Chi-Trib: What is Clinton hiding?

[City Lights]

Editorials

What is Clinton hiding?
March 16, 2008

In politics, honesty is not always the easiest policy. Barack Obama got a reminder of that when he released a list of "earmark" expenditures he has proposed -- including a $1 million request for the University of Chicago Medical Center, where his wife, Michelle, is a vice president. In his meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board, Obama indicated that he should have left that item to fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, but he's willing to disclose it and be held accountable.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, often seems to operate by the maxim that silence is golden. When asked whether she would release a list of her earmarks, her spokesman dodged the question, while declaring that she is "proud of the investments in New York that she has secured." But for now, at least, not proud enough to let voters know what they are.

This exercise in secrecy is part of a Clinton pattern that grows more worrisome all the time. The former first lady often says that she, unlike Obama, has been thoroughly vetted, rendering her impervious to Republican attacks. In fact, there are some important things unknown about her -- and her conduct suggests she wants to keep it that way. Which raises a question for voters: What is she hiding, and why?

There is, for example, the matter of the Clinton tax returns. Obama has released his, but she has stalled on following suit. (John McCain also has balked.) When asked about them in a February debate, she insisted she would make the returns public. But when asked if she would do so before the March 4 primaries, she replied, unconvincingly, "Well, I can't get it together by then, but I will certainly work to get it together. I'm a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep."

more... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0316edit2mar16,0,1138530.story

[saltpoint]

1. This is an interesting observation for this newspaper.

They aren't exactly noted for their fire-brand liberalism.

[City Lights]

5. Interesting (to me) that it appears the Sunday following the Friday

that Obama gave them 90+ minutes of his time to answer any and all questions they had.

I see a very bumpy road ahead for Clinton.

[saltpoint]

7. Agree. She's draining delegate support, many county people are

drawn to Obama more than ever, and she is offering nothing in favor of herself -- only negative observations about her opponent.

When the staid and stuffy ChiTrib sends this kind of signal, it's good for him and not so good for her.

[Rageneau]

13. This paper endorsed Obama. It may not be liberal but it's on his side.

It is nothing new for 'conservative' media outlets to support opponents of the Clintons. In fact, it is traditional, ordinary, normal, usual, status quo.

The national press has ALWAYS opposed the Clintons (just as they always opposed FDR, Truman and Carter).

So if you are on the side of (i.e., agree with, support, put your trust in) the national MSM, you automatically hate the Clintons. Conversely, if you are on the side of the Clintons, you aren't surprised to see papers like the Chi Tri endorse your opponent.

If it were Pol Pot you were running against, they's endorse him, too.

[saltpoint]

15. Well, the NYTIMES endorsse Clinton. There's a home-state rep gig going on.

Pol Pot isn't elibigle to run for U.S. high office.

Domestic birthright is a key prohibition, plus his being dead, are widely cited as disqualifying factors.

[truedelphi]

16. Oh C';mon - they would not Endorse Pol Pot

In fact, they often offer a substantial comment on the issues.

And Barack is more about issues than Clinton.

[Vapor Trails]

18. The Chi Trib editorial board is very conservative

They endorsed McCain and Obama for the primaries. They endorsed Bush in the general election in 2000 and 2004.

[roguevalley]

19. this newspaper broke the story on Rezko. They have no love for

people who aren't forthcoming. She should shut the hell up and release them. This will only get worse as it goes on.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I don't think she's vetted at all. Just saying you are does not make it true.

And then there's Bill...

[babylonsister]

3. That's a question we should all be asking. nt

[DJ13]

4. Hillary being vetted ended in 2000

Its the years AFTER that when her and Bill "suddenly" went from broke owing Bill's lawyers $3 million to today where they have an estimated net worth of $50 million that she (and Bill) need to be vetted.

Something stinks about that much money in that short a time.

[yellerpup]

6. I noticed that when Arianna Huffington's ex-husband

ran for governor of California. Why would any multimillionaire want to spend 100+ on getting a six figure job? Okay, so we know it's not for the salary.... What's wrong with this system? (I realize this is not applicable to the Clintons because they were not wealthy before the Clinton administration. Maybe they made it all on book sales; I don't know and I am not judging them.)

