What a Story! Candidate Personally Receives Hundreds of Thousands From Foreign Sources, Private...

[ProSense]

What a Story! Candidate Personally Receives Hundreds of Thousands From Foreign Sources, Private Interests

Posted April 10, 2008 | 12:22 PM (EST)

It's always fascinating to watch the press corps decide which stories to play up, which to ignore - and which to save for later. We now know that a leading Presidential candidate has indirectly received hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign sources based in a country with pressing business before the government - as well as millions more from private interests. Yet the story of the Clinton family's income has received much less play than the money her subordinates got from the same sources.

Why? And, more importantly for Democrats, when will this story hit? Are Fox News and the Republicans holding their fire until (and unless) Clinton becomes the nominee? That's an important question - because, when it does hit, this story is going to make the questions about Tony Rezko - questions which should legitimately be asked - look very small.

First, is it fair to say that the candidate herself has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Colombian government? We're always careful not to accept anything the media says about the Clintons at face value. But we know that Bill Clinton received $800,000 in speaking fees from Gold Service International, a business group formed to foster increased trade with Colombia.

And what single event would do the most to increase trade with Colombia? Passage of that trade agreement that Sen. Clinton tells us she opposes. (She told us she opposed NAFTA, too - privately - although Clinton White House records indicated she stumped for its passage.) And while Sen. Clinton says she opposes the politically unpopular deal, her husband has been pushing it for quite a while.

Here's a simple fact: Bill and Hillary Clinton file tax returns jointly. $800,000 to Bill is therefore $800,000 to Hillary's household. Or, if you were counting assets separately on a community-property basis, Hillary's net worth increased by nearly half a million dollars thanks to that Colombian trade group.

So here's the story in a nutshell: Foreign business group pays $800,000 to the household of a Senator - and possible future President - while a critical trade deal is being debated in Washington. And the press isn't even talking about the story much - yet.

Let's be clear about this: I'm not suggesting wrongdoing on the part of either Sen. Clinton or the former President. She says she opposes the deal, despite the income (although that could change, of course.). For his part, President Clinton has always been a vocal supporter of NAFTA and other similar trade deals, so it's fair to assume that his expressed support for the Colombian agreement represents his real opinions. And his standard speaking fees are very high.

What I am saying is that there is precedent for stories like this. Speaking fees have been perceived as a way to bypass regulations and buy lots of goodwill from politicians. Paying generous "service" fees to family members has been seen in a similar light. Yet the press has played down this story. Strange. They haven't hesitated to smear the Clintons with vile, baseless, and nasty stories and comments about topics that have no relationship to public policy, and the Clintons' constant complaint is that the press is their enemy. Yet she's dodged a bullet so far on this one. Even Fox has been pretty quiet about it. Why?

more

Now, here is Hillary's campaign complaining about an Obama ad running in PA:

March 28, 2008, 4:53 pm

Obama’s ‘Big Oil’ Ad Draws Fire

By Ariel Alexovich

<...>

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign was quick to send out an e-mail accusing Mr. Obama of making false statements in his ad, saying he has received more than $160,000 from the oil and gas companies.

Phil Singer, deputy communications director for Mrs. Clinton, put out this statement: “It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies, but the reality is that Exxon Mobil, Shell and others are among his donors. I wonder if they’ll fix the ad.”

Mr. Singer shouldn’t hold his breath. Bill Burton, press secretary for the Obama campaign, reaffirmed the ad’s message, saying “Senator Obama is the only candidate in the race who doesn’t accept campaign contributions from special interests PACs and Washington lobbyists, and that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists.”

“The energy bill that Senator Clinton has already been criticized for misrepresenting — one that Clinton supporters Representatives Murtha and Kanjorski also backed — actually raised taxes on oil companies and made the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation’s history,” said Mr. Burton in a statement. “Instead of continuing with the negative and misleading tactics that voters everywhere are rejecting, Senator Clinton should get behind the Obama plan to ease the burden of rising gas prices on working families.”

Here’s the script for “Nothing’s Changed”:

Since the gas lines of the ’70’s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

Evidently, not taking money from PACs and lobbyists is worse than getting personal income from lobbying for some of the worse regimes and businesses on the planet.

