2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe hypocrite strikes again. Hillary Clinton Alleged Barack Obama Sold Access To Big Donors;
Hillary Clinton Alleged Barack Obama Sold Access To Big Donors; Now Criticizes Campaign Finance Attacks
(bolding mine)
But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought, Clinton said. She dismissed such suggestions as a very artful smear of public officials that is unacceptable in American politics.
In her previous presidential campaign, though, Clinton launched an aggressive attack on then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over campaign finance issues. She explicitly alleged that Obama traded access and legislative deals for campaign cash in a set of public attacks, one of which was criticized as deeply dishonest.
Today Clinton presents herself as an unwavering ally of Obama and has accused Sanders of indirectly besmirching the president with his criticism of politicians who take Wall Street donations. But in April 2008, Clintons campaign aired a television ad portraying Obamas support for a 2005 energy bill as a quid pro quo for campaign donations. The ad said Obama had accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies, while criticizing him for voting for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil. The clear message: Obama backed the bill as a favor to donors.
Clinton also accused Obama of exchanging legislative favors for campaign cash from the nuclear industry.
<snip>
When Clinton later rolled out a plan to reform the campaign finance system, her campaign said in an email to reporters that the proposed changes were necessary to end the stranglehold that wealthy interests have over our political system.
Read full article: http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-alleged-barack-obama-sold-access-big-donors-now-criticizes
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)looks like.
Hillary seems to have no memory of so many things she said during the 2008 primary campaign.... that's probably, for a reason.
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)You can read details in the links in the article . . . but:
A Wall Street Journal report on the secretary of state helping a major bank that donated to the Clinton Foundation.
A New York Times report on Clinton supporting a uranium deal that helped a Clinton Foundation donor.
International Business Times reports on Clinton backing arms deals, approving contracts, pushing trade deals and supporting offshore drilling legislation that helped major foundation and campaign donors.
An analysis by Elizabeth Warren suggesting Clinton backed a bankruptcy bill to help her campaign donors in the financial industry.
A report by the Intercept on Clinton reversing her support for single-payer healthcare after being paid $2.8 million in speaking fees from the healthcare industry.
Somehow this seems more important to me as a voter than LOGOGATE!
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Saudi Arabia - which is now represented by the lobbying firm her campaign chairman co-owns, wanted to buy 29 Billion worth of fighter jets from Boeing.
The State Department itself was against this deal (and many other deals Clinton signed off on), saying in a report released the same year as the deal:
"The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem."
The report also stated that the Saudi's were using their military to kill women and children in Yemen. In fact the report lists dozens of examples or human rights abuses and state sanctioned murder.
The report also details the ENDLESS abuse and subjugation of women present in Saudi Arabia in 2011 - and which continues to this day.
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm
However, the Saudis donated at LEAST 10M to the Clinton Foundation. And Boeing paid Bill 250,000 for a single speech.
The deal was cleared by Hillary, and at the time her spokesperson said that the deal was a "personal priority".
Boeing was then represented in DC by the same lobbying firm owned by her campaign chairman... who was at the time a "Personal Advisor" to Obama... he was also Bill's WH Chief of Staff...
Some people say the Boeing money wasn't for the Saudi deal though... it was for a different deal:
"When Hillary Clinton was America's top diplomat, she also appeared at times like a top salesperson for America's biggest airplane maker, Boeing.
Traveling abroad on official business as secretary of state, Clinton often visited Boeing facilities and made a pitch for the host country to buy Boeing jets. During one visit to Shanghai in May 2010, she boasted that "more than half the commercial jetliners operating in China are made by Boeing."
A sales plug in Russia in 2009, though, may have proved especially fruitful. While touring a Boeing plant, Secretary of State Clinton said, "We're delighted that a new Russian airline, Rossiya, is actively considering acquisition of Boeing aircraft, and this is a shameless pitch."
In 2010, Boeing landed the Russian deal, worth $3.7 billion. And two months later, the company donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
This chain of events is raising new questions for Clinton, and Boeing, as the former secretary of state launches her 2016 presidential campaign. The Boeing deal only adds to a growing list of business deals involving Clinton Foundation donors now coming under scrutiny.
Boeing shareholder David Almasi recently confronted CEO James McNerney about the ethics of it.
"That opens the door to charges of honest services fraud, that there was a quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and Boeing," Almasi said."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/clinton-facing-new-ethics-questions-on-role-in-boeing-deal.html
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Gene Debs
(582 posts)use it to power the tour bus.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)She does more every day to lose my vote should she be the nominee.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,202 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Jarqui
(10,125 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)..... and legislative deals for campaign cash"..?
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)First you click on the article. Lots of info there.
Then you click on the links in the article that give you the articles they are referencing. You see, if it has an Underline in the article - it means it has a link to it. So if you want more details you can simply click and then it will take you to another article. If you want even more info than those articles can give you - you can do a google search back to 2008 campaign. I'm guessing you know how to use google so I won't give you instructions about that.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)[font size="3"] IN the vernacular: PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Hey that will give you 579!!!
Since you haven't, the critically minded will conclude you can't [/font]
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)Or click the links to give you the data you request, there's nothing I can do to help you. You are asking me to repeat what the author of the article has already stated. If you have difficulty reading I don't know hoe to help you. I'm not planning on repeating it because you shout and stomp your feet like a child.
I would suggest however a nice cup of tea or perhaps a Valium.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)Argle-bargle was too charitable.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Why so rude? You're not even close to being part of the 1% of DU by your measures.
