- ‹ previous
- 4175 of 8795
- next ›
Hypocrisy Alert: HRC Attacks Obama For Skirting Campaign Rules She Skirts
You know the one about Caesar's wife?
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has decried the dirty influence in Washington of lobbyists and their campaign contributions, suggesting that he--not Hillary Clinton--has the desire and ability to clean up Washington. After all, in the Senate, he did manage to pass an ethics and lobbying reform bill, and he has eschewed campaign contributions gathered ("bundled," in political parlance) by lobbyists. At the recent Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa, Obama proclaimed:
I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists -- and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President.
That was a not-too-subtle dig at Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is fueled and guided by lobbyists.
So now the HRCers are fighting back, using whatever they can to tarnish the reformer challenging the Establishment favorite. The Washington Post reported today that Obama has used his leadership political action fund, Hopefund, to make $180,000 in donations to Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the critical early states. Which means he has been exploiting the leadership PAC scam long embraced by pols on both sides of the aisle to bolster their presidential ambitions--and to duck various rules about political fundraising and spending. Politicians routinely use these PACs to dole out contributions to present and future supporters, to underwrite their own political activity, and to keep aides on the payroll between elections. In fact, Hillary Clinton's leadership PAC, HillPAC, has been one of the biggest of these operations.
Still, that didn't stop Clinton--trailing Obama by 4 points in the most recent Iowa poll--from accusing Obama of misusing his leadership PAC. Responding to The Washington Post article, the Clinton campaign zapped out a statement this afternoon:
The Obama campaign's failure to deny that it committed campaign finance violations speaks volumes. Instead of launching irrelevant attacks, Senator Obama should answer a simple question: Did Obama campaign officials direct the Hopefund to make contributions to officials and entities in states holding nominating contests? If the answer is no, they should just be direct and say so.
The Post article did not state that Obama had broken any campaign laws, but critics of leadership PAC have argued (quite justifiably) that leadership PACs are designed to permit candidates to skirt campaign contribution and donation limits and that the Federal Elections Committee ought to rein them in.
Then does the Clinton campaign have a point about Obama? If so, it should direct the same questions toward itself. As the Post reported last year, HRC's HillPAC has operated in the exactly the same manner as Obama's Hopefund:
Clinton has used HILLPAC to spread money around the country -- $90,000 to Senate candidates, $30,000 to House candidates, $24,000 to gubernatorial candidates, $45,000 to national party committees and $30,000 to state party committee. As you would expect, HILLPAC made donations to candidates and parties in the key early presidential states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
So instead of Caesar's wife, perhaps the Clintonites ought to be thinking about glass houses. Then again, in politics, when you're down in the polls, you throw stones, no matter where you reside.
Who are these Clinton supporters anyhow? Are they just uninformed, or are a small number of political insiders cooking the books on these polls showing her in the lead?
America cannot be that stupid -- still -- after the last two debacles.
Oh -- never mind.
I support Senator Clinton. She will be the nominee and the 44th President of the US. And I hope you just blew any chance of futher access to her. You idiot. Obama is as callous and nasty as they come. And he is unelectabel to boot. So you Hillary Haters have your fun while you can because it will be short lived.
I just love that "electable" argument!
It was an argument that worked wonders when the Democratic party elite wanted to see Gore run rather than Bradley, and when the Democratic party elite wanted Kerry over six other contenders.
Never Mind who YOU think is the Best Candidate!
Who do the party's leaders tell us is Most Electable?!?!
Voters making decisions like that Deserve to Lose!
Senator Clinton behaves like a prostitute when she takes campaign contributions from the big corporations.
You are wrong Judith. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.
Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.
Joyce, please... talking about Hillary that way just hurts the argument of everyone who opposes her. (besides, everybody knows she's a man)
This is mudslinging of the worst kind. It is attempting to eliminate an entire issue and line of attack against the Republicans during the General. We want to be able to confront them on corruption... if Hillary shows "hey, we're ALL corrupt!" then we're never going to beat the Republicans and we're never going to have change in the White House.
