It also wasn't the first time the Obama camp milked it for what it was worth...
Honestly eRiposte, if you were a politician wouldn't you do the exact same thing?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 11, 2008 06:20 AMthat Obama...what a devil. Frankly, I really could care less what Hillary was doing while she was gathering all that vital experience being a president's wife. I know what she was doing the last two years...directing very cold stares at Bill.
Posted by T2 at March 11, 2008 06:24 AMThe problem with the Clinton Library donations, which one of your links suggests, is the possibility of a quid pro quo between all the pardons and amnesties at the end of Bill Clinton's term and money which may have accrued to the Clintons and his library, as well as the Rodhams (two of H. Clinton's brothers, attorneys, have received large legal payments around a couple of these pardons). Additionally, big money has rolled into the library from the Saudi royal family (estimated at around $10) and an oil deal in Central Asia in which Bill was the main fixer. There are questions about the Carlyle group.
Clinton would not have to take so many showers if the papers were released. Better now than later.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 11, 2008 06:25 AMFrankly, I really could care less what Hillary was doing while she was gathering all that vital experience being a president's wife.
Right, because it might challange your preconceptions. And that would be bad.
I understand.
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 06:38 AMThanks for the daily dose of sold-out-to-the-Clintons humor. You formerly respectable people never fail to deliver.
Sad. And pathetic.
Posted by RAM at March 11, 2008 06:42 AMThe problem with the Clinton Library donations, which one of your links suggests, is the possibility of a quid pro quo between all the pardons and amnesties at the end of Bill Clinton's term and money which may have accrued to the Clintons and his library...
Because one would naturally expect people to make donations to people ideologically or politically unaligned to themselves. I often feel compelled to make donations to the RNC with whom I have absolutely nothing in common. Just to avoid any suspicion that I'm seeking any type of quid pro quo arrangement.
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 06:42 AMBetter to have been formerly respectable than to have never been.
But truly, coming from the likes of you, who really cares?
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 06:45 AMHonestly eRiposte, if you were a politician wouldn't you do the exact same thing?
Not if my best answer to where are my own papers was "I don't really know." ;)
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 06:47 AMand of course, where are the pre 2007 IRS tax returns? Do the archivists also control these?
Posted by leftymn at March 11, 2008 06:59 AMsnark..my preconceptions of a first lady is that they do stuff, like get ready for a trip, or a dinner or helping her kid choose a college. I very seriously doubt that Hillary was constantly involved in super secret negotiations that we shouldn't know about, any more than Laura is. Sometimes your input is stupid. I'm sure you think my comments are stupid too. But I really don't care about what Hillary did as first lady...she wasn't elected. Bill was, maybe his "papers" would be interesting, but Hill's...not so much. Maybe you have great interest in her daily goings on, I don't.
Posted by T2 at March 11, 2008 07:04 AMmy preconceptions of a first lady is that they do stuff, like get ready for a trip, or a dinner or helping her kid choose a college.
And they better be barefoot and preggie while they're doing it, dammit! Now, go get T2 a sammich, Hillary, and STFU while you're doing it!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 11, 2008 07:13 AMsnark: "Because one would naturally expect people to make donations to people ideologically or politically unaligned to themselves...."
uh, maybe you need to read again what Bob in Pacifica wrote: "The problem with the Clinton Library donations, which one of your links suggests, is the possibility of a QUID PRO QUO between all the pardons and amnesties at the end of Bill Clinton's term...."
so yeah, people don't make donations to people ideologically or politically unaligned to themselves UNLESS they want something in return
T2, Hillary wasn't just baking cookies in the White House, she was bringing peace to Northern Ireland
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 11, 2008 07:25 AMsnark..my preconceptions of a first lady is that they do stuff, like get ready for a trip, or a dinner or helping her kid choose a college.
Chair a healthcare reform taskforce?
Sometimes your input is stupid.
It may be that my input is stupid but it's not for lack of interest in becoming better informed.
I'm sure you think my comments are stupid too.
Just because I question them does not mean I think they're stupid.
snark, how are the ideologies of the Clintons and the House of Saud in tandem? Is Hillary secretly a Wahhabi Muslim? No, I expect that this has more to do with the worship of money (and power?), which in itself is okay with me as long as it doesn't interfere with the laws of the land.
So, let's see the records to make sure that it doesn't interfere with the laws of the land. You know the Republicans really hope for a Clinton candidacy. If she does get the nomination, don't you want all of this out in the open?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 11, 2008 07:49 AMso yeah, people don't make donations to people ideologically or politically unaligned to themselves UNLESS they want something in return
And the Rich donations and pardon were investigated and no wrong doing was found to have taken place. Clinton explained the reasoning for his pardon of Rich.
