Here we go..say goodnight hillary

[pbca]

“She’s made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted, in contrast to me,” Mr. Obama said as he flew back to Chicago from Texas Wednesday. “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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05cnd-campaign.html?em&ex=1204866000&en=ff568c93f648111f&ei=5087%0A

edit: to fix html

[bleowheels]

1. That's what I'm talking about. Two can play her game.

It's about time that he take the gloves off.

[Skip Intro]

2. This, the guy already punked by Novak and Drudge?

bring it on baby

[Windy]

3. vetted? Oh no, not even close!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/5/16437/77867 (hyperlinks to evidence in original)

Has Hillary Clinton really been 'vetted' as she so often claims?
by Bob Johnson, Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST

Over and over, we have heard Hilary Clinton and her campaign surrogates claim that she has been "vetted for 15 years." Harold Ickes used those very words today.

The candidate, herself, has said:


"I've been tested. I've been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises. There's not going to be anybody saying, `Well why didn't we think of that?' or `What, my goodness, what does that mean?'" she said. "I am going to be able to go up against any Republican who they nominate."

"No surprises?" You've been "vetted?"

Really?



I note that the Clinton camp has been calling for a "vetting" of Obama since before the Iowa caucus. The Clintonites have presented their "vetting" of Obama as almost a public service to the Democratic Party. Over and over we have heard that he needed to be "toughened up" because much harsher attacks were sure to come from the Republicans should Obama capture the nomination.

I diaried about this back before Iowa voters spoke:

Clinton backers: 'Obama needs to be vetted.' I say: 'Hillary, too!'

What has been fascinating to watch is the Clinton camp's never-ending zeal quest to "vet" Obama. All in the interest of making sure we know everything about him we possibly can, of course.

But has Hillary really been "vetted," as she and her campaign have repeatedly claimed?

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:


Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?

How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"

Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"

And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

So has Hillary really been vetted? Shouldn't she be fully vetted on these stories and others for no other reason than as a public service to the Democratic Party? (The same logic Camp Clinton continually throws out for its "vetting" of Obama.)

Shouldn't the press be asking her about these stories and their potential impact on the race, should she garner the nomination? Shouldn't Democratic superdelegates take into account these items that may present themselves in "full bloom" during a race versus John McCain in the Fall?

Is $150,000 (since returned) from Tony Rezko more important than hundreds of millions of dollars in secret transactions?

I think for the sake of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton needs to be fully vetted.

I am sorry. I am not taking her or her surrogates at their word that there are "no surprises" and that she has been "fully vetted."

The facts are, she has not. Certainly not to the extent she will be on these stories -- and more -- in a general election versus John McCain.

Let the "vetting" begin.

[City Lights]

4. Sounds like Obama is just gettin' warmed up.

Hillary's road is about to get bumpy.