And also, mind posting a list of which candidates have had PACs?
I know that Ron Paul founded at least two...
Zogby is only one of many recent polls. The rest disagree. Checked the betting odds lately? They're usually more accurate than the polls because money is directly involved-- just like politics. Chill out. We've a long way to go before this thing's over. The bottom line is that they're all politicians, so don't go looking for saints anywhere in the package. Personally, I'm going to vote for the candidate who plays the cleverest game, because that is exactly what the the job of president requires.
We're not totally free. We're not even as free as the law of the land (that would be the Constitution, regarded by many as merely the National Suggestion) dictates we ought to be. For some perspective, though -- the insistence that we're on the verge of being slaves, that freedom in this country is in jeopardy or already gone, has been with us from the word go. Samuel Adams bitterly opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its adoption would destroy freedom as he defined it. I believe Thomas Paine did, also, though on this point I'm not positive and I'll happily accept valid correction. A certain degree of strong central government is necessary, and will, also of necessity, make impositions on personal freedom. The stance some take -- "I, and not the government, will decide what I will or will not give to the common good" -- was the law of the land during the Revolution and up to the adoption of the Constitution, and was nearly the death of this nation before it had really even come into being. Seems that individuals and states/colonies being left to decide what they will or will not give -- don't.
None of which justifies clear violations of the Constitution, or actions by our government which seem to serve little purpose but to attempt to change the rules as to who's actually in charge in this country. Like I said, just some historical perspective on what looks to be an unending debate.
The majority of the stench that surrounds America today is the brains of the average citizen..rotting.
The roses you smell is cheap perfume..spread by Elites..smiling as they rape you.
Just keep right on voting in scum like the 4-5 front runners..globalists all.
Keep right on supporting those that have sold America out..and are spilling American blood in the sand..while barbarians take your daughters and bleed you dry from 'public services' that your elected officials hand them free of charge.
Then weep the tears of despair when your country falls.America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one nation...is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course.
I'm not defending Clinton's hypocrisy, but it's worth pointing out that Clinton and Obama shouldn't be held to the same standard when it comes to fundraising.
Obama campaigns on ethical standards that surpass other politicians', and on fundraising practices that are supposedly more pure than the others. Clinton makes no such pretensions. When Obama doesn't live up to the standards that he constantly touts, it is more damaging, and more of a betrayal.
Pot kettle kettle pot black. Thanks for keeping track David. Fact-checking at its finest.
You night riders, you know who you are, you just don't like Obama because he is a Black man. You are afraid of the Black man's sexuality. You may not realize that this is your fear, but go to thearapy and it will come out.
Frontrunner HRC - The Howard Dean of 2008.
Hillary is my girl! She is brilliant. ( listen to her speeches)--awesome- what more do you dems want? She does not deserve to be trash talked by Dems!.... She brings Pres. WJC w/ her.
She is a great democrat...She is the life of the party...I love hearing her speak...very intelligent--She is not PERFECT- She is well respected across the planet as is WJC...we need that also.
Hillary is most qualified and most electable.
Democrats are leading repugs. 2 to 1 in fund raising.
Hillary is very electable.
Long Live The Clintons...Chelsea 2032!
Lefty, you just prove that she is the biggest prostitute(she leads in fund raising, 2to 1 against the GOP). The big corporations have found a smart prostitute. Bush was just too dumb to do business with.
From this month's Harper's Index:
Percentage of Democrats who believe Hillary Clinton will remove all troops from Iraq within one year: 76%.
How woefully informed a flock of sheep these Democrats are. Clinton is on record having not committed to pull out all the troops by 2012 even.
A vote for Clinton is a vote to continue the Bush oiligarchy. If that's what you want, then by all means, knock yourself out.