.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)You weren't even here in 2008.
By your logic...
Gene Debs
(582 posts)than because of any consideration of its content, you've rendered any argument you make (or don't make, in your case)and by extension yourselfpathetic. Simply pathetic.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)[font size="3"]We have to stop the endless flow of [font size="5"]secret, unaccountable money [/font]that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process and drowning out the voices of our people, she said.
This is what your GOP wants to keep hidden.
Who you voting for Donald tRump? or Cruz?
Real friends of the people. LOL[/font]
well I'm sure the Hillary supporters will be right here to discuss this
Divernan
(15,480 posts)What next? Bill quoting Kissinger's praise of HRC as a reason to vote for her? Nah!
I'm just funnin' with you! Bill's too smart to do that! Isn't he?
In her previous presidential campaign, though, Clinton launched an aggressive attack on then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over campaign finance issues. She explicitly alleged that Obama traded access and legislative deals for campaign cash in a set of public attacks, one of which was criticized as deeply dishonest.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Democrats don't silence those who don't agree with them, as GOPers 'for' bernie do. We just require documentation/proof of assertions. Come-on, show us your not a bullshitter. LOL!!
I've had comments hidden just because I didnt' agree with BSers. I don't think any Democrats would do that. Democrats LIKE to discuss/debate isssues. IT's the GOP - and True Believers - who silence those who don't parrot the approved doctrine.
I have never voted to silence a BSer unless they uttered egregious personal insults at someone. That's a damn good reason.
I love how the BSers accuse those who don't agree with them of the very things BSers do . I haven't seen any group as intolerant as BSers.
We will be waiting for you to provide the proof of HRC's attack of Obama. Come on,it should be easy for you!
.
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)From the article
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4275897&page=1
That will do for a start. There are additional links in the actual article we could give you -- but I really do have to go wash my hair.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)The seemingly minor accident at Exelon Nuclears Byron Generating Station about 95 miles north of Chicago, which resulted in a small release of radioactive Tritium on Monday, evokes memories of then-Sen. Obamas deep connections to the Illinois energy giant and the cash collected from Exelon by Obama, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.
A brief refresher course: President Obama has been a stalwart support of nuclear development, one of the few areas of agreement hes got with Hill Republicans, pumping $36 billion into loan guarantees meant to spark development of new reactors. That stance on nukes and the fact that he collected about $270,000 from Exelon and its employees during his political career -- were significant lines of attack on Obama by Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary.
In 2005, with residents outraged at reports of Tritium leaks at another Exelon plant south of Chicago, Obama proposed a new federal accident regulation regimen, requiring plants to report accidents immediately as opposed to within 24 hours. From there things got muddy, according to a Washington Post tick-tock from early 2008: Exelon tried to weaken the measure, its CEO John Rowe, an Obama donor, met with the senator for five minutes to outline his concerns.
Obama referred Rowe to a staffer, who met with Exelons lobbyist a half-dozen times.
Obama later claimed that he supported the tougher regulations, only to have the bill weakened by Senate Republicans, then in the majority. Obama temporarily put a hold on a Bush Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, but withdrew it. He voted for the weaker version but the bill eventually died, and has been rendered largely moot by voluntary nuclear industry guidelines.
(more)
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)I suggest you calm down and discipline your mind to read the OP, and the direct quote in the OP for which a link is provided, before spouting off and calling my post "horse-shit" and demanding I prove I am not a "bullshitter", to quote your crude and sophomoric babbling.
Here's the info on the link: The International Business Times is an online news publication, comprising seven national editions and four languages. The publication, sometimes called IBTimes or IBT, offers news, opinion, and editorial commentary on business and commerce.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)ybbor
(1,554 posts)Humans are ever-changing organisms. You can't expect them to remain stagnant.
It's like that great orator Stephen Colsomething-or-other once said, "he feels the same way on Wednesday as he felt on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday." Oh wait, I guess that doesn't really apply here.
Anywho, it's a human's prerogative to change their mind. And it looks like she did, which is unusual for someone with such strongly held positions.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)or maybe BJ Bill is helping his brother Jeb.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Satire warning.
Hillary Reminds Americans Wall Street Bribes Completely Legal
+
More @ link...
George II
(67,782 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)today... does it?
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Selling the Lincoln Bedroom to wealthy donors.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)The Clintons are so thoroughly compromised....
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage Baggage
earthside
(6,960 posts)Especially if by some miracle she gets the nomination.
Frankly, if she can't handle what Bernie is dishing out to her, then she is going to literally collapse when the Repuglicans take her on full bore.
The huge flaw in Hillary Clinton's candidacy is that she has been a politician for over thirty years -- not a politician of principle, but a politician of personal ambition.
So, she has taken whatever contributions she should could get, modified her positions for her maximum advantage, associated with whomever would help her get ahead, etc.
Here in the crunch, just like eight years ago, when all of her different positions and statements are recapitulated, she is lost in a haze of competing responses all of which contradict each other. So, what is she? Conservative, moderate, progressive? For big money corporate campaign contributions or for overturning Citizens United? For free trade or against TPP? Pro-peace or pro-war? Against the corruption of Nixon-Kissinger or accepting of Kissinger's praise? Fighter for the future or 'pragmatic realist'? It goes on and on.
Now she caught in another contradiction with Pres. Obama.
No surprise -- this is the real Hillary Clinton.