In steps Factcheck.org to disingenuously claim that employees and their families = PACs and lobbyists.

So Factcheck is wrong? Here is Factcheck.org covering for Bush in 2004:

• Kerry: New Kerry Ad Exposes Bush’s January Surprise
  
  
• Factcheck: Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits

Luckily, at the start of Bush's second term, Democrats were and successfully beat back Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security.

Here is Factcheck.org trying to give credibility to Hillary's SCHIP lie. There is no wiggle room. Hillary did not create or design SCHIP. Period.

Why is Factcheck going out of its way to do this? My guess: Obama is the presumptive nominee so they need to build up an image of him that they can use to make a case against him in the GE.

Look at the language of the ad above, and then look at Factcheck's characterization: "slick."

"Slick"?

Facts

The trend with some of these established orgranizations, like Factcheck, is to pretend that presenting the two sides to every story constitutes fair and balanced. When one side of the story is a lie, there is no justification for supporting the false claims by portraying the truth as an embellishment. Whenever the media does this, it ends up protecting the Republican argument (in this case McCain), protecting the oil industry and union-busting lobbyists like Mark Penn by creating the impression this is all wink-wink, confusing the issues because Obama is the presumptive nominee, and portraying all Democrats as hypocrites.

The media BS is not going to work. Still, we have a Colombian trade deal that Bill is lobbying to get passed and Bush is trying to force through Congress.

04/09/2008

KERRY OPPOSES BUSH'S HEAVY HANDED TACTICS ON COLOMBIA TRADE BILL

BOSTON – Senator John Kerry sent a letter today to President George Bush, expressing his disappointment that the President sent an incomplete Colombian Free Trade Agreement to Congress for an immediate up or down vote.

“This trade deal is a slap in the face to thousands of people in Colombia who have been killed just trying to exercise the right to organize, and yet President Bush has refused to allow the proper Congressional committees even to have a voice in the process and negotiate improvements,” said Senator Kerry. “To unilaterally force an up or down vote on a bill negotiated solely by the Bush Administration is more than a mistake, it’s an outrage. I strongly urge the President to reconsider his position, and allow us to work together on trade.”

The text of the letter is as follows:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to express my disappointment with your decision to send the implementing legislation for the Colombian Free Trade Agreement to Congress for a non-amendable vote under now-expired trade promotion authority.

As you are undoubtedly aware, it is a matter of standard procedure that the congressional committees of jurisdiction be permitted the opportunity to register concerns with legislation prior to it being filed under trade promotion authority. To sidestep this critical negotiating step by unilaterally forcing an up or down vote on a bill negotiated solely by the Administration is an abuse of trade promotion authority, and frankly justifies abandoning any effort to reestablish that privilege for the remaining months of your Administration.

Several objections that have been raised against the legislation deserve your attention, and must be addressed prior to consideration of the agreement. At the top of the list is the persistent violence waged against trade unionists in Colombia. Twelve union members have been killed this year alone, and over the past twenty years more than 2,500 have lost their lives exercising a right considered to be fundamental to America’s workers.

Additionally, reauthorization of a strong trade adjustment assistance program is an essential first step that must be taken before any free trade agreement can be considered. We must ensure that American workers affected by trade have the programs and policies in place that protect them in an increasingly globalized economy.

Unless America’s trade policies are built on fundamental fairness, the consensus for trade will continue to unravel. An agreement that ignores persistent violence against union members, and that is struck without a commitment in place to further protect America’s workers, is an agreement that requires more work. Unfortunately, the Congress has been denied the opportunity to work directly with your Administration to address these concerns.

I regret that you have chosen to take this approach, and in the face of criticism from members of both parties, I urge you to reconsider your position so that we may work together to craft a sensible policy.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

(emphasis added)

Human rights is the issue, and you have to wonder if it matters to Bill.

[blm]

1. I was furious at Dems and the left media when they were too timid to defend Kerry's attack on Bush

and Social Security. Dems KNEW Bush planned to go after SS, but when Factcheck came out spinning for Bush campaign and against Kerry there certainly was no wall of Dems making noise to back up the truth they knew - but Factcheck has a way of turning pols and spokespeople timid, and Kerry ended up being treated as a liar, just as they treated him on ToraBora, because the wellknown Dems in our party refused to back him up.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. "...wellknown Dems..."

