Can we say: NYT political hit piece??? Just in time for tonight's debate!!!!
Want to place bets Hillary gets this question tonight???
Posted by Paul at January 31, 2008 11:08 AMTurkana said:
"The New York Times editorial page has endorsed Senator Clinton, but the news desk is having none of it...."
[sarcasm]Imagine that! A news section that is independent of the editorial page! How shocking[/sarcasm]
I read the article. Not only is the NY Times news desk independent of the editorial section, any fair reading of the article in question would reveal the piece as objective and impartial as well. Any light shown on any kind of political fund-raising usually reveals scurrying cockroaches, as this article pretty clearly shows. If Hillary and her supporters don't want these kinds of things out there, then maybe her cockroach of a husband shouldn't be taking pay-offs from questionable businessmen and maybe Bill shouldn't be praising a murdering, anti-democracy thug of a dictator, either.
I think it's Left Coaster's objectivity, or lack thereof, that's the issue, not the NY Times' issue.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 31, 2008 11:22 AMbrian,
how dare him! raising money to fight poverty and aids and global warming!
there's also a newsweek article on the "scandal." it says clinton left kazakhstan the day after meeting with kazakh dissidents. how dare him!
Posted by Turkana at January 31, 2008 11:26 AMAs objective and impartial as an anti-Clinton journalist who has profited from "scandal" books can be......
I think Left Coaster is doing a service telling the facts....
A man who spent most of his life in public service and now raises money to fight global warming, AIDS and poverty is not a cockroach....SHAME ON YOU!!!
Posted by Paul at January 31, 2008 11:28 AMGuys, this is just the beginning of the destruction. Remember, the Republicans are not going to play Obama's game of nice in the 2008 election, and nothing is going to stop them from the goal of retaining the WH. They will also have plenty of help from the media.
Posted by Judith at January 31, 2008 11:40 AMBill Clinton will be the target of the GOP/Media smear because he's such an easy target. Another Fatal Flaw?
Posted by T2 at January 31, 2008 11:46 AMJosh Marshall said:
"One point that should not go unmentioned is that what former President Clinton is described as doing in that Times article is little different from what the first President Bush has done in his post-presidency. And his son is the president. So if it would be a problem with Bill, and I think it would be, it unquestionably is already a problem with the current president's dad. And no one has seemed to much bother about it. "
Right wing bias? New York Times? Who knew!
Posted by T at January 31, 2008 11:48 AMTurkana and Paul, shame on you, not me. Bill Clinton literally praised a dictator, up and down. If all Bill did was thank Nazarbaev -- the Kazakhstan dictator -- for supporting his fund, that might be one thing. Instead, Clinton went well beyond that. Clinton praised him, lied for him, helped change his standing internationally, all because Clinton sucked up to him for cash. Clinton claimed the dictator was "opening up the social and political life." But that's a lie. Nazarbaev tortures political opponents, murders political opponents, shuts down political parties, and rigs elections. And you defend the Clintons for praising this guy?
Dealing with somebody because you need to is one thing. Kissing their ass and helping thugs consolidate power and recognition internationally for money, as Bill Clinton has done with Kazakhstan's dictator Nazarbaev, is another.
Shame on anybody who defends Bill Clinton for this.
And, once again, how exactly are the Clintons different than Republicans?
Posted by Brian Bell at January 31, 2008 11:56 AMBill's going to be the downfall of Hillary. She might have done better if she'd never married him.
Posted by CG at January 31, 2008 12:18 PMWell, Brian, since you're going to vote for McCain, why would the Clinton's supposed Republicanism bother you?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2008 12:18 PMIs there any dirt on McCain or Romney? With all Romney's business dealings, there must be something. Plus he's got that pod person look along with the "I've only had one wife" talk that means there's a sex scandal in his closet. What about McCain?
Posted by CG at January 31, 2008 12:27 PMNo comment.
