posted on June 19, 2007 09:42:42 AM new
Yep....such a strong, confident, capable women....ready to run our Nation - according to her supporters. lol lol
Problem is she can't do it on HER own. Has to have 'hubbys' HELP.
That way they'll be SO impressed with HIM.....since she can't 'cut' it on her OWN...that maybe he'll be able to get her more support/votes.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 19, 2007 09:58:06 AM new
Another interesting video about how the oil companies that hillary rages against....are the same as those who have added to their portfolio. Same with WalMart the liberals so hate.
How they have been supported by a group who are anti-Israel, anti-semitic. tsk tsk tsk
And how reid has back peddled on 'they shouldn't have promised to end the war in Iraq'. LOL LOL
Really...their hypocrisy HAS to give you a good laugh.
edited again to add: That this video also exposes the FACT that many of our liberal leaders have their own family members lobbying THEM. lol lol Boy, what a deal.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 19, 2007 10:27 AM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 19, 2007 10:29 AM ]
posted on June 19, 2007 10:32:42 AM new
Haha!!!
LINDUH talking about someone else's WEAKNESS ??!!!!
Well, WEAK is the person who can't address issues and answer questions
LOL!!!
I have no idea of what the latest details are of your insane rage at Hillary but I do know that spouses , since Martha Washington, HELPED their spouses! LOL!!!!
SORRY YOU don't have that support....maybe if you did you wouldn't be so insanely jealous of those who do
posted on June 19, 2007 11:51:05 AM new
Helenjw
posted on January 1, 2007 03:56:17 PM
Oh, cut the crap, Mingo. Here, like at OTWA your clinging attention to Linda exacerbates the problem. If you want to continue it's certainly your prerogative to do so
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on June 19, 2007 11:55:20 AM new
obama had it right, also speaks the TRUTH about hillary's actions....but doesn't want to be seen as attacking his fellow liberal.
===============
"The memo had referred to Bill and Hillary Clintons’ investments in India; her fundraising among Indian-Americans; and the former president’s $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company that has moved U.S. jobs to India.
posted on June 19, 2007 12:06:44 PM new
Yes, lucky me. I'm the 'chosen one' sybil has chosen to STALK. DAILY, by the HOUR, all she has in her whole sick live is to follow me around the internet and STALK me.
You KNOW when even progressive liberals start pointing it out....that ALL can see the 'sickness' for sure.
posted on June 19, 2007 02:26:26 PM new
Ahhhhh...but should she TRY this....hopefully it would ALSO be the other dem candidates who would be calling her out on it.
Hillary Clinton Could Use Bill Clinton's Foreign Cash for 2008 Campaign
Tuesday , June 19, 2007
By Greg Simmons
ADVERTISEMENT
WASHINGTON —
It is against the law for a candidate for federal office to take political contributions from foreigners.
But a potential "loophole" could help at least one high-profile candidate in the 2008 presidential race: It is perfectly legal for a candidate for federal office to use personal income earned in foreign countries — or personal income earned by a spouse in foreign countries.
As Hillary Clinton marches at the front of the pack of Democratic presidential contenders, she occupies a unique position among the field of candidates from both parties.
The New York senator has access not only to her own wealth, but also to the bankroll of her wealthy husband, former President Bill Clinton, who has capitalized greatly on his résumé since leaving office in 2001 and whose income has been significantly enhanced through speeches made in foreign lands.
Financial records released Thursday showed that by the end of last year, Hillary and Bill Clinton had between $10 million and $50 million in jointly held accounts, and the former president had earned $41.7 million in speaking fees since leaving office — including $10.2 million in speaking fees last year alone.
And two-thirds of the former president's income from speeches — more than $27 million, including $6.6 million in 2006 — has been for speaking engagements overseas.
And that poses a problem, said Cleta Mitchell, a campaign finance attorney at the Foley and Lardner firm in Washington, D.C.
"Do I think that's an issue? You bet. ... There ought to be enough public human outcry, that he says, that she says, they won't put any money ... received from foreign governments in our joint bank account," said Mitchell, who represents Republican clients. She said that also should go for any foreign businesses and companies that don't have a principal place of business in the United States.
According to Sen. Clinton's financial disclosures, Bill Clinton has been paid over the years by foreign celebrity speaking and publicity companies, technology companies, financial firms, banks, business associations and academic organizations, some of which were working on behalf of public institutions.
Hillary Clinton would be able to use up to half of any jointly held assets with her husband, said a Federal Election Commission official, who asked not to be identified due to office protocol in discussing federal election law.
The official pointed to the section of code that governs jointly held assets, saying if there is a joint asset — such as a joint checking account — and there is no specific designation of how much each spouse is entitled to, a candidate is eligible to use up to half of that asset to pay for his or her campaign.
That means Hillary Clinton could spend money earned by Bill Clinton while speaking in Paris, Hong Kong, Bogota or Dubai, just a few of the places overseas where the 42nd president has been paid to deliver a speech.
So far, campaign spending records show that Hillary Clinton has not spent any of her personal wealth in pursuit of the presidency. Asked if her campaign intended to use any of the joint wealth accumulated from her husband's speaking events, campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, "We're getting into hypothetical territory on this. If we've got something to say, we'll call you back."
Among the current crop of presidential candidates, Bill Clinton's speaking engagements are the most identifiable source of foreign income that could be used as campaign funds, although nearly all of the candidates are wealthy in their own right with sources of income that are likely to include foreign business.
Republican candidate Mitt Romney built his wealth, estimated at between $190 million and $250 million, as chief executive of a global investment firm. Other wealthy candidates include: Democrat John Edwards, who was well compensated as an executive at a hedge fund following his unsuccessful 2004 vice presidential campaign alongside Sen. John Kerry; Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who went into consulting work after leaving office; and possible independent candidate Michael Bloomberg, the current New York City mayor, who made his riches as the head of a global business media empire.
Mitchell said she anticipates an outcry from liberal camps over the source of Republicans' wealth once documents are released later this month. Conversely, she said she doesn't think the Clintons' situation will make much noise.
"What I do have a problem with is people who will criticize Mitt Romney for creating wealth and jobs for people all over the world ... but they won't criticize Bill Clinton," who is cashing in on his public image, she said.
Joan Hoff, a presidential scholar at the University of Montana and a self-described liberal Democrat but no friend of the Clintons', said the former president's speaking fees might be his wife's edge in a race that is quickly shaping up to far exceed the cost of the 2004 presidential campaign.
"In this system, it's an absolute advantage. Money wins the primaries, and it may be that she's coming by hers in a kind of circuitous way, but it isn't unfair in the sense that anybody that can raise the money is the winner," Hoff said.
Brookings Institution scholar Stephen Hess said he is skeptical about the prospect of Clinton using her husband's wealth to bolster her campaign.
"The Clintons will not dip into their own money," predicted Hess, who has worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. "They're a virtual fundraising machine, and have been for two decades. They don't start from scratch. They start from a Rolodex of people who have been contributing to them for many, many years."
Hillary Clinton had raised $36 million for her campaign and had $30.9 million in hand at the end of March, the last reporting period. The candidate closest to Clinton in the fundraising category was Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who had taken in $25.7 million and had $19.1 million in hand.
The former president has seen some criticism for his choices of speaking events. A 2002 speech in Shenzen, China, was paid for by the JingJi Real Estate Development Group, which was run by a communist official, according to news reports. And in 2005, Clinton gave a speech in the Bahamas paid for by the Switzerland-based Serono International — a division of the German pharmaceutical Merck — while it was under federal investigation for U.S. business practices.
But Hess said that he's not concerned about the source of funds for Bill Clinton's speaking engagements.
"There's no secret about where Bill Clinton speaks, who pays for it and indeed — because it's so well covered [by the press] — what he actually says," Hess said.
"I don't see anything wrong with it, except that sometimes the amount of money that he gets for a speech ... seems a little tacky," Hess added. For instance, the Fortune Forum — an international aid event — paid Clinton $450,000 for one speech given in London on Sept. 26, 2006.
"Though it wouldn't look good if he was getting money from the government of Sudan," Hoff said, none of the Senate records indicate that is the case.
According to the Senate records, the former president's income over the past six years has far outpaced that of his wife.
Hillary Clinton took in about $9.8 million between 2000 and 2006 in addition to her government salary, most of which came from book advances and royalties from her 2003 book, "Living History." She also received $32,323 in royalties from her 1994 book, "It Takes a Village," which the records state were donated to charity.
The Senate financial records show a clearly increasing trend for the Clintons' joint assets, which included one joint deposit account and — until earlier this year — a blind trust, which is a type of stock investment that politicians use to prevent concerns over conflict of interest. A typical agreement must be approved by ethics overseers, and says that financial managers can only disclose the value of the trust; they cannot disclose the types of investments managers are making.
While not making it into the 2006 disclosures, the Clintons have since dissolved the blind trust in order to remove any possible ethical questions that could come up during the campaign, officials in Hillary Clinton's campaign said. The money was said to be reinvested in less lucrative savings accounts and treasury bonds.
In 2000 Hillary Clinton claimed a Citibank joint checking account valued between $50,001 and $100,000, and a blind trust valued between $500,001 and $1 million. By 2006, the Citibank deposit account was valued between $5 million and $25 million, and the blind trust was reported to have grown also to a value somewhere between $5 million and $25 million.
That means that their current joint wealth is valued somewhere between $10 million and $50 million. And in the six years since Bill Clinton left office, the Clintons' wealth grew somewhere between $8.9 million and $49.4 million. Said in another way, their joint wealth grew anywhere from nine to 90 times larger from 2000
================================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 19, 2007 02:28 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 19, 2007 02:30 PM ]
posted on June 19, 2007 04:04:42 PM new
If she is not doing well in Iowa,thats not a good sign.
Thats only that much Bill can do for her.
It is like watching rerun of old movies,people soon get tired of it.
Just remember what Roosevelt once said-Garbage and house guest,they all smell after 3 days.
*
Lets all stop whining !