IOW, DLC.

'Nuff said.

[MattBaggins]

2. Hey that was all way too complicated

could you just boil that down to an "I hate Clinton/Obama and you are all racist/misogynist" post

[grantcart]

57. and throw in some more McClurkin too

[Patriot Abroad]

81. Yeah!

And W's a big poophead. Make it so even Republicans can understand it!

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Oh my God!

NY is not a community property state. His income does not automatically mean 1/2 is hers.

[karynnj]

8. Well, nobody has been calling for HRC to prove that the $5 million donated to her

campaign came from her earnings. Not so when it was John and Teresa Kerry. Also note that both couples need to include their combined assets in the Senate financial disclosure forms. More importantly, do you think there was at least the appearance of them getting support from HRC - this is not your average spouse but an ex-President of the US. I can't believe the choice of world leaders he opts to get in bed with. In addition to killing trade unionists, this guy runs what is essentially a narco country. Maybe Bill did know everything that was happening at Mena.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. President Clinton still holds more power

as an former President than Hillary has being a junior Senator.

What did she do improperly?

[karynnj]

14. She did nothing improper on this - the problem is that the "First Spouse" comes with the President

Imagine if Michelle got money like this from Columbia.

[PBS Poll-435]

15. It isn't that much of a stretch....

How much did her income increase when Barack was elected to the Senate?

[karynnj]

16. Her job at the University of Chicago Medical Center changed

I've toured the University of Chicago with a daughter and it is NOT a union killing narco terrorist state. Sorry, Bill Clinton is wrong to take a job from these creeps. It's not as though he needs the money. Aren't you a little embarrassed by his client list?

I personally wish the Democratic party would have seen through the charm and charisma and voted for some one else in 1992 - anyone else for that matter.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Aha...

Ok...Wouldn't it have been much easier to be upfront about your feelings?

:freak:

[karynnj]

23. I have been - and you have the cause and effect backwards

The cause: Clinton's repeated sleazy actions
The effect: My disgust

He has been horrible for the Democratic party

[Alcibiades]

60. It wasn't charm and charisma in 1992

We already knew about Bill's zipper problem. The problem was that they other choices were Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas. After the Dukakis debacle of 1988, I don't think most Democrats in 1992 thought that another Massachusetts candidate was a good idea, and Brown seemed like a figure from the 1970's, and too liberal (then) to be a realistic candidate in the general election against a "moderate" Republican like the senior Bush.

The fact is that all the best candidates who could have had a good shot at the nomination stayed away because Bush's post Gulf War approval ratings were so high. Bill Clinton deserves credit for realizing, long before most on the political scene did, Bush's vulnerability.

[Oldtimeralso]

77. I do know as a fact that the UC Medical Center is very union friendly

n/t

[arcos]

54. You mean Colombia, I guess? nt

[karynnj]

56. Yes, Colombia where Bill got his money

[PBS Poll-435]

72. Except for all those speeches....

Those damned speeches on her Senate Ethics Committee Disclosure....

What about Colombia again?

Right...

[karynnj]

82. I did not mean to imply that he got all his money there,

after all that would ignore Dubai and Kazakhstan.

[PBS Poll-435]

85. There is no help for you.

Just keep obsessing about Billy Clinton's Clenis, alright?

[karynnj]

86. Uh, no That would be YOU

I mentioned Colombia, Dubai and Kazakhstan. I could have mentioned China and Indonesia as well as a blast from the past. It was the corruption.

Pathetic that that this is your only response. the good news is that a sufficient number of Democrats may no longer be willing to accept this.

[PBS Poll-435]

89. Yeah...

"Democrats."

Funny...how much Laura Ingraham & Sean Hannity do you listen to every day?

Do you take notes, or do you come here & just post from memory? Because that is exactly the type of shit they "discuss."

Funny...Years of investigations. Abuse of the oversight powers in Congress. What did the RW smear machine come up with? Absolutely nothing, 'cept a blowjob and a wagging finger.