But don't support her out of ignorance of her real positions, or because of her gender. That kind of voting is what delivered the planet into the hands of the devil we all endure today.
"Obama campaigns on ethical standards...Clinton makes no such pretensions."
Man, you said it. She's been right up front about her allegiance to the big-money interests, and quite unapologetically. And her pal Rupert Murdoch really appreciates it.
This woman wants to be a president for "all the people" -- from the board room to the country club to the summer house, from the yacht to the private jet, from the Tuscan villa to the Aspen ski chalet.
It's just one more stick in the eye of a base that she's counting on getting a pass for because we'll pick her as the least of two evils.
If you don't have money, well, that's fine -- just keep telling yourself that just because she's ignoring you doesn't mean she doesn't love you.
Don't forget that many of Hillary's top fundraisers directed nearly $90,000 to help retire former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's presidential campaign debt. Oh, by the way, he endorsed Hillary after he dropped out. Coincidence?
Hillary Clinton screams Obama donations from pacs but hers are illegal his aren't!
"Wash Post: Obama PAC Is Active In Key Election States"
This is legal, publically disclosed fundraising, which is in stark contrast to Clinton's campaign having convicted felon Norman Hsu re-distribute $40 million dollars of private funds to buy endorsements. This should only help us re-focus on the further developments in the Hsu case, which have gone unnoticed.
"In at least some cases, Clinton or her aides directly channeled contributions from Hsu and his network to other politicians supportive of her presidential campaign"
Hsu raised big money for Clinton supporters
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/26/hsu_raised_big_mon...
"Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969."
Woodstock Creator Financed Norman Hsu: $40 million
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118956680238724783.html
Woodstock Museum Gets Earmark from Hillary Clinton
http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk/2007/11/7/Its-like-bac...
..................................
HopeFund detail. Scroll through the years and click on the links for the details.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00409052&cycle=2006
HillPac detail.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00363994&cycle=2006
Edward's One America Cmte detail. Something odd here. It specified $194k in expenditures but only details about $9k of it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strId=C00368613
Remember, no PAC has donated
to the campaign -- we can have our own PAC, though and $1,000 is too
small an amount to cry over.
You tell me if giving $1,000 to a supporter equals offering to RETIRE the campaign debt of one in exchange. I can't see how the two
compare. But if the Hill camp wants to focus on it, it opens the door for blogs and videos listing the many obvious "buys" of their
campaign!
"Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment -- by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husbands
presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public -- she's not really in a position to
point fingers at others."
"Whatever happened to the confident frontrunner who said she wouldnt attack other Democrats just two weeks ago?" spokesman Bill Burton said in a release. "The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obamas full disclosure of his campaign finances.
"Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment
--
by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husbands presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her
personal tax returns to the public -- she's not really in a position to point fingers at others."
God blessed those lucky candidates as Barack doesn't need the endorsements or the pac money because people like a disabled vietnam vet gives everything i can to help him get elected and change the direction of this country.
May those fortunate democrats also one day not need pac money and may they be able to show it like Barack did by passing the transparency bill with Senator Coburn republican from oklahoma. May they learn to be more like Obama and be able to get donations from simple people like me.
Barack you have lead the way to change by using the system then changing it. wow i am in awe
Danielle
Joyce writes:
["Lefty, you just prove that she is the biggest prostitute(she leads in fund raising, 2 to 1 against the GOP). The big corporations have found a smart prostitute. Bush was just too dumb to do business with."]
Joyce, you're bullseye on all points, imho
My dear friend Deeanne's response: (with links at site = http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deeannaroberts/CvJd to back up every word)
Deeanne says:
Okay, so it looks like the same politician who's complaining about others slinging mud while she's the one standing in the mud pit herself , has decided to put her trust in the ignorance of the electorate once again by hoping that people are just too dumb to figure out that she's accusing her rival of doing something that she herself has been CAUGHT doing repeatedly. In other words, watch out out America, she's about to pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.