People make donations to people who they think are sympathetic to their causes. Sometimes those donations coincide with actions from which they benefit. Is every instance of that a quid pro quo? Had Clinton decided to not pardon Marc Rich he still would have had Denise Rich's $450,000 dollar donation to his Library.
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 07:50 AMsnark, how are the ideologies of the Clintons and the House of Saud in tandem?
Are you really unclear on the relationship of the House of Saud to American patronage? Do you think the Saudi royal family cares about the distinction between Republican and Democratic party politics? Do you think after the presidency of Barack Obama they won't be making a big donation to help build his presidential library?
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 07:54 AM"...Sometimes those donations coincide with actions from which they benefit. Is every instance of that a quid pro quo? Had Clinton decided to not pardon Marc Rich he still would have had Denise Rich's $450,000 dollar donation to his Library."
With Hillary as the nominee it is going to be the 1990s all over again. Don't expect for the Democrats to make any major gains in the House or Senate as the American people turn away in disgust.
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 11, 2008 07:57 AMWith Hillary as the nominee it is going to be the 1990s all over again. Don't expect for the Democrats to make any major gains in the House or Senate as the American people turn away in disgust.
So I guess the answer is no?
The American people deserve what they make for themselves. If they turn away in disgust so much the more so.
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 08:01 AMWith peace, prosperity, a federal surplus and .99 cent gas? Bring it on!
Posted by Blue Jean at March 11, 2008 08:04 AMreading eriposte and snark here made my morning. Thanks for the sanity and maturity during insane times.
me
Posted by me at March 11, 2008 08:05 AMInstead of this absurd uninformed discussion involving the tax releases and the White House Papers, (since none of us actually know what the information "IS") why don't the Clintons release the information?
This is the best "solution" "as far as I know"
And Hillary says Obama's supporters ar naive...
Posted by nerdoff at March 11, 2008 08:38 AMNot if my best answer to where are my own papers was "I don't really know." ;)
From what I gathered in Obama's comment and reading the article is the records are there for the public... if someone wants to do the research. He didn't have the staff or resources to have someone compile them.
Something he should be careful of in case someone wants to distort his record.
It's a lot different than the release of records from a Presidency. Bill wouldn't abuse his power or block the release of records that could possibly be harmful to Hilary's chances would he?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 11, 2008 08:40 AMAnd Hillary says Obama's supporters ar naive...
Shame on you nerdoff, shame on you!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 11, 2008 08:42 AMHillary has to drop out if she loses Mississippi. I'm begining to worry for her health. All this stress has got to be damaging to her delicate constitution.
Posted by nerdoff at March 11, 2008 08:45 AMInstead of this absurd uninformed discussion involving the tax releases and the White House Papers, (since none of us actually know what the information "IS") why don't the Clintons release the information?
Well, if you'd read eriposte's piece you'd understand that "the Clintons" have authorized release of the White House papers on a timeframe well ahead of what is required by law and that the National Archives, which is responsible for making sure that sensitive info that should not be released is not released are working as fast as they can to make documents available.
As far as the Clinton's tax returns go, most people have already made assumptions that the information contained within will really only serve as "proof" with which to say "told ya so!" But they have said that they will release them in April, no? So you can sift through it in your best GOP panty sniffing impersonation to your hearts content after that. I'm sure if you look at it hard enough you'll convince yourself you've found what you're looking for.
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 08:48 AMHillary's only hope is to win the popular vote. But that's not going to happen.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4449
1. By including estimates from the currently unreported results from Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine in the national popular vote total, Obama's popular vote lead increases from 592,682 votes to 705,691 votes, an all-important increase of 113,009 votes.
2. If upcoming states vote in similar numbers to states with similarly sized pledged delegations to the national convention, there will be about 6,156,919 votes cast in the Democratic Primary between the Mississpi contest on Tuesday and the concluding South Dakota and Montana contests on June 3rd. Senator Clinton will need to win 55.73% of these votes in order to catch Obama for the popular vote lead. In other words, Clinton will have to perform slightly better the rest of the way through than she did in Ohio last Tuesday.
3. If current polling in Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina accurately predicts the actual voting results, Clinton will need 61.4% of the votes in Guam, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota to capture the popular vote lead. This will be very difficult because Arkansas is so far the only state where she has broken 60% of the popular vote.
4. Including Florida, whether by seating their current delegation or by using the expected results of a revote, cuts the level of support Clinton must obtain across the remaining states to 53.3%. If MS, PA, and NC go down as indicated by polling, she will need 55.85% of the popular vote in the other remaining states to catch Obama. However, at least three of these other states should favor Obama, making it extremely difficult to reach this necessary level.
