Clinton's Blind Trust
The only Blind Trust in America today is that of our people in our institutions of government, commerce and religion.
I worked in the Trust Business. There is no such thing as a blind investment trust. If you read the documents that govern these arrangements, and look at the process for selecting investment professionals and trust operation rules, and you’ll find the opportunities for detached omniscience abound.
Furthermore with all the business mergers and consolidations of the past 25 years , if the investment guidelines specify minimum capitalization requirement for investments , you can pretty much telegraph your portfolio preferences via the most casual and innocuous cocktail chat .
Oh, and did I mention the obstacle of investment blindness is less discomforting when the CEO of the advisor running your blind trust was Sectary of Treasury for your White House ? A good analogy is : it is kind of like picking flowers for your mate by placing the order with her favorite florist, who only selects flowers grown in a garden you used to fertilize.
Posted by G at June 15, 2007 05:19 PMSteve,
Since when is doing the lazy MSM's job a bad thing? I seem to recall that you said the NYT had staff reporters that were obviously pro-Clinton doing a lot of bootlicking fluff pieces for her while attacking her rivals.
In this case the questions raised by the Obama Campaign are worthy of a follow-up that the MSM seems to be more than willing to overlook for the sake of a double-reverse hit-piece.
Submitting the info in confidence(?) to the NYT and then having it exposed is the real HYPOCRACY. Remember Judy Miller? Hmmmmm? How quickly we toss aside our journalistic principals (protecting the source) for our friends. THAT IS THE REAL STORY.
"Loyalists are not Patriots"
If Sen. Clinton takes positions that are obviously intended to benifit any of her larger campaign donors, is it hypocracy or educating the electorate for the Obama Campaign to expose her? IMHO, it would only be hypocracy if the information was without merit. Is that your point that I missed?
If not, I would appreciate a follow-up aticle by you dealing with the SUBSTANCE of the "Clinton Blind-Trust for Cash" that Obama's Campaign has outed as well as the merit. Certainly a "clarion" or "whistle-blower" in this yellow journalism political environment shouldn't be silenced until the substance and merit are discussed.
You didn't seem to have a problem exposing the millions in interst that are building up in the VP's blind trusts. Although there isn't a lawful conflict of interest, the facts surrounding his former employer's business windfall from our government certainly expose the sleazy reasoning behind his positions. Don't they?
Please don't sink to the level of the NEW(?)Huffington Post Blog and choose style over substance. Since all of Hollywood seems to post on Huff, perhaps the Left Coaster's fine investigative journalists will pick up the slack and keep us truly informed on the issues that matter. Who else can we trust? Certainly not Zsa-Zsa Huffington..!!
Regards,
Domino49
Posted by Domino49 at June 16, 2007 01:27 AMDomino, when did I say the NYT had reporters who were doing bootlicking fluff pieces for Hillary? I am not a fan of hers, but if I was looking for media outlets that were going easy on her and gunning for her rivals, the NYT would not jump to the top of that list. Where do Gerth and Van Atta work? When has Healy gone easy on her? Nagourney has been impressed with her focus on her Senate duties and her performance on the campaign trail so far, but the NYT isn't the paper that is fluffing her.
It is a legitimate point to wonder why a campaign that wants to change the tone also runs a Tier Two effort against Democratic rivals, and wants to do so using off-the-record means.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but the things people will condone against her simply because it is being done against a Clinton goes over the top. They are big boys and girls over there at Team Clinton, and as I said I shed no tears for them having to explain themselves. But please let's ditch the notion that whatever Obama's campaign does against a Clinton gets an automatic free pass.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 16, 2007 10:20 AM~ yawn ~
National politics is a bloodsport and Camp Hillary hasn't always played fairly either.
Last February, Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, in true Carvillesque fashion whored himself on Hardball insisting David Geffen was Barack Obama's "campaign finance chair."
This was after Geffen held a press conference and made it clear he had "no official role in the Obama's campaign."
To his credit, Tweety called him on his bullshit and said, "Why do you call him his finance chair, when he says that's not his title?"
But Wolfson wouldn't let it go and just admit he was slinging mud. He was on message and desperately trying to tie Geffin to Obama and portray him as just another Hillary pol.
This wasn't the only ludicrous claim Wolfson made. He also suggested that the Obama campaign "put Mr. Geffen up to this." "This" was Geffin's audacity to not fall in-line behind Sen. Clinton and her race for the White House.
Were we to believe Wolfson wasn't speaking for Hillary Clinton? After all, he was her communications director.
The knife cuts both ways in national politics.
Posted by Christopher at June 16, 2007 01:44 PM.....It is a legitimate point to wonder why a campaign that wants to change the tone also runs a Tier Two effort against Democratic rivals, and wants to do so using off-the-record means....
Steve,
Look, I have nothing but respect for TLC. My question is why the Clinton Blind Trusts were not fully exposed by the NYT and TLC so that the public could be informed without applying for a Freedom of Information Act waiver.
What does the "style" of Obama's Campaign have to do with the "substace" of their claims? Which corporations are in the Clinton protfolio that are questionable or in conflict with her stated positions? Do you know? Was this strictly an Obama hit job, or not?
Does exposing a possible Clinton conflict by using the proported "underhanded" tactics of Obama's Campaign make the "substance" of their expose' any less valid or enlightening to the electorate?
One World,
Domino49
Posted by Domino49 at June 17, 2007 10:53 PM