Okay, how funny is this one? Barack Obama has maintained that he does not RECIEVE money from PACS. That's been established. We know that Hillary does receive money from not only PACS, but Lobbyists because she has convinced herself that "Lobbyists represent REAL AMERICANS". So, how is Hillary attacking Barack Obama in this area?
(BELOW THE FOLD)
She "charges" like it's a bad thing, that his PAC , Hopefund gives money away. OMG! Barack Obama, who's not a lobbyists, but a fellow DEMOCRAT has a PAC called Hopefund that gives money to....GASP! Fellow Democrats. OMG!. Well, I guess Russ Feingold can never run for President. What , with his Progressive Patriots Fund and all. He gives money to Progressive Democrats and if he were running for President, gee, I think they would be the first to endorse him considering they are "progressives" DUH!.
Here's the spin that Camp Clinton hopes will stick. She's basically saying, "Whaahh. Barack Obama says he doesn't take money from PACS. But he has his own PAC and his PAC gave money to Democratic candidates.....IN EARLY STATES !"
That's the charge. Barack Obamas PAC gave money to candidates in Early States. In other words, Camp Clinton is trying to assert that Barack Obama's PAC HOPEFUND is giving money to candidates in early states, in an effort to win their endorsements. This coming from CLINTON? Now, THAT'S hilarious. This isn't the pot calling the kettle black. This is the LEMON calling the BANANA (SOUR).
Here is the Washington Post article that Camp Clinton is using as their "evidence". I encourage all to check it out. 180,000 total , went to local Democratic groups in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. A handful of actual candidates received 1,000 each and Democratic groups received the most. Now, remember. This is not Obama RECIEVING money. This is Obamas PAC HOPEFUND , donating money. Does Hillary REALLY want to go there? Does she REALLY want to accuse other candidates of trying to "purchase" endorsements?
Because if she does, we can TOTALLY go there. Let's start with the early purchase of her two South Caroling working mules for 200,000. Do you remember these two idiots? State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson. As soon as they were purchased they went strait into "Plantation Mode" and started preaching that Barack Obama can't win because he's Black? Remember that? Ford said,
"Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed," Ford said. "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket _ we'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything."
"I'm a gambling man. I love Obama," Ford said. "But I'm not going to kill myself."
Yeah. Then when Camp Clinton received a HUGE backlash from the Black Community for the race-baiting, Ford took it back with the most ignorant and stupid apology ever. Something to the effect of "Uh Iz uh Beez Sowway" . Okay, here was the actual so called apology;
"If I caused anybody including myself any pain about the comments I made earlier, then I want to apologize to myself and to Senator Obama and any of his supporters," Ford said.
Well, Mr. Ford. "Nussir! I doez NOWT ahsept duh apologah "
And as an aside, analysts suggest that it's really Hillary who is raising the down ticket concerns, but that's another story.
Let's also look at another case where Hillary PURCHASED a working mule endorsement. Remember Governor Vilsak? He was going to run for president himself until he realized that he didn't have a shot in hell ? Well, he came out and endorsed Hillary after she promised to pay his debts. $400,000 of the CAMPAGNS money went to pay off Vilsak. That compared to Obamas PAC, not CAMPAIGN, donating 1,000 to local candidates. Hmmm. Like I said. The LEMON calling the BANANA "sour".
UPDATE! Let's not forget Hsu-GATE! Oh, Hillary. You are sooo barking up the wrong tree. I hope this comes up at the next debate.
Nice to see you back Jet.
always a pleasure, Joyce.
sometimes i get the feeling that i'm just sort of out in the forest, singing to the trees, if you will..., but i suspect i'm not the only one who feels that way from time to time
with the theme that the increasingly desperate-sounding Clinton campaign is
pushing that Obama has essentially traded money from the Hope Fund for
endorsements in the early primary and caucus states, I find it supremely
ironic that one of the recipients of a contribution from the Hope Fund (in
the amount of $4,200) was none other than the Senate campaign of one Hillary
Clinton. Given the fact that she dumped $10 million in unused money from
her Senate campaign into the Presidential campaign, it's pretty clear that
the Hope Fund has indirectly supported Hillary's campaign.