5. Given the above findings, Clinton must cut into or eliminate Obama's leads in Mississippi and North Carolina, win huge in Pennsylvania, and fundamentally alter the present voting dynamics in order to defeat for the popular vote title. She will also likely have to rely on seating the Florida delegation and maintaining her present lead if there is a revote. If there is a revote in Michigan, it looks like it will be a tie and therefore not a factor in the popular vote totals.
Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote. But that's not going to happen.
So if she wins the popular vote she wins!
So why do I keep hearing so much talk about these "delegate" people?
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 08:57 AMSo if she wins the popular vote she wins!
Now, if only we had an accurate account of the "popular vote" we wouldn't have to wait until the convention to find out who wins. We don't need no stinkin' rules!
Of course, the numbers crunchers like anon/nerdoff/green heron/asshole above would have to go back to wanking off to old Obama speeches again...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 11, 2008 09:26 AM"Don't bother me with your stupid numbers man! Your ruining my buzz," said coyote, between sniffs of Hillary's grannypanties.
Posted by nerdoff at March 11, 2008 09:33 AM"Don't bother me with your stupid numbers man! -nerdoff
Numbers? Ohhhh, you mean these numbers;
By including estimates from the currently unreported results from Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine in the national popular vote total...
The "estimates" and "unreported results" numbers?
And people complain about Diebold?
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 09:50 AMSorry, my buzz is just fine, since I didn't bother reading your "calculations." I could probably find a dozen others who have a dozen different interpretations. Yawn. As for yours and forsyth's obsession with Hillary's underwear, wouldn't you guys be more comfortable at Free Republic? It's obvious you're gop trolls, since neither of you care about Obama's negative campaigning, you're more interested in old dirt on the Clintons.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 11, 2008 09:55 AMONe can only wonder if the conservative media will be as interested in the pardons issued by fratboy!
Posted by Captain Dan at March 11, 2008 10:24 AMFor the love of god, these threads need to be moderated to remove the offensive posts of these pathetic adolescent boys with their pee and underwear talk. It's worse than the halls of junior high school, for chrissake.
Compensating much?
Posted by at March 11, 2008 10:46 AMWhat Blue Jean said. Plus, I could sure go for another tripling of the stock market!
Posted by bartcopfan at March 11, 2008 10:49 AMsnark
when did that conversation with Bill's lawyer Bruce Linsay take place regrding the conservative interpetation of Bill's letter regarding the papers take place????? Informed people want to know! we need "solutions to these problems "as far as I know" Bill might have only just asked Brucie to speak regarding the lol conservative approach. PLEEEZE After the last debate te Dana Perrino said nothing was being held up per GWB Whitehouse. Repeat why won't they release the papers??? Stop dodging that particular question and emmm answer it.The answer to the Income tax evasive answer is?????? Public should have no info till Hoill & Bill have the nomination or steal it either way
when did that conversation with Bill's lawyer Bruce Linsay take place regrding the conservative interpetation of Bill's letter regarding the papers take place????? Informed people want to know! we need "solutions to these problems "as far as I know" Bill might have only just asked Brucie to speak regarding the lol conservative approach.
Well, here's what Bruce Lindsey has to say himself. Doesn't say when the "easing" letter was clarified, but the fact remains that Clinton has been more proactive in requesting the speedy release of records than any of his predecessors. But I know it's tough to stop once you've got a good hate on.
PLEEEZE After the last debate te Dana Perrino said nothing was being held up per GWB Whitehouse.
Glad to see you put so much stock in what emanates from the Bush White House.
Repeat why won't they release the papers???
Are you dense? Really?
Stop dodging that particular question and emmm answer it.
Dense it is I guess.
The answer to the Income tax evasive answer is?????? Public should have no info till Hoill & Bill have the nomination or steal it either way.
The public has all the info on Senator Clinton via her ethics disclosures. She has said she will only release the tax returns if she gets the nomination (she now says they'll be released in April). She is under no legal obligation to release them and I don't have any trouble understanding her reluctance. People such as yourself have already convinced themselves that they will show that the Clinton's have become wealthy and thus "compromised" to moneied interests. It's a fore gone conclusion. So why should she rush?
And how is it exactly that Hillary Clinton is going to "steal" the nomination?
Posted by snark at March 11, 2008 12:08 PMAnd how is it exactly that Hillary Clinton is going to "steal" the nomination?
Easy! She's going to have her tax returns in a pile, and just as she's handing them over, she'll throw them in the air, and while forsyth is greedily snatching them up, Hillary will stuff the ballot box while everyone's distracted with dirty underwear! That's how monsters operate - they're very sneaky...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 11, 2008 12:46 PMSnark,
Thanks for the link to Lindsey's memo...I should have posted extracts from it.
Posted by eriposte at March 11, 2008 09:11 PM