[guruoo]

8. Obama showing gratitude for Michelle's raise?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


"In politics, honesty is not always the easiest policy. Barack Obama got a reminder of that when he released a list of "earmark" expenditures he has proposed -- including a $1 million request for the University of Chicago Medical Center, where his wife, Michelle, is a vice president."

Hospital officials say Obama's wife deserved big raise

Obama_iii Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay increase given to Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to Congress were well-deserved boosts for an executive who is "worth her weight in gold." The Chicago Tribune has the story.

"She's terrific," added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html

[1776Forever]

9. Here are a few trials coming up for HRC and other issues -

at this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5106669&mesg_id=5108468

I also saw where the Clinton's had a bunch of stocks that they got rid of last year that included Murdock and Wal-Mart and Pharmaceuticals reported in the NY Times. Is there anything there? I have no idea but it needs to be looked at! Along with the Dubai Burkle ties, article follows:

December 12, 2007, 7:33 pm
Clinton May End Relationship With Burkle Firm

By Katharine Q. Seelye
Ronald W. BurkleRonald W. Burkle

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/clinton-may-end-relationship-with-burkle-firm/

Former President Bill Clinton is in negotiations to sever his relationship with the Yucaipa Funds, a privately held California investment firm headed by Ronald W. Burkle, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

Advisers to Mr. Clinton are in the process of negotiating terms with Yucaipa to end his involvement as part of a months-old plan for him to divest himself of holdings that could become a conflict of interest or prove politically embarrassing if his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

Jay Carson, a former aide to Mr. Clinton and now traveling press secretary to Mrs. Clinton, said that Mr. Clinton “has not severed ties, though given the impending primaries, he is taking steps to ensure that should she receive the nomination, there will be an appropriate transition for those relationships.”

The Huffington Post first reported Wednesday that Mr. Clinton had already severed his ties.

In April, the Clintons sold the millions of dollars of stocks held by their blind trust after learning that those investments included oil and pharmaceutical companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart.

..............

I think we can say without question that Bill & Hillary (she is the one that has said she worked in his Administration and ties herself to him) have NOT been vetted yet!


:nopity:

[Lerkfish]

10. as I've said, the ONLY reason NOT to disclose her tax returns is foreign monies

that can not be easily explained away EXCEPT as bribes. Bill was instrumental in securing the Dubai port deal. I would posit that would at least be part of the return. I posit a large sum, in the millions from Dubai, Saudi Arabia, India, and perhaps China, as "speaking engagement fees".

mark my words. take it to the bank. The clintons were made obscenely rich from foreign interests. That's the only conceivable reason to refuse to disclose. Anything else would not damage her candidacy. Large sums from domestic interests would not do it, since we already accept her as being in the pocket of corporations.

[IndianaGreen]

12. The Arab money will be problematic for Hillary, and for her allies at AIPAC

It's the PR backlash the Clintons fear.

The Clintons are as secretive as the Bushes.

[seafan]

11. Related threads on the Clintons' murky finances. This needs vetting BEFORE the convention.

There will be some nasty surprises in store if this candidate manages to seize the nomination without scrutiny of these financial dealings. She's stonewalling to run out the clock, engineering a *win* of the nomination by, as she has shown, any means possible.



Obama people! Here is a good place to start investigating. What are their tax returns hiding?


Bill and Hillary Clinton's Recent Meteoric Rise in Wealth


And let's check how Terry McAuliffe helped the Clintons purchase their Chappaqua home in '99.

[MidwestPerspective]

14. Relevantly, Obama is a member of Generation Jones

This is a thought-provoking post. I think part of this secrecy stuff can be explained in generational terms. Relevantly, there is a growing consensus among experts, and in the media, that Obama is not a Boomer, nor an Xer, but instead is a member of Generation Jones (born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Xers). Just in the last month or so, several top media outlets, including The New York Times, Newsweek Magazine, and NBC, have all made the argument that Obama is specifically part of Generation Jones. I also heard a panel of generations experts recently on a national radio show discussing this specific issue, and four of the five experts conlcuded that Obama is, in fact, a GenerationJoneser…that his bio and political worldview closely match the GenJones archetype.

[roseBudd]

17. Tax returns you can xerox, or print from Turbo Tax

[Doctor_J]

20. Another reason to nominate Obama

We may be able to intrude on the Trib's 44 year run of endorsements for GOP presidential candidates. I honestly think that they would endorse Obama over McShame. The last Dem they endorsed for Prez in the GE was LBJ.