Does bushco have damaging information on Clinton?

[cali]

Is bushco just waiting for her to sew up the nomination to dump all kinds of hurt on Clinton? The bushies have had all the power of the Federal gov't for 7 years. What investigations have they/are they conducting into everything from Clinton's fundraising and personal finances to their personal life? Do you really think they haven't been spying on the Clintons obsessively? Do you think Hsu and other fundraising issues aren't being poured over in backrooms?

Unless it's something enormous I can't see it doing in her candidacy, but if you think everthings out there about the Clintons, I believe you're living in a fantasy world. The repukes aren't about to fire off with what they have yet, but they will.

Are dems doing opposition research on the puke candidates? Sure, but even Hillary doesn't have the power of the Federal Government to manipulate as she wishes.

[LiberalFighter]

1. The same could be said for Obama

[cali]

4. I doubt that bushco has had the same kind of focus on

Obama, and the Clintons have a much, much longer history. In addition, the Clintons have had SS coverage for 7 years compared 6 months. And who controls the Secret Service? Who controls the Justice Dept? I doubt that busco has paid nearly as much time on Obama as Clinton.

[LiberalFighter]

7. How much more can there be since Starr's investigation?

The White House has only a limited control of the Secret Service when it pertains to protection of candidates or former Presidents. The procedures that the Secret Service operate when performing those functions probably have changed to better protect their privacy since Whitewater.

[BenDavid]

2. nope. most investigated woman in america but maybe there

will be new revelations upcoming against obama when rezko goes to trial in February.

[ShortnFiery]

11. But do you think "her husband" is fully cured of his sexual addiction?

He's compulsively and serially unfaithful. To what extent will HRC's minions go to cover up his future indiscretions? :scared:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I'm So

:scared:

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. What could they possibly have?

Is there anything that hasn't already been investigated a million times?

[cali]

10. Let's see: Is Hsu an old scandal? Other fundraising problems?

Has Bill had an affair in the last 7 years? Personal finances?

[Meshuga]

18. And in addition, voters bought the Swift boat bullshit in 2004

Why wouldn't they buy the Vince Foster conspiracy theory stuff. That's going to come out if she is nominated.

[OneGrassRoot]

6. They can fabricate anything they want about any of the dems...

facts mean nothing to these people. I just hope the majority of the populace is finally aware of this.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Oh yes, and all the "Damaging Information" is probably not fabricated.

If HRC gets anointed as Democratic Nominee, we'll be saying either "President Romney" or "President McCain" in 2009.

I have NO doubt. What "The Clintons" have not fully realized is that The Bush's don't like to wait their turn. :evilgrin:

[robbedvoter]

9. None that wasn't regurgitated publicly for 16 years and led nowhere

At least I know Hillary is able AND WILLING to fight them.
Anti-bush is better than un-bush - to paraphrase ol' man Schneider.

"
Clinton's strategy of going for the partisans in the primaries has shown itself to be a winning one time and again. But this election season has been anything but normal — and it's possible that after eight years with one of the most partisan presidents in history, even partisan Democrats want a consensus builder.

Clinton is running as the anti-Bush, while Obama is running as the un-Bush. Which will primary voters prefer?

[ShortnFiery]

12. Unless one is totally BLINDED by partisan politics, not all of the investigations were uncalled for.

I don't think "The Clintons" are on the level. Just because "the economy" was good during their last Eight Year Reign, does NOT mean that they are innocents.

I'm so sick of Our Presidencies revolving around Clinton-Bush.

Please, let's make it stop?

[robbedvoter]

16. really? Which one found any wrongdoing? 170 million taxpayers money - zilch

findings. over 100 members od reagan administration indicted for fraud - one from Clinton - for some football tickets. What was the crime they uncovered on the Clintons?
(and please, let's not rehash the definition of sex - when we now turn a blind eye to TORTURE)

[rox63]

13. Why else do you think * wanted Rove's former opposition research guy as the new Arkansas US Atty?

The better to dig in the dirt on the Clintons.

[Adelante]

15. Is that right?

Whoa

[rox63]

20. Tim Griffin was a Rove protege, and former research director for the RNC

Read all about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/30/griffin-resigns/

[Windy]

14. absolutely. They will start the minute the nomination is sealed.

Thats why part of me hopes that Obama will forego running as her vice if asked. He doesn't want to be tied to the mess that is coming.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I think they gave it their best shot with Ken Starr

and a staff of dozens of official prosecutors who had the legal ability to do things like hold Susan McDougal in jail to compell her to testify against Hilary and/or Bill Clinton:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

They spent over 50 million dollars investigating both Clintons. Starr kept himself busy with Whitewater and Foster's supposed murder before he turned to a semen stained dress.

The Republicans gave it their all in an attempt to topple the elected government of the United States. I would be far far more worried about what fresh ammnunition they might have to go against a different nominee than Hillary Clinton.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. We could ask the same question regarding Obama