*
posted on June 20, 2007 07:10:28 PM new
Hillary Clinton Booed Again [Byron York]
Sen. Hillary Clinton was booed again this morning at the Take Back America conference, sponsored by the lefty activist group Campaign for America's Future here in Washington. At this same conference last year, Sen. Clinton was booed for her position on the war in Iraq. This morning, she was enthusiastically received as she bashed the Bush administration — "a stunning record of secrecy and corruption" — but the crowd became less friendly when, at the end of her speech, she turned to Iraq.
"We're going to end the war in Iraq and finally bring home the troops," she said as a number of Code Pink protesters stood up in the audience. When she declared, "The American military has done its job," boos began to be heard around the room. As the boos increased, Sen. Clinton raised her voice. "The American military has succeeded," she said, to more boos. "It is the Iraqi government that has failed to make the tough decisions." Still more boos.
At that point, there was a round of cheers. "I love coming here every year," Clinton said. "I see the signs, 'Get Us Out of Iraq Now.' That's what we're trying to do."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 20, 2007 07:11 PM ]
posted on June 20, 2007 09:53:37 PM new
"What I do have a problem with is people who will criticize Mitt Romney for creating wealth and jobs for people all over the world ... but they won't criticize Bill Clinton," who is cashing in on his public image, she said."
What I have a problem with is people who will defend wealthy Republicans, but criticize wealthy Democrats.
posted on June 21, 2007 12:19:00 AM new
""That means that their current joint wealth is valued somewhere between $10 million and $50 million. And in the six years since Bill Clinton left office, the Clintons' wealth grew somewhere between $8.9 million and $49.4 million. Said in another way, their joint wealth grew anywhere from nine to 90 times larger from 2000 ""
HAHAHA ! don't it just make SOME people just so jealous !
"""It is perfectly legal for a candidate for federal office to use personal income earned in foreign countries — or personal income earned by a spouse in foreign countries.""
Don't that just cause you to writhe in agony linduh??
LOL!!!!
She sure DOES sound like a strong confident SUCCESSFUL, capable womAn (there's an "a" in the singular form of women, you uneducated dolt.)
She has learned from the best on how to NOT answer questions put to her. TOO difficult to just be upfront, honest and answer the very simple questions. lol
How typical of liberals. Slink away, dodge the questions....lol
After all...if she actually answered these questions people might learn what she hides from everyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sen. Hillary Clinton an artful dodger
Candidate masters the art of ducking, just like her husband did
By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press Writer
Updated: 9:12 a.m. CT June 21, 2007
Ron Fournier has covered politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years.
WASHINGTON - Slick Hillary? Former President Clinton earned the nickname "Slick Willy" for his mastery in the political arts of ducking and dodging.
He had a knack for convincing people on both sides of an issue that he agreed with them.
His wife may not be as smooth, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is doing a passable impression of the ever-parsing former president.
Would she pardon Scooter Libby?
No comment.
Would she nominate a union leader to be secretary of labor?
Maybe.
Would she repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Can't say.
The Democratic presidential candidate drew several rounds of applause for her appearance before the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union Tuesday. She flashed her sense of humor, displayed a deep knowledge of the issues and held her own in a forum that pitted her against other presidential rivals. But what stood out was her reluctance to address questions head-on.
This habit of hers begs a question: Will the Clintonian tactic help her in the crowded Democratic field, or hurt her in the eyes of voters who have grown coarsened by the spin and obfuscation that marred both the Clinton and Bush administrations?
"It's obviously a skill that, in the long run, served Bill Clinton well, and there's something to say for a politician who doesn't alienate people by taking clear positions on issues," said Charles Franklin, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "For Bill, it was certainly a useful skill for political success."
But he said the question for Hillary Clinton "is whether she can pull it off, because it's certainly not an easy thing to do successfully."
She gave AFSCME her best shot.
To pardon or not to pardon?
MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Clinton at the labor forum whether former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be pardoned.
"Oh, I think there would be enough to be said about that without me adding to it," she replied.
"That is such a political answer!" complained Matthews.
The largely Democratic audience buzzed, apparently in protest of Matthews' response. One audience member told him to ask a "real question." Clinton finished the person's sentence: " ... a question that's really about the people in this audience and not what goes on inside of Washington," she said.
"So we'll leave that as a non-answer," Matthews said.
Clinton 1, Moderator 0.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 21, 2007 05:26 PM ]
posted on June 29, 2007 09:43:23 PM new
Oh this is just PRICELESS.....lol lol lol
hillary trying to prove she'll "just shoot them down".
LOL LOL LOL What a hawk, huh? ROFLOL
from the last democratic debate....it wasn't really a debate...they proved they have nothing new to offer....just more what they don't agree with. tsk tsk tsk
Anyway....vote for hillary....she's now a HAWK. A war-monger. LOL
"outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas and genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. They said trade agreements need to be carefully managed and agreed that more action is needed to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Clinton, 59, advocated a no-fly zone over Sudan. ``If they fly into it, we will shoot down their planes,'' she said of the Sudanese government. ``It's the only way to get their attention.''
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But just know that as CIC she'll be more than happy to 'shoot them down'...but IF the going gets tough...she'll act like the typical radical liberal does.....SURRENDER and RUN AWAY as fast as we can .
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Has to have 'hubbys' HELP.
