NYT: Obama Pledges to Sharpen Clinton Critique

[seafan]

Obama Pledges to Sharpen Clinton Critique

By Jeff Zeleny
March 5, 2008

SAN ANTONIO – Senator Barack Obama said today that he would raise the level of scrutiny and sharpen the distinctions with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominating fight enters its third full month with no end in sight.

“She’s made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted, in contrast to me,” Mr. Obama said. “I think it’s important to examine that argument because if the suggestion is somehow that on issues of ethics or disclosure or transparency that she’s going to have a better record than I have and will be better able to withstand Republican attacks, I think that’s an issue that should be tested.”

As he flew back to Chicago today, Mr. Obama told reporters that his defeats in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on Tuesday could be blamed – in part, at least – to the level of aggressiveness that his rival employed on him.

“There’s no doubt that Senator Clinton went very negative over the last week,” Mr. Obama said. “And the kitchen sink strategy, I’m sure, had some impact.”

When asked what questions voters should consider about Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama did not call for her to release her tax returns or to make public papers from her time in the White House. His aides, though, said they would be making those arguments soon.

On the argument of which candidate was better prepared to protect the nation – an issue Mrs. Clinton raised with the advertisement featuring a telephone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m. – Mr. Obama suggested that Mrs. Clinton has not explained why she would be better prepared to take such a call.

“It’s important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it, which I think has been going on for quite some time,” Mr. Obama said. “What exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It is not clear, was she negotiating treaties or agreements, or was she handling crises during this period of time? My sense is the answer’s no. I have not seen any evidence that she is better equipped to handle a crisis. If the only criteria is longevity in Washington, than she’s certainly not going to compete with John McCain on that.”

.....

[El Supremo]

1. Oh swell!

Is it now time for Al Gore to rescue us?

[Unsane]

2. About damn time

Tax returns, Iraq, Bush cronyism, Dubai port deals, pro-NAFTA, big brother wage garnishment, dictator kickbacks, rape victim harassment....

[surfin]

31. Add she will release her tax returns for repubs but not us

I was shocked he never use that on her.

[NJmaverick]

3. This was what I wanted to see

Stern but not nasty.

[RBInMaine]

4. Good. MORE MORE MORE ! Put the shit to her, HARD !!

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

:thumbsup:

[seafan]

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

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton


Original title of story: An Ex-President, a Mining Deal and a Big Donor




Evelyn Hockstein for The New York Times
DONATING MILLIONS Former President Bill Clinton with Sir Tom Hunter, left, and Frank Giustra, major donors to Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation.


By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 31, 2008

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.
Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.
The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

.....

Bill and Hillary Clinton's Recent Meteoric Rise in Wealth


(Thanks to cryingshame at this thread for finding the above link.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

18. Plenty of time between now and the Pennsylvania primary to warm up the old copier. But will she?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

[Hutzpa]

20. Very good, thanks for posting n/t

[OneSelf]

7. I just hope...

That he sticks to the issues and doesn't get caught up in the slime. His opponent seems to have mastered that tactic. No need to compete in that arena IMO.

[thewiseguy]

8. He needs to portray the Clintons as they really are

We have had 20 debates and the issues have been discussed exhaustively. Clinton's negativity must be addressed immediately.

Obama has been way too nice in my opinion. He needs to step it up.

[hey560]

9. Excellent.

[Critters2]

10. So much for Mr. "Above the fray".

I guess he really is just like all politicians after all.

[RBInMaine]

11. You need both a positive AND a negative message in politics.

Get real pal. When you get hit, you HIT back and then COUNTER PUNCH !
This is hardball my friend. Yes, Mr. Obama can be BOTH inspiring and TOUGH. In this business, you let yourself get hit and hit and hit without responding and guess what, you get KNOCKED OUT. The man is defending himself from the Clinton attack machine that is using the scorched earth, anything-but-the-kitchen sink strategy to tear him down. Yet there is plenty of ways to counter attack, and he damn well needs to do so going foward. This is how it goes.
A President (indeed any politician) needs to be TOUGH. Needs to be STRONG. It's called being a political leader.

[Critters2]

12. BUt he said he isn't a politician. He said he'd do things differently.

He lied.

[Unsane]

19. Yes, because it's smart to allow your opponent to continually pound you for 7 weeks without retort

:sarcasm:

[Critters2]

22. You mean, hope and change won't lead us to the Promised Land?

Now we need bitterness and nastiness, too. That should make for some pretty bumper stickers!

[Unsane]

23. Thanks. Now go play with your blocks.

I doubt you were ever going to support Obama anyway.

