Clinton's negative press for questionable contributions

[appalachianguy]

Hillary Clinton has received quite a bit of negative press for
"questionable" contributions from shady business
persons.
I believe this bad press is better to deal with early in the
primary
season than having to likely face it in the general election.
It is a unpleasant distraction but it's better to clean it up
now
than later.  appalachianguy

[DURHAM D]

1. As far as I know "shady business person" not persons.

Although many here have tried to add on issues from a decade ago.

Interesting first post. Welcome.

[papau]

2. Good first post - and I agree with your point. The Wall Street Journal and Fox will

keep this - and all the false/unproven accusations of the 90's - alive for the election - but I do not think that will affect anyone that was not going to vote GOP already.

[durrrty libby]

3. The average person knows that candidates must raise millions of dollars

They know it is nearly impossible to guarantee virginal dollars, and
that very often, dirty, filthy sexy money will be in the mix.

I submit that people really don’t give a shit where the money comes from

Until there is some kind of reform, the dirty, filth, sexy money will continue to roll in



:toast:

[appalachianguy]

4. Hillary's funny money

There's no doubt that anyone with the political savvy of a
"Limbaugh baby"
knows nearly all political contributions for both parties is
about as legitimate the Bush war agenda. The problem is the
GOP lays these right wing
"mind" fields in the general elections by adding
sensitive issues to regional and local election ballots like
the same sex crap they planted on Ohio ballots. Ultimately,
it's better to air out obvious dirty laundry issues sooner
than later to keep GOP pundits from planting a few nasty
surprise seeds at the last minute in key states. That's what
got us four more years of Bush Beans that are still growing
from Karl Rove's vines.

appguy  

[L0oniX]

5. Welcome to DU

:hi: