The President seems shocked to hear that gasoline is quickly approaching $4 a gallon.
Point B: A mere three questions later, he says hasn't been focus on the fundraising for his library because his focus is elsewhere, like on gasoline prices.
It truly boggles the mind. Apparently he has been very focused on the gasoline prices, but just didn't realize it was fast approach $4 (unlike the rest of the country, which realizes it every time they go to fill up their gas tank). This man is so out of touch with reality, it is frightening.
Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?
Q A number of analysts are predicting --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?
Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.
THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.
Q Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it's high now.
Q And the other economic problems facing people. Beyond your concern that you stated here, and your expectations for these stimulus checks, what kind of hope can you offer to people who are in dire straits?
THE PRESIDENT: Permanent tax -- keep the tax cuts permanent, for starters. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. You just said that. You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon -- or some expert told you that -- and that creates a lot of uncertainty if you're out there wondering whether or not -- you know, what your life is going to be like and you're looking at $4 a gallon, that's uncertain. And when you couple with the idea that taxes may be going up in a couple of years, that's double uncertainty. And therefore one way to deal with uncertainty is for Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.
Secondly, it's -- people got to understand that our energy policy needs to be focused on a lot of things -- one, renewables, which is fine, which I strongly support, as you know; two, conservation. But we need to be finding more oil and gas at home if we're worried about becoming dependent on oil overseas. And this -- I view it as a transitory period to new technologies that will change the way we live, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. We're expanding refineries, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. I strongly suggested to the Congress that we build refineries on old military bases, but, no, it didn't pass. But if you've got less supply of something, as demand continues to stay steady or grow, your price is going to go up.
Secondly, on oil, we -- the more oil we find at home, the better off we're going to be in terms of the short-run. And yet our policy is, you know, let us not explore robustly in places like ANWR. And there are environmental concerns, and I understand that. I also know there's technologies that should mitigate these environmental concerns. They got a bill up there in Congress now. Their attitude is, let's tax oil companies. Well, all that's going to do is make the price even higher. We ought to be encouraging investment in oil and gas close to home if we're trying to mitigate the problems we face right now.
And so, yes, there's a lot of uncertainty, and I'm concerned about the uncertainty. Hopefully this pro-growth package will help -- this, one hundred -- I think it's $147 billion that will be going out the door, starting electronically in the first week of May, and through check in the second week of May. And the idea is to help our consumers deal with the uncertainty you're talking about. But, yes, no question about it, it's a difficult period.
Yes, Ken.
Q Thank you, sir. Now that you've found a location for your presidential library, you've got to find the money to build it. Reports indicate that you may be trying to collect as much as $200 million. Is that figure accurate? Do you believe it's important for the American people to know who is giving that kind of money to their President? Will you disclose the contributions as they come in? And will you place any restriction on who gives money and how much they can give?
THE PRESIDENT: No, yes, no, yes. (Laughter.) Next question. (Laughter.) I haven't -- phew, man. You obviously haven't asked a question in a long time. It was like, you know, -- one, I haven't seen the final budget. Two, as Donnie Evans said, who is the chairman of the foundation, we'll look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision. You know, here's -- there's a lot of people -- or some people; I shouldn't say "a lot" -- some people who like to give and don't particularly want their names disclosed, whether it be for this foundation or any other foundation. And so we'll take that into consideration.
Thirdly -- and what was the other?
Q Any restrictions on who can give? Will you take foreign money for this?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'll probably take some foreign money, but don't know yet, Ken. We just haven't -- we just announced the deal and I, frankly, have been focused elsewhere, like on gasoline prices and, you know, my trip to Africa, and haven't seen the fundraising strategy yet. So the answer to your question, really, I can't answer your question well.
I wanted to quote the entire contents between point A and B.
Point A: The President seems shocked to hear that gasoline is quickly approaching $4 a gallon.
Point B: A mere three questions later, he says hasn't been focus on the fundraising for his library because his focus is elsewhere, like on gasoline prices.
It truly boggles the mind. Apparently he has been very focused on the gasoline prices, but just didn't realize it was fast approach $4 (unlike the rest of the country, which realizes it every time they go to fill up their gas tank). This man is so out of touch with reality, it is frightening.
Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?
Q A number of analysts are predicting --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?
Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.
THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.
Q Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it's high now.
Q And the other economic problems facing people. Beyond your concern that you stated here, and your expectations for these stimulus checks, what kind of hope can you offer to people who are in dire straits?