Posted by angryman at January 31, 2008 12:28 PMWelcome to the 90's we are going to fight all the old scandals and all the new scandals.(most of which have not been dusted off yet for Bills post presidential years). What did you Hillary lovers expect???? did you expect the nice republcians to let bygones be bygones? Instead of turning the page we'll be looking defeat in the eye when we should win by a landslide!!!
It'll be all about Hill & Bill which they want, not about the country and the future of this country. Wake up, the past is staring you in the face, it isn't going to be pretty. The Times article is just the beginning.I've already read rumors about Bills backdoor romances, go head and say you haven't. Make your own reality like the Republicans.
Here's something from the Big Dog to ponder...
Bill: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."ABC
Wonder if HC agrees?
Posted by peter at January 31, 2008 12:52 PMOk Brian, let me follow your logic strand...
Because Bill Clinton helped a Canadian mining financier access one of the largest world
uranium supplies, he should be damned...
Because said financier also wanted to engage in more philanthropic endeavors and used his
financial successes to empower the Clinton Foundation, it was scandalous....
Because it involved "discussions" on a private visit with both the Kazakhstan leadership and
opposition groups, Bill Clinton now supports dictatorships....
Because Clinton the private citizen took one position on the OSCE, while his wife the
elected Senator, took another position, he's a cockroach....
Where's the crime?? Where's the outrage?? There isn't any....
In no way did this hurt our government, its citizens, or our treasury... Nor should it smear
Hillary's reputation and public service...
History is littered with the exploits of famous men and women who could "dance with the
devil" and end up moving the world forward, turning a negative into a positive...
If anything, this is a testament to Bill Clinton's skills as a leader and man....not the
cockroach you "allege" him to be.....
If the Clintons got stock options, a house in Chicago, or reaped the profits from a
"contrived war" (like Haliburton) it would be one thing......
Making the world better and fighting AIDS, global warming, and poverty seem like a good
place for Uranium dollars...don't you think???
rmf,
which is the supposed scandals turned out to be valid? you wouldn't happen to be a friend of ken starr, would you?
Posted by Turkana at January 31, 2008 12:55 PMCG...that is the "politics of personal destruction" spoken of my John Edwards. Do we really need to do that?
Imagine me as a peacemaker...just kidding.
This is all unfortunate. I can see the rightwing attack ads running now.
Surprise surprise.
Another truncated quotation offered up by an idiot.
What Bill CLinton actually said;
"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."
"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that".
"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work".
On today's scandal, Hill needs to say, "Sen. Obama, you said you would talk to people whom you disagree with. Isn't it okay for Bill to do the same?"
Posted by T at January 31, 2008 01:43 PMAnd of course it's terrible for vast uranium resources to be in the hands of companies favorably connected to a former US president.
I mean, what good could that do?
Posted by snark at January 31, 2008 01:47 PMI mean, what good could that do?
Well, there's always the danger of their letterhead getting into the wrong hands! Who knows what an enterprising con-man might do...
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2008 02:04 PMWe're gonna need Bill Clinton, folks, whomever our nominee is. Democratics love him, he can fill a hall, and gives a great speech. No doubt if Obama asks for it, Bill would gladly stump for him. We tear him down at our own risk.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 31, 2008 02:16 PMBut...but...but...he cavorts with evil dictators!
Posted by snark at January 31, 2008 02:18 PMHeehee, Khlalizad's doing the "tiger claw" in another rousing game of rock, paper, scissors - with Iran's rep! The horror!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2008 02:39 PMCoyote, I NEVER said I'd vote McCain, but I might vote Nader given the chance!
Paul, what I blame Clinton for is THIS, what you yourself said, this, right here:
"...Because Clinton the private citizen took one position on the OSCE...."
