The slow process of prosecuting Norman Hsu may begin to grind on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s nerves and not that the story itself or the implications may damage her campaign but the annoyance may cause more gaffes. Certainly those who support her campaign will look past all her transgressions and misdeeds while applauding her criticism of other candidates. It is hard to tell which is worse. That Hillary Rodham Clinton is campaigning for President or that there are actually people who support it. To criticize other candidates while ignoring the Clintons’ history is cause for concern about the motives of those supporting HRC’s campaign.
Hsu’s indictment has Clinton battling perceptions
Newsday
BY MARTIN C. EVANS
December 5, 2007
As the race for the White House moved into its final weeks in 1996, Republicans were accusing the campaign of Bill Clinton and Al Gore of unethical fundraising tactics, including Gore’s attendance at a fundraiser at a tax-exempt Buddhist temple in California.
Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the White House, the indictment yesterday of a former chief fundraiser, Norman Hsu, may see her confront potentially harmful fundraising questions of her own.
“Will this help? Of course not,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Polling Institute at Quinnipiac University, in Hamden, Conn. “You accumulate enough hurts and you have a problem.”
While this blog is not a big fan of the WTO or free trade agreements as they exist today, whether you favor or oppose free trade agreements or global anything is not the point of the following story. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim of experience and superior foreign policy skills falls flat when her campaign comments unnecessarily cause criticism to be published internationally.
Clinton trade comments “misplaced”-EU’s Mandelson
Wed 5 Dec 2007, 12:16 GMT
BRUSSELS, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Europe’s trade chief criticised U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday for suggesting that she might not press for a long-delayed global trade deal if elected. Peter Mandelson said Clinton’s comments, made in a newspaper interview on Monday, were “a disappointing sign of the times.”
Clinton was quoted as telling the Financial Times on Monday that theories underpinning free trade might no longer hold true in an era of globalisation and she would question whether it was worth reviving the World Trade Organisation’s stalled Doha round of talks for a global trade deal if elected next year.
The Democratic front-runner for the presidency denied there was anything protectionist about her ideas.
But Mandelson said it was vital to remove barriers to trade at a time when the global economy was showing signs of slowing, and finishing the Doha round was a way to do it.
Even the NYT is trying to get in on the act. However their take on a now aging story on the real contents of the Democratic candidates’ so-called health care plans could be wrong. And how anyone expects these plans to lower costs of health insurance only seems plausible if you consider replacing out of pocket costs with taxpayer money some sort of saving. Most would probably view that as a typical political shell game. Robert Reich’s analysis appeared to claim Obama’s plan was better due to more money up front which should translate to spending more public funds on the cost of health insurance. Not something that should be recommended. But the idea that the NYT is publishing less than favorable reports about HRC may be more evidence of her vulnerability and most waking up to the fact her candidacy is bad for America.
Mum’s the Word for Student Who Asked Clinton Question
By Jeff Zeleny
GRINNELL, Iowa – Remember the story of the college sophomore who asked a planted question to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton?
There she was, standing a stone’s throw from Senator Barack Obama at a rally here tonight at Grinnell College. When it came time to take questions from the crowd, Mr. Obama smiled as he made a reference to the incident, assuring his audience that his questions were not prearranged, predetermined or planted.
It’s the same applause line he’s been using across the state for a few weeks now, hoping to keep the matter fresh in the mind of Iowa voters. Little did he know that the woman, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, was standing directly in front of him, waving her hand in the air in an attempt to be called upon.
As several students pointed her direction and she broke out laughing, Mr. Obama finally realized who was standing in his midst. “I didn’t know she was going to be here,” he declared.
The final excerpt above reminds all of the planting questions gardening approach in the HRC scam arsenal. Let’s give a hand to Obama for keeping it alive even if it is for purely political reasons. All the headlines presented here are ones not likely to be focused on by the Kool Aid drinking left support of HRC. They’ll just continue blindly following an extremely corrupt candidate whose history and current activities soundly define what should be disqualifying character flaws.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 6th, 2007 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, Democrats, Clinton, disclosure, ethics, hillary.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
While my view differ totally of that of Obama, I have to give credit where Credit is due:
While Obama at some time in the future may make a good President, I think he would be a better choice for the dems, although still a freshman. Due to his position on abortion, socialised healthcare among many, there still is some openess about him. It could be that he has not played the game long enough in DC, and corruption has not caught onto him as of yet, he does have guts.
Hillary on the other side is corrupt, powerhungry without any morals, integrity. The best talent is “lying’.
It is widely know that she literally ‘hates’ Obama, and slowly her true character seeps through.
The Hsu indictment is not the only campaign finance scandal she has on her hand, and desperation between her, and the Slickster also begin to show.
The Clinton are not used of being questioned, but they did not count was the new media, who are not worshipping at the altar of the Clintons.
It would be travesty for her to be elected, and one wonders how many national security related items or issues would remain up ‘for sale’ for some cash.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
While my view differ totally of that of Obama, I have to give credit where Credit is due:
While Obama at some time in the future may make a good President, I think he would be a better choice for the dems, although still a freshman. Due to his position on abortion, socialised healthcare among many, there still is some openess about him. It could be that he has not played the game long enough in DC, and corruption has not caught onto him as of yet, he does have guts.
Hillary on the other side is corrupt, powerhungry without any morals, integrity. The best talent is “lying’.
It is widely known that she literally ‘hates’ Obama, and slowly her true character seeps through.
The Hsu indictment is not the only campaign finance scandal she has on her hand, and desperation between her, and the Slickster also begin to show.
The Clinton are not used of being questioned, but they did not count was the new media, who are not worshipping at the altar of the Clintons.
It would be travesty for her to be elected, and one wonders how many national security related items or issues would remain up ‘for sale’ for some cash.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:28 am
Read “Whitewash.” It’s a great book laying out the cover up by the mainstream media of the transgressions a seriously flawed candidate.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Thanks for the tip.