THE PRESIDENT: Permanent tax -- keep the tax cuts permanent, for starters. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. You just said that. You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon -- or some expert told you that -- and that creates a lot of uncertainty if you're out there wondering whether or not -- you know, what your life is going to be like and you're looking at $4 a gallon, that's uncertain. And when you couple with the idea that taxes may be going up in a couple of years, that's double uncertainty. And therefore one way to deal with uncertainty is for Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.
Secondly, it's -- people got to understand that our energy policy needs to be focused on a lot of things -- one, renewables, which is fine, which I strongly support, as you know; two, conservation. But we need to be finding more oil and gas at home if we're worried about becoming dependent on oil overseas. And this -- I view it as a transitory period to new technologies that will change the way we live, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. We're expanding refineries, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. I strongly suggested to the Congress that we build refineries on old military bases, but, no, it didn't pass. But if you've got less supply of something, as demand continues to stay steady or grow, your price is going to go up.
Secondly, on oil, we -- the more oil we find at home, the better off we're going to be in terms of the short-run. And yet our policy is, you know, let us not explore robustly in places like ANWR. And there are environmental concerns, and I understand that. I also know there's technologies that should mitigate these environmental concerns. They got a bill up there in Congress now. Their attitude is, let's tax oil companies. Well, all that's going to do is make the price even higher. We ought to be encouraging investment in oil and gas close to home if we're trying to mitigate the problems we face right now.
And so, yes, there's a lot of uncertainty, and I'm concerned about the uncertainty. Hopefully this pro-growth package will help -- this, one hundred -- I think it's $147 billion that will be going out the door, starting electronically in the first week of May, and through check in the second week of May. And the idea is to help our consumers deal with the uncertainty you're talking about. But, yes, no question about it, it's a difficult period.
Yes, Ken.
Q Thank you, sir. Now that you've found a location for your presidential library, you've got to find the money to build it. Reports indicate that you may be trying to collect as much as $200 million. Is that figure accurate? Do you believe it's important for the American people to know who is giving that kind of money to their President? Will you disclose the contributions as they come in? And will you place any restriction on who gives money and how much they can give?
THE PRESIDENT: No, yes, no, yes. (Laughter.) Next question. (Laughter.) I haven't -- phew, man. You obviously haven't asked a question in a long time. It was like, you know, -- one, I haven't seen the final budget. Two, as Donnie Evans said, who is the chairman of the foundation, we'll look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision. You know, here's -- there's a lot of people -- or some people; I shouldn't say "a lot" -- some people who like to give and don't particularly want their names disclosed, whether it be for this foundation or any other foundation. And so we'll take that into consideration.
Thirdly -- and what was the other?
Q Any restrictions on who can give? Will you take foreign money for this?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'll probably take some foreign money, but don't know yet, Ken. We just haven't -- we just announced the deal and I, frankly, have been focused elsewhere, like on gasoline prices and, you know, my trip to Africa, and haven't seen the fundraising strategy yet. So the answer to your question, really, I can't answer your question well.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
False Patriotism
Republicans have been feeding America a false sense of patriotism. By their definition, patriotism can only come from only symbolic gestures:
Stars and Stripes - several times, Orin Hatch has tried (unsuccessfully) to amend our Constitution to turn our flag into some sacred idol that cannot be touched. The true irony is that in doing so, he diminishes the very thing that the flag stands for.
The flag is not sacred, what it stands for is sacred. It is just a symbol. Do I want folks to burn the flag? No, but I would rather protect the right to burn the flag than have a government decide what I can and cannot say about them.
Flag Lapel Pin - Republicans are questioning the patriotism of Obama because he refuses to wear a flag lapel pin. Really? Republicans are not fashion cops. Does that mean our founding fathers and all the Presidents before were also not patriotic? After all, they didn't wear lapel pins of the flag. Should we require true patriots to wear armbands of the US flag? That way, we can tell who the real patriots are.
Cross your heart - the other attack by Republicans seems to be that if you don't put your hand over your heart when you say the pledge of allegiance, there must be something to it. Wow -- this just boggles the mind.
I'm not making this stuff up. They are really saying this stuff.
Yahoo News article
Do do really buy into this? Is your patriotism defined by the clothes you wear or objects you worship? If so, our nation is doomed.
The flag represents the freedoms of this country. Freedoms granted by our Constitution. The true power of those freedoms is that they allow you to burn the flag as an expression of that freedom. Yes, it pisses off most people -- but you still can do it. That's the true beauty behind the freedom it represents. Changing the Constitution to take that away misses what that Constitution is all about.