[Critters2]

24. Actually, I was an Obama supporter, and then I attended an Obama rally

in Iowa. It was the creepiest thing I've ever seen. People weeping like they were at some fundie tent meeting. I asked people why they were crying, and they couldn't say. Just things like "He's so wonderful!", "He's so inspiring". :puke: I was in a quandary, because I had been supporting him, but in his speech he said nothing specific, nothing to warrant any reaction at all, let alone this creepy adulation. Didn't know what I was going to do.

The next day, I went to an Edwards rally. He laid out specific plans, made his positions clear, knew who he was and what he could do. I was deeply impressed. I voted for him in my primary.


My concerns about Obama have only grown since that rally in Iowa. He offers pie-in-the-sky. Claims he's somehow different, but never clarifies how. Now we find out he isn't different after all. He intends to function like every other politician. If there's nothing different about him, then I don't see why he's even running.

And I sure as hell don't see the appeal. But then, I already have a religion.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

34. Suuuure you did.

I totally believe that completely true personal anecdote you just related.

Oh yeah, and John Edwards had no overzealous supporters at all. The ones I've met were figments of my imagination.

[NJmaverick]

13. Dealing with Hillary will be good practice for November

the only difference is these tactics will not work with McCain. McCain will not be the one doing the attacking. Rather it will be the right wing attack machine.

[BootinUp]

14. This will not help him like before. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. "NYT: Obama Pledges to Sharpen Clinton Critique"

I'm really




















:scared:

[JVS]

16. Give her hell, Barack!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Okay Hillary, you asked for it, now you're going to get it. Let's dance!

[Hutzpa]

21. Very good, thanks for posting n/t

[Eurobabe]

25. Screw the kitchen sink, throw a THERMADOR at her!!!!

[JimGinPA]

26. LOL

[seafan]

27. Hillary Clinton, 1997: "The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better.''

Bloomberg


By Kristin Jensen and Mark Drajem
March 30, 2007

.....

A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted in January found 39 percent of Democrats believe free trade hurts the economy; only 18 percent say it is a benefit.
Both parties agree that a backlash on trade helped Democrats in the 2006 elections. West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, said U.S. workers have been ``so decimated'' by unfettered competition that ``I think the American people understand they will be hit by it.''

Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. ``The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,'' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. ``Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.'' ..... At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting ``a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.'' She added: ``It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.''

Clinton ``is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,'' said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. ``She would absolutely do the right thing as president.''
There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton's trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children's health care, and wasn't a major voice in trade-policy debates.
As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization.

Opposing Cafta

She voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005, saying the pact lacked strong protections for foreign workers and that President George W. Bush was failing to enforce existing trade laws.
She also joined her New York colleague, Senator Charles Schumer, in backing legislation imposing trade sanctions on Chinese exports unless the government in Beijing agreed to stop holding down the value of the yuan. Last month, she sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warning about China's ownership of $350 billion of U.S. debt.
Clinton called on Paulson to adopt a proposal requiring a ``plan of action'' to reduce U.S. deficits when foreign-owned debt exceeds 25 percent of gross domestic product or the trade deficit reaches 5 percent of GDP.

In 2006, Clinton helped lead efforts to condemn the purchase of U.S. port facilities by DP World, a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. At the same time, her husband was offering advice to Dubai's leaders, the Financial Times reported.
To help allay suspicions that she's been hijacked by free- traders from her husband's team, Clinton asked Thea Lee, the AFL- CIO's policy director, and Michael Wessel, who had been a top aide of Nafta foe and former House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt, into strategy discussions to debate pro-traders.

Negotiated by Bush

In her interview with Bloomberg, Clinton was careful to describe Nafta as having been negotiated by the administration of President George H.W. Bush ``and then pushed through Congress in the Clinton administration.''
Labor leaders, upset about job losses they blame on Nafta, remain suspicious that she is too influenced by Rubin, the vice chairman of Citigroup Inc. and an outspoken foe of protectionism.
``The Rubin wing of the Democratic Party is heading up policy direction'' for the Clinton campaign, said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers. That's ``going to be an issue'' with union members, he said. ``We don't need more of the same.''

.....

<<<<<<Are Bill's 2006 earnings listed on their TAX RETURN from advising Dubai's leaders during the aborted takeover of American ports by DP World???>>>>>> JUST WHERE DOES THE CLINTONS' LOYALTY LIE??