THAT, right there, is my problem with Clinton. He did NOT do that as a "private citizen." He is an ex-president of the United States. He is NOT and never will be a "private citizen." Clinton's action in regards to the OSCE and the Kazakh dictator means the Kazakh dictator gets to murder more human beings, gets to further enrich himself, and gets to do so with international support, and it all happens DIRECTLY because of Bill Clinton's actions.
You're going to excuse Clinton's actions in complicity with the murdering Kazakh dictator? How is that liberal or progressive?
Don't tell me his wife opposed it, either. It doesn't matter what she said. It matters what she did. How much did she and Bill Clinton personally benefit from those actions? We will probably never know the answer to that, but you can bet there was some personal enrichment there. Running foundations and big non-profits are big business, full of nice little, and not-so-little, perks, like fees and club memberships and tax breaks (shelters) and whatnot.
Don't paint this as solely some great work for humanity that Clinton did. He endorsed a dictator, and in some manner they profited from it. It's not the first time questions about this foundation have cropped up and it won't be the last.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 31, 2008 02:44 PMSo Bush was right to take out Saddam Hussein then!
Posted by snark at January 31, 2008 02:59 PMOne more thing to keep in mind, this campaign for the nomination, this snit between Hillary and Barack, is really nothing compared to other, even recent campaigns. This is par for the course, and indeed, good practice for Barack, in particular.
Remember '92, when My Man Jerry Brown accused Bill of drumming up business for Hillary's law firm? 2000 had a couple of nasty things going on, with some Republicans spreading rumors of Bush's enjoying a line of coke now and then, while on the other side, Al Gore basically said Bill Bradley's health care plan was racist, and Bradley fired back by accusing Gore of holding a fund-raiser in a Buddhist temple.
And enough of this "it's my candidate or I'm staying home" nonsense. Most of those new voters who were inspired to action by Howard Dean in '04 stuck around to work for John Kerry. 62% of Hillary's supporters and 68% of Barack's supporters in Iowa this year had never before attended a caucus. They'll stick around for the fight against McOld in the end.
We don't have a great ideological gulf between our two candidates like existed with Reagan vs. Ford, Buchanan vs. Bush I. There is no liberal wing alive in the Democratic Party. In SC, 77% of Barack supporters said they'd be ok with Hillary as the nominee, while 83% of Hillary supporters said they'd be fine supporting Barack.
So let's battle it out for our favorite candidate at this point, but let's not get so nasty as to alienate any of our own, or worse yet, hand talking points to the Dark Side.
Enjoy tonight's debate. We'll have a place here to talk about it.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 31, 2008 03:06 PMSo Bill has blood on his hands, and by extension, so does his wife.....
Wow...just wow......
Please vote for Nader....we'll find some moderate Republican to take your place and vote for Hillary....
Thank you for playing.....game over....
Posted by Paul at January 31, 2008 03:10 PMSaw the media kewwl kid Villager Mrs. Alan Greespan shilling the Clinton hit piece...complete with the brian bell talking points....and after the first 30 seconds I and the spouse were so digusted because our impression was ...oh no not this type of bullshit media coverage again when the economy sucks and the war sucks and bush/cheney are true criminals...yet this is what we are treated to again..can you smell backfire. With all the shit this current treasonous administration has gotten away with because of the horrible media coverage yet this is what is making headlines tonite...Groooaaannnn....did I mention how much I despise the elite Villagers.
Posted by emal at January 31, 2008 03:52 PMLIzette Alvarez' husband? There is nothing low or despicable that I wouldn't attribute to the Obama campaign, but this is a bit unsurprising. What a hangover a lot of sensitive and emotional people will have when the primaries conclude. Then, based on the disrepute of the media throughout this entire campaign, all unsubstantiated, self-promotional lies and outright evil manipulations will take place.
Sad country. I do hope Clinton wins. Either way, we are in for a really, really ugly future
Posted by jeter at January 31, 2008 04:35 PMemal,
there's a famous story that when greenspan proposed, he had to do it a couple more times because she didn't understand that's what he was doing. most people take it as a joke on his famously opaque communicative skills. i wonder if it might, rather, say something about her intelligence...