And BTW, I can name countries off the top of my head too. Brazil, Argentina, Romania! What do you think about them apples?

[karynnj]

91. There are good valid sources for questioning each of those

relationships - I've posted here long enough that it should be obvious that I have been a Democrat since I was first interested in politics - when I strongly preferred JFK to Nixon as 10 year old. I canvased for McGovern - and never moved to the right. The Clintons were and are to the right of the Democrats that I support.

As to naming countries of the top of my head - you know what the connections are.

[PBS Poll-435]

92. Yeah...but unfortunately...

Those sources have not proven a thing and your willingness to bring them here says a lot about you.

[karynnj]

94. What is uncontested here:

Columbia:
has murdered trade unionists over the last 20 years
is a narco country
the deal has no protection for workers (That's from the AFL/CIO and John Kerry for a start.)
Here's a link from the RW :sarcasm: AFL/CIO http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/01/17/violence-against-workers-still-rampant-in-colombia/
Kerry's comment is in the op - Colombia is also discussed extensively in his book, "The New War".

Dubai:
Was where most of the BCCI people and assets were (source not RW, the Kerry report written in 1992 - well before ex-President Clinton had anything to do with them) You do remember when HRC joined other Democrats up in arms that Dubai Ports was taking over the management of ports.

Khazarkistan: Source the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&st=cse&sq=+Kazakhstan.+Clinton&scp=1&oref=slogin

[PBS Poll-435]

95. Dubai -

I thought that was a good thing?

[karynnj]

96. Again HRC's position was - but Bill Clinton was on the other side

"Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation’s companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=4&sq=Bill%20Clinton%20Dubai%20Ports&st=nyt&scp=3 (on last page - it is not the main topic here.)

[PBS Poll-435]

98. So, again...

What are you accusing Hillary Clinton of?

And if she was sooooo corrupt why would she do things contrary to her husband's POV?

[karynnj]

100. This was about BILL Clinton

as can be seen by looking back. What I am accusing Bill Clinton of is perfectly LEGAL, but questionable connections with sleazy governments. You can defend Colombia and the others as much as you want - have fun.

[PBS Poll-435]

101. Well...

When Bill Clinton runs for President again, you can sling all this monkey poo at him.

Until then, you are just hurting the Party. :cry::cry::cry:

[karynnj]

104. Bill Clinton is hurting the party

He has single handedly done what the entire RW media and Ken Starr failed to do, almost completely destroyed his value as a surrogate to either his wife or Obama in the general election. Clinton hurt the party by actions he took while in office and for actions he took in 2000 and 2004 (in both cases, usurping the spotlight right before the convention so that the talk could be him ... and Monica). I thought that could be passive aggressive, but I no longer think that - as he has hurt his wife this time. You can continue worshiping him - I think he has become a liability.

I threw nothing at him - he was the one who choose these countries to advocate for.

Note how you change the story -

- attack me as stating RW points, which I sourced using Democratic or MSM sources
- then switching the topic from Bill to Hillary,
- then claiming that because Bill is the candidate, he can't be questioned - which would not be true EVEN if his wife were not running.

[PBS Poll-435]

105. You are transparent.

Thanks for the conversation. I fear we will never agree, so lets just not talk about it.

[karynnj]

106. You are the one who can't accept reality - that Bill Clinton is willing to side with countries I

would prefer a top Democrat not side with.

As to transparent - I am FOR transparency and open doors and sunshine or what ever else you want to call it. I am against the secret back door deals. I like politicians that I can trust because I rarely if ever catch them in a lie. I don't like being lied to. That's just me - and I hope a sufficient number of other people.

[PBS Poll-435]

107. You are transparent in that you

Want to tear down, not build up.

It is the MO, obviously.

[karynnj]

108. kick to put this excellent diary to the top again

Bill Clinton is the one who is destroying his reputation - not me. He chose to pick these clients. I did nothing other than list them - if they were good, the post would be positive.

For example, if I said that Bill Clinton did consulting work or speeches for the Sierra Club, Habitats for Humanity, the American Cancer Society, and Livestrong - it would be positive. But Columbia, Dubai and Khazakistan are not - that was just speaking the truth - and far more objective than the tearing down I have seen you use for other more honorable Democratic leaders.