In this campaign, she has deliberately concealed her earlier favorable stance on NAFTA, and when it became politically expedient in her intentions to run for president, she shifted her stance to one that is more critical of NAFTA. The people of Ohio were lied to by omission of this information about her earlier record on NAFTA, a searing reminder of jobs lost in that state. She created enough faux doubt on Obama's stance on NAFTA, that it obscured any close attention to her own record. This tactic is disturbingly familiar.


I don't have a problem with a candidate who realizes his/her error on a particular stance on an issue, and then changes position. What I DO take issue with is a candidate who tries to claim later that he/she never held the damaging view in the first place. That is outright lying.


And, like an octopus squirting out a foul, murky ink to obscure and protect itself, she tried to smear Obama with false NAFTA innuendo, creating a smokescreen around her own NAFTA record on the eve of the Ohio primary.


These are the tactics of a campaign that cannot win on its own merits.



Let us confront her with the facts of her own record.


We will show no mercy.

[seafan]

28. And another thing: There's no chance of a dual ticket. Clinton has damaged herself too severely

....to be anything other than a liability for our party in November.

A weak link, indeed.


What she is selling, we're not buying.

[Cha]

29. hilary's fulla hot air and

Obama needs to pierce the bubble. And why do they say he lost Texas when Obama won the caucuses and the delegates?

[Scurrilous]

30. Good!

:thumbsup:

[seafan]

32. Another investigation: Clinton campaign linked to leak of NAFTA innuendo to smear Obama

Well, well. Who is surprised by this?


Again, The Clinton Lie Machine cranks up the volume.


The stink of this hypocrisy is rupturing our Party and endangering our chances of taking back control over our government.






'NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff



Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie watches from the back of the room during a photo op before the government caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)

ALEXANDER PANETTA
The Canadian Press
March 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM EST

OTTAWA — If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.
A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.

.....

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.
Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.
"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

.....

CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.
But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.

He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.
The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race — influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.

Mr. Obama has been pilloried by his opponents and faced the most aggressive questioning of his heretofore smooth-sailing campaign.

Clinton used the story to cast him as a double-talking hypocrite — winking and nudging at Canadians while making contrary promises to American voters.

.....

[seafan]

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

Thanks to DU'er Emillereid in this thread for finding this link:


Financial Engineering in the Clinton House Deal

By ROBERT D. HERSHEY JR., NY Times
September 4, 1999

The package that the cash-strapped First Family will use to buy a $1.7 million house in Chappaqua, N.Y., is a clever and unusual piece of financial engineering designed to avoid tax and other pitfalls, real estate and financial specialists said today.
The deal calls for Terry McAuliffe, President Clinton's chief political fund-raiser, to personally supply $1.35 million in collateral that the lender, Bankers Trust Private Banking, could seize should the Clintons fail to make payments on a house costing more than three times what a Presidential salary could support.

Some private analysts said they were struck by what a good deal it appeared to be for the Clintons -- even though the bank itself, with whom three Clinton Administration aides or friends have had ties, seemed to have not been particularly generous.
For one thing, Bankers Trust, which was acquired in June by Deutsche Bank, would not want to have to explain to examiners an ostensibly uneconomic loan to a couple with negative net worth because of $5.5 million in legal debts, a sum that far exceeds their assets of about $1.5 million.

.....

In providing additional details today, the White House said that Mr. McAuliffe's $1.35 million in collateral would consist of cash, rather than what some had presumed would be Treasury securities. Mr. McAuliffe's money would go into an account at Bankers Trust, and he rather than the Clintons would receive the interest.

The Clintons are to supply $350,000 for the down payment, drawn from their blind trust, an amount just above the 20 percent of purchase-price minimum that excuses the couple from paying many hundreds of dollars a month in mortgage insurance to protect the lender. The Clintons will be making their own monthly payments.
By putting up cash rather than making a guarantee or by co-signing, Mr. McAuliffe avoids either party's having to bare their financial souls. ''There's the ability to remain discreet,'' said Melissa Cohn, president of the Manhattan Mortgage Company. ''It saves them from any disclosure.''

.....

''He's the President of the United States and someone is doing a million-dollar favor to him to help him with his personal financial needs,'' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a policy body seeking to overhaul the campaign finance system. ''That creates an appearance problem, a potential conflict problem, and it's a dangerous kind of act.''

What else is lurking that needs to be vetted before our nominee is chosen?

How long will Senator Clinton hold out on turning over her 2006 US Income Tax return?


And just how is it that the Clintons' Recent Meteoric Rise in Wealth occurred since 2004?


What is she hiding now, in 2008, in her push for the presidency?


We have the right to uncover it, BEFORE the nomination of our candidate, not after.