Posted by Turkana at January 31, 2008 04:36 PMI have my own talking points now, emal? Kewl!
So, how come aside from screaming at the messengers, none, NONE of you Clinton supporters are willing to address the issue head on? Bill Clinton excused and enabled a murderous dictator, and that murderous dictator used it to further his career on an international stage, and Clinton did it in the service of his Foundation, for money basically. How come none of you want to defend that particular point? Maybe because it's inexcusable.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 31, 2008 04:51 PMTurkana
Slimming someone who disagrees with you is so Republican so Ken Starrish It s like if y our not for the war your unpatriotic!!!
Your hopeless if y ou can't face the facts and discuss the merits of my argument.
I have been a Progressive Liberal Democrat all my life. Just so you can relate to that I campaigned for Gerry Ferraro with every breath in my body. I went to Ohio for Kerry in 2004,stood on line and helped in the puring rain. I live several States away, and yeah I stuck up for Bill Clinton through the bad Impeachment days. So don't be slimming a fellow democrat use your head.
Brian,
Maybe we should slap some serious sanctions on Kazakhstan and let the Kazahks suffer the way the Iraqis did? Would that be better?
Sometimes I envision you so tied up in righteous indignation that there isn't a "properly Progressive" course of action in any situation.
LOL!
Posted by snark at January 31, 2008 06:43 PMPoor thing, he's just confused. First, he's saying we should all jump on the Obama bandwagon, then he says Obama's gonna lose, and then he's all "McCain would be a better president than Clinton." Sad, really, yet it's hard to resist poking at 'im.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2008 07:08 PMFWIW, I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter...but just because I don't agree with every negative thing that comes out and is reported of the msm and/or the New York Times about them doesn't necessarily mean I'm in full support or agreement with them..but for some reason some people can't seem to understand that ....whatever.
Posted by emal at January 31, 2008 07:23 PMis there any evidence that Bill's collecting all this money for philanthropy? He did give a pardon to Marc Rich btw.
Bill's hurt Hillary's campaign already and certainly he hurt Al Gore's, Kerry's and Howard Dean's attempts for the WH. It seems he's only intested in getting another Clinton in the WH. He's done more damage to the Democratic Party than another conservative southerner, Carter.
anyway, thank goodness there won't be another Southern two face President this time. (Edwards would've been a fraud just like he was in the Cheney/Edwards debates...only slightly more liberal than Lieberman).
Posted by datadave at January 31, 2008 08:13 PMBill's a slimeball..that's all there is to it. Obama has his finger on something...whereas he went into Public interest law....Hillary went straight into the Rose Law firm "corporate law" for her longest single stint of employment during her overreaching statement of 35 years of public service..ha, no wonder Obama's a little angry at her lies. Note from the NYTimes: "As Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has intensified, Mr. Clinton has begun severing financial ties with Ronald W. Burkle, the supermarket magnate, and Vinod Gupta, the chairman of InfoUSA, to avoid any conflicts of interest. Those two men have harnessed the former president’s clout to expand their businesses while making the Clintons rich through partnership and consulting arrangements."
Posted by datadave at January 31, 2008 09:46 PMDatadave, the Clinton Foundation is all above board legally. I am not accusing the Clintons of actually stealing. They're not stealing the money. However, and a lot of people just aren't that aware of this, running a foundation or large non-profit is big, BIG business, with slews of personal perks and enrichments. The Clinton Foundation has a Web site and recent -- within the past couple years -- financials are available.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 1, 2008 08:40 AMI am not accusing the Clintons of actually stealing.
No...like any good Faux "news" bimbette, you're insinuating with no evidence.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 1, 2008 08:50 AMCoyote, that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm pointing out that running a giant foundation is a HUGE business, not just some altruistic thing.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 2, 2008 08:01 AM