[PBS Poll-435]

109. This is not a diary....this is a thread

Thanks for that extra piece of information, though.

[karynnj]

112. thread, diary whatever

Dkos uses one word, DU the other

But yes, you are finally right about something - and I was wrong.

[Lucky 13]

22. They filed jointly didn't they?

[PBS Poll-435]

24. Federal Income Taxes vs. Property Rights.

Do you understand the differnce?

Do you understand who administers each?

[Lucky 13]

51. No. I don't understand a lot of this. That's why it was in the form of a question.

I just don't get your point. Why are you talking about property rights? Who gets what if they divorce is irrelevant. They are together now and have been for a million years. It's THEIR money. Joint Accounts. Joint Returns. She directly benefits from anything he makes and vice versa.

Doesn't "conflict of interest" mean anything? Good civil servants do their best to steer clear of even the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest - for themselves, their spouses, their kids and even their friends.

It makes me think of Ted Stevens (R-AK). He worked on all this legislation that just so happened to directly benefit holdings of his son. He said one had nothing to do with the other. Democrats beg to differ. So why shouldn't we hold our own to the same standard?

Why are Clinton supporters not able to follow this logic? I just don't understand.

[PBS Poll-435]

52. For starters...

The Federal Government not determine whose income belongs to who. If married, you are given the option of reporting your income MFJ or MFS. The state, in which you live, determines property rights.

She keeps her money in a blind trust to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Her Senate Ethics Committee disclosures are among the cleanest in the Senate.
Every tax return she has filed since 1993(?) is available for review.

What conflict of interest does she appear to have?

[Lucky 13]

63. So she stays squeaky clean while her husband can take money from LITERALLY ANYONE?

That doesn't seem the LEAST BIT WRONG to you?

[PBS Poll-435]

67. She reports every penny on her 1040...

What specifically are you charging her with, DA Lucky 13?

[Lucky 13]

73. Having the temerity to pretend that there's nothing wrong with conflicts of interest.

It's just not right and it's sad you defend that.

[PBS Poll-435]

74. What conflict of interest is she guily of?

[Why Syzygy]

75. Who is paying his campaigning expenses?

Is he donating to HilLIARy's campaign by buying his own plane tickets and hotels?
Or is the HilLIARy campaign paying for a Columbian lobbyist to stump?

[PBS Poll-435]

76. I would assume the campaign....

What are Hillary or Bill guilty of?

What income have they not disclosed and reported to the proper keepers of such records?

Why do you let your hate for the Clintons drive you to the brink of common sense?

[ProSense]

28. Who cares? What the hell does that have to do with the OP? Can you prove

Bill didn't buy lunch for Hillary with the money? Your argument is irrelevant BS!

[rinsd]

33. And your argument is quite hypocritical

You take Factcheck to task for being clear about what money Obama has gotten. Which is odd since they are clear it came from employees and their families.

Yet using the same calculation method for donations by a company, you attacked Hillary....repeatedly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5078226

[ProSense]

37. I think you need to read the OP again, and really think about it.

Your responses make no sense! n/t

[rinsd]

41. You attack factcheck.org for stating Obama gets money from the oil industry when he does.

Factcheck stated he took that money based on info from opensecrets.

You have attacked Hillary based on info from opensecrets, numerous times.

The only problem you have with opensecrets is that they dared state that Obama takes money from the oil industry.

[ProSense]

43. Where did I say there was a problem with Opensecrets? Stop spinning.

Opensecrets clearly shows that Obama doesn't take money from PACs.

Factcheck.org's assertion is that because Opensecrets shows money from employees and their family that somehow Obama is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't take money from PACs.

The language of the ad is in the OP. You really need to stop spinning.

[rinsd]

46. Factcheck doesn't say anything about PAC money. They say Obama takes money from the industry.

They are clear about the source of the funds from the industry.

They are taking Obama to task for being misleading when he says he doesn't take money from oil companies or washington lobbyists.

If Obama's ad said I don't take Oil lobbyist or PAC money you would have a point.

But the ad did not say that.