Lapel pins are not what makes you patriotic. You do not get a free pass in this department if you are happy to violate the values and principles of the Constitution while you wear your lapel pin. Mr. Bush wears his lapel pin as he orders warrantless spying on Americans, as he tortures people in our custody, as he suspends habeas corpus. I'm sorry -- I value the Constitution much more than some stupid pin.
These are all false gestures of patriotism. You are no more or less patriotic because you hold your hand over your heart. Cross your heart, hope to die, stick a needle in your eye -- yeah, sounds like something an 8-year old might say -- yet some are using this same thought process for determining who is and is not a patriot.
Stars and Stripes - several times, Orin Hatch has tried (unsuccessfully) to amend our Constitution to turn our flag into some sacred idol that cannot be touched. The true irony is that in doing so, he diminishes the very thing that the flag stands for.
The flag is not sacred, what it stands for is sacred. It is just a symbol. Do I want folks to burn the flag? No, but I would rather protect the right to burn the flag than have a government decide what I can and cannot say about them.
Flag Lapel Pin - Republicans are questioning the patriotism of Obama because he refuses to wear a flag lapel pin. Really? Republicans are not fashion cops. Does that mean our founding fathers and all the Presidents before were also not patriotic? After all, they didn't wear lapel pins of the flag. Should we require true patriots to wear armbands of the US flag? That way, we can tell who the real patriots are.
Cross your heart - the other attack by Republicans seems to be that if you don't put your hand over your heart when you say the pledge of allegiance, there must be something to it. Wow -- this just boggles the mind.
I'm not making this stuff up. They are really saying this stuff.
Yahoo News article
Do do really buy into this? Is your patriotism defined by the clothes you wear or objects you worship? If so, our nation is doomed.
The flag represents the freedoms of this country. Freedoms granted by our Constitution. The true power of those freedoms is that they allow you to burn the flag as an expression of that freedom. Yes, it pisses off most people -- but you still can do it. That's the true beauty behind the freedom it represents. Changing the Constitution to take that away misses what that Constitution is all about.
Lapel pins are not what makes you patriotic. You do not get a free pass in this department if you are happy to violate the values and principles of the Constitution while you wear your lapel pin. Mr. Bush wears his lapel pin as he orders warrantless spying on Americans, as he tortures people in our custody, as he suspends habeas corpus. I'm sorry -- I value the Constitution much more than some stupid pin.
These are all false gestures of patriotism. You are no more or less patriotic because you hold your hand over your heart. Cross your heart, hope to die, stick a needle in your eye -- yeah, sounds like something an 8-year old might say -- yet some are using this same thought process for determining who is and is not a patriot.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Promises Broken
In 1994, the Republicans were ready to take over Congress, they were ready to make right with all that the Democrats had done wrong. 10 years later, the Republican party has abandoned all of what it stood for and more.
- Smaller government. Under the control of the Republicans, we have the largest government growth in the history of this nation. There are no excuses. Republicans controlled both houses and the administration.
- Less intrusive. Remember how big government was bad (they still say this), but somehow we have the federal government getting into everything these days -- mostly under the guise of security.
- Fiscal Responsibility. As a member of the generation that is going get stuck with this bill, I am not just upset, but really pissed off at the out of control spending. Watching your countries debt double in 7 years time with nothing to show for it, outside of the few rich corporations that gladly held out their hand for corporate welfare.
Republicans have broken their trust with America. They prey on the fears of Americans to maintain their power and offer nothing substantial in return. It is time to fight back against this group that is focused more on hate, war, personal intrusion. They have done a disservice to this country and it is time to speak out.
- Smaller government. Under the control of the Republicans, we have the largest government growth in the history of this nation. There are no excuses. Republicans controlled both houses and the administration.
- Less intrusive. Remember how big government was bad (they still say this), but somehow we have the federal government getting into everything these days -- mostly under the guise of security.
- Fiscal Responsibility. As a member of the generation that is going get stuck with this bill, I am not just upset, but really pissed off at the out of control spending. Watching your countries debt double in 7 years time with nothing to show for it, outside of the few rich corporations that gladly held out their hand for corporate welfare.
Republicans have broken their trust with America. They prey on the fears of Americans to maintain their power and offer nothing substantial in return. It is time to fight back against this group that is focused more on hate, war, personal intrusion. They have done a disservice to this country and it is time to speak out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)