Since these were supposedly all about getting endorsements, I wonder when
Hillary will be endorsing Barack Obama. (And FWIW, some of the other
recipients have endorsed Hillary.)
By the way, here's a listing of all the House candidates who got money from
the Hope Fund for House races:
Altmire, Jason (D-PA) $7,500
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $5,000
Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $15,000
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $15,000
Boyda, Nancy E (D-KS) $2,500
Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $10,000
Burner, Darcy (D-WA) $2,500
Busby, Francine P (D-CA) $10,000
Carney, Chris (D-PA) $10,000
Castor, Kathy (D-FL) $1,000
Courtney, Joe (D-CT) $5,000
Cranley, John (D-OH) $5,000
Davis, Jack (D-NY) $5,000
Derby, Jill T (D-NV) $5,000
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $5,000
Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $10,000
Edwards, Chet (D-TX) $5,000
Ellison, Keith Maurice (D-MN) $2,500
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $7,500
Evans, Lane (D-IL) $10,000
Farrell, Diane Goss (D-CT) $6,500
Filson, Steve N (D-CA) $2,500
Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY) $2,500
Goldmark, Peter James (D-WA) $1,000
Hafen, Tessa (D-NV) $5,000
Hall, John (D-NY) $1,000
Hare, Philip G (D-IL) $5,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $10,000
Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) $10,000
Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $2,100
Jennings, Christine (D-FL) $2,500
Johnson, Hank (D-GA) $5,000
Kagen, Steven Leslie (D-WI) $2,500
Kellam, Phil (D-VA) $3,500
Kilroy, Mary Jo (D-OH) $5,000
Klein, Ron (D-FL) $7,000
Lampson, Nick (D-TX) $2,500
Loebsack, David (D-IA) $5,000
Lucas, Ken (D-KY) $5,000
Madrid, Patricia A (D-NM) $5,000
Maffei, Dan (D-NY) $2,500
Mahoney, Tim (D-FL) $5,000
Marshall, Jim (D-GA) $7,000
Matheson, Jim (D-UT) $2,500
McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $5,000
Melancon, Charles J (D-LA) $5,000
Miller, Les (D-FL) $2,100
Mitchell, Harry E (D-AZ) $5,000
Murphy, Chris (D-CT) $5,000
Murphy, Lois (D-PA) $6,500
Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) $16,326
Paccione, Angie (D-CO) $1,000
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) $5,000
Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX) $5,000
Salazar, John (D-CO) $5,000
Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) $1,000
Seals, Dan (D-IL) $5,000
Sestak, Joe (D-PA) $5,000
Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH) $7,500
Shuler, Heath (D-NC) $10,000
Space, Zachary T (D-OH) $5,000
Spratt, John M Jr (D-SC) $5,000
Spencer, Selden (D-IA) $2,500
Sulzer, Joe (D-OH) $5,000
Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) $5,000
Tinklenberg, Elwyn (D-MN) $2,000
Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) $3,500
Weaver, John Michael (D-KY) $1,000
Welch, Peter (D-VT) $7,500
Wetterling, Patty (D-MN) $3,500
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $7,000
Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) $3,500
I don't see any particular pattern of money going to early states (or even
to Obama supporters). The main pattern is that a lot of these people were
in very tight races (or at least races that were supposed to have been very
tight).
AND MY CONGRESSMAN JOE SESTAK ENDORESED HILLARY hmmm
what a farce hillary is for even daring to bring this up!
thank you for this nice
thank you for this nice article..thanx more
شات مجلة حواء مسجات منتديات عالم حواء العاب بنات العاب