Its says oil companies(which cannot donate) & washington lobbyists (because in a weasely fashion he'll take state lobbyist dough).

Therefore Obama is being misleading because he does in fact get oil industry money.

[ProSense]

48. You must have

missed this because there has got to be a reason you keep going around in circles. All the information and links to more can be found in the OP.

[EnemyOfTheocracy]

80. so clerks and technicians and other employees gave money to obama

so what.
You can't use that against him
this is not the kinda of money used to influence people to vote or behave a certain way politically.
in the realm of political contributions are chump change.

i think you need to think about that.
not everyone that works for a oil company is an executive or a mover and shaker.
some are just hard working rig technicians and others.

the personality cult you OBVIOUSLY follow has mad you desperate in your last grasp at arguments to topple momentum and save the flailing candidacy of the "queen of peace" *puke* or whatever you people call her these days.

[PBS Poll-435]

49. Don't you have some tax returns to review??

}(

[sunnystarr]

97. You're right it actually may be more than 50/50

New York State is an Equitable Distribution state. The marital assets and debts of the parties (marital property) will be divided in an equitable fashion. This does not necessarily mean equal, however. What it does mean is that, based on the particular facts of the case, the assets and debts will be divided in a manner that fairly represents the parties contributions to the marriage. For example, if assets were brought into the marriage, but have appreciated in value, the marital portion (the appreciation) would be subject to equitable distribution based on what contributions were made.

Although there is no requirement that distribution of marital assets be on a 50-50 basis, in a marriage of long duration (20 years or more), the courts will generally try to divide the property as equal as possible. Again, however, the court may use its discretion to deviate from the "50-50" basis, depending on whether or not their was any egregious misconduct perpetrated by a party. Conversely, the shorter the marriage, (a few months to a few years), the more the courts try to put the parties in the same or close to the same position as they were in before the marriage, or would have been if there was no marriage. In these short marriage (less than 10 years), the court may attempt to prorate marital property in accordance with the relative earnings of the parties during the marriage. The one who earned more, gets more; the one who earned less, gets less. In middle length marriage, there are no firm rules. If there are children of the marriage it is more likely to be treated like a long marriage with equal division most likely.

http://www.divorceinfo.com/nyfaqspropertydivision.htm

[kevinmc]

4. Bill Clinton got $800,000 because he sides with Killers of Trade Unionist....

House votes to delay Colombia trade pact

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to indefinitely delay action on a free trade agreement with Colombia, a move the White House said it feared would kill the pact.

"The House Democratic leadership has now slapped around a major U.S. ally," U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab told reporters after the vote. "This is the Democratic leadership's version of foreign policy."

The House voted 224-195 to indefinitely delay consideration of the pact by eliminating a requirement that Congress approve or reject the controversial trade deal within 90 days, including a 60-day deadline for House action.

The House vote was a victory for U.S. labor groups, a key Democratic Party constituency that strongly opposes the pact on grounds that Colombia has not done enough to stop killings of trade unionists and bring their murderers to justice.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1036066420080410

[DJ13]

5. This is why I dont give groups like Factcheck any credibility

If I wanted to setup the perfect political propoganda tool I would start a "fact" website, run it honestly for a few years, then when my political party most needed to inject falsehoods into a tight political race use my fact website to mislead people who have come to rely on my website's integrity.

What a gambit.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. This is why I was shocked that Clinton cited that website as "proof" in her ad

rather than search for actual laws/regulations that prohibit such and cite those to bolster the argument. :eyes:

[Politicalboi]

62. She probably

Pays factcheck.org a lot of money to do her lying for her. What does factcheck say about "Sniper Fire"

[rinsd]

19. The OP has used both fact check & open secrets to attack Hillary.

Guess a source is only good if you agree with it that moment.

[ProSense]

31. Do you need Factcheck.org to tell you that Hillary's Bosnia story was a lie? Is everything

in the NYT always right?

Best BS deflector: Being informed and willing to acknowledge fact from fiction.

[rinsd]

34. I think Factcheck provides a valuable neutral source of info.

"Best BS deflector: Being informed and willing to acknowledge fact from fiction"

Well thankfully you set mine off less than you used to but you're wrong on the oil money.

[karynnj]

6. It really says something that Bush is not even sending this bill to the

appropriate committees. Kerry's letter is extremely strong - I guess he thinks that someone other than Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, and Bush cronies should be have input. I hope that not a single Democrat votes for this.

[ProSense]

118. Agree! n/t

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. K&R

Nicely done, thanks.

[City Lights]

11. krb

Thanks, ProSense. :hi:

[bigbrother05]

12. K and R

[uponit7771]

13. Factcheck really had to do some twisting in explanation to address Obamas statement

[rinsd]

18. Factcheck.org to disingenuously claim that employees and their families = PACs and lobbyists

No they did not.

They challenged Obama on saying he didn't take oil money and they relied on figures compiled by OpenSecrets to show that he did in fact receiev quite a bit of money from the insutry (Hillary receieved more and McCain more than Hillary).

Opensecrets calculates industry donations by the employer listed.

Here's you claiming Hillary takes money from the Abramoff firm when it was actually employees of the firm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5078226

Oh and Factcheck seems fine with you when they defend Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4155096

Hypocrisy and all that jazz.

[Texas Hill Country]

20. BINGO

[ProSense]

26. Ah, no! n/t

[ProSense]

25. That's one way to spin it, ignore the links:

From Factcheck.org:

Lobbyist Loopholes?

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

"At firms where lobbyists work"?

So if you worked a Enron you're as guilty as Ken Lay?

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn't take money from PACs. He also doesn't take money from lobbyists.

link

Opensecrets:

Obama



Hillary

[rinsd]

29. Prosense you do not get cite opensecrets for one attack and disparage them for another.

"In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

* Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

* Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful."

Here is what Fackcheck.org is citing

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01

Here you all of 1 month ago citing opensecrets to say Hillary took money from Abramoff's firm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5078226

In another bit of hillarity in that thread you ignore that Obama took over $100K from that firm calculating the number the same way opensecrets did for Hillary.

So which is it Prosense? Is opensecrets ok as a source or not?

[ProSense]

36. That makes no sense. n/t

[rinsd]

38. Sure it does.

In one case, you assert that Hillary took money from a firm.

In another case, you are insistent that money from an industry is from employees only.

While using the same source of information that calculates those donations in the same manner.

[ProSense]

40. Do you know the difference between a registered lobbyist and someone who is not?

Hillary herself has said she takes money from lobbyists. What are you arguing?

Do you know the difference between $800,000 in speaking fees from Colombian officials and individual donations to campaign?


edited title.

[rinsd]

42. n/t is for no text. I am arguing about your attack on FactCheck.org

Which I will repeat again in ProSense fashion.

You attack them for citing opensecrets even though you yourself have done so to attack Hillary.

[ProSense]

45. Stop with the "ProSense" personal appeals. You have no argument. n/t

[rinsd]

47. Did Obama receive over $200K from people in the oil industry or not?

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)


graph $660,458

Mitt Romney (R)


graph $455,863

John McCain (R)


graph $404,136

Hillary Clinton (D)


graph $309,363

Barack Obama (D)


graph $222,309

Bill Richardson (D)


graph $206,125

Fred Thompson (R)


graph $161,904

Ron Paul (R)


graph $95,821

Mike Huckabee (R)


graph $94,139

Sam Brownback (R)


graph $54,615

Christopher J. Dodd (D)


graph $40,550

John Edwards (D)


graph $37,250

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)


graph $19,700

Tommy Thompson (R)


graph $18,400

Tom Tancredo (R)


graph $6,450

Thomas J. Vilsack (D)


graph $2,300

Mike Gravel (D)


graph $2,000

Duncan Hunter (R)


graph $1,800

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)


graph $1,200

Jim Gilmore (R)


graph $250

Ralph Nader (I)


graph $200

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01

[TLM]

59. So if i work at a gas station...

An i make a 25 dollar donation to Obama... that to you means Obama took money from the "oil industry"?


LOL!!!! At long last... and all that.

[PBS Poll-435]

71. If you report that is where you work...

Just like everyone else. Think about it.

[rinsd]

103. Opensecrets only looks at donations of $200 or higher while compiling their figures.

Obama supporters have been using Opensecrets figures to attack Hillary with no qualification as to how the numbers are compiled. I linked to one instance by the very OP in this thread.

But now when Opensecrets figures are used against Obama, all sorts of qualifiers are thrown around.

That is called hypocrisy.

[Tunkamerica]

78. so your whole argument is that one poster on DU

a month ago cited a source and now he/she isn't criticizing a source? it's been years since I took debate, but isn't that a strawman? I mean, is that what we're talking about? was that what the OP was about? Or is this a distraction?

[blm]

111. If any site has one fact correct and one PROVABLY wrong, does that make everything illegitimate.

Is THAT your standard? Because we would have to stop citing NYT, WaPo, and EVERY NEWS NETWORK, too.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

35. ProSense and I have danced many times.

She holds her own in her arguments but she is very wrong on this one.

[karynnj]

50. Not on Columbia she isn't

Be honest which is the Democratic position HRC saying that she will vote against it or Bill accepting a job with them?

[arcos]

55. You mean Colombia, I guess? nt

[L0oniX]

21. K&R

[Texas Hill Country]

27. this is dumb. SHE is the candidate and she says she is against it. period.

[Alcibiades]

61. Just like Obama with Reverend Wright

He is the candidate and what he says matters, period.

[PBS Poll-435]

70. Right......

:dilemma:

[Major Hogwash]

39. Factcheck should call themselves fatasses with a web site, but I hear that domain was taken.

They not only lied their asses off in 2004, they are still doing it.

Kerry never lied during his campaign against Bush in 2004, yet people constantly referred to that mythological beast of the internet - factcheck dot org.

Must have been started by some Bush loving warmonger.

[Willo]

44. Thanks for all of the infomation ProSense...always appreciated.

[Scurrilous]

53. K & R

:thumbsup:

[stillcool]

58. I wish someone could explain to me..

what Mark Penn does for the Clinton Campaign that warrants his 3 Million a month, while he is not pushing the Columbia Free Trade Deal.

DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE

HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT
PO Box 101436
Arlington, Virginia 22210
FEC Committee ID #: C00431569
This report contains activity for a Primary Election
Report type: March Monthly
Penn, Schoen & Berland Assoc. LLC 3,147,990.00
Filed 03/20/2008

[ProSense]

115. Mark Penn is good af "stratergery" n/t

[GrandmaJones7]

64. Buddhist Temple - where are all the donors from the PRC?

-they must have learned something and hidden the sources better this time!

BTW - who runs the port of San Diego again? Who signed off on it?

[PBS Poll-435]

68. Ask Rush Limbaugh!

He is sure to know, and you seem to have the inside track...

[complain jane]

65. Never fails

Every time I peek in here there's more of the same.

Still Hillary bashing. Yawn.

Makes me very excited to vote for your candidate (not)

[PBS Poll-435]

69. They don't care who you vote for.

You are obviously in the wrong place. Please leave!

:sarcasm:

[redqueen]

99. How is talking about this "bashing"?

[ProSense]

114. So Hillary's lies are inspiring you to vote for Hillary?

Free country.

[futureliveshere]

66. K&R..Great post.. Thanks for this and you are quite right about the PAC's vs Employees logic.

[mcollier]

79. Just how big is that damn kitchen sink

Really, some of the dirty pots and pans have already been thrown at Barack Obama. So the strategy is to throw the same pots and pans again? Humm...

Aprill 22nd....

[futureliveshere]

84. $109M can buy you a LOT of kitchen sinks I am sure..n/t

[mcollier]

102. Im wondering what the

Clinton's 2007 income tax forms look like. We'll be seeing the "Kitchen from Hell" next week I bet.

[raebrek]

83. When fact check got started I thought they did a pretty good job.

Then over the past years the site factcheck.org seems to me to have become opinionated. I have often thought that I could perform a fact checking service with less bias then appear to have to me now days. I really respected them and now I don't pay attention to them to much. So is it them or is it just me?

Raebrek!!!

[fascisthunter]

88. Pretty Corrupt..... I'll Be Passing This Along

to some who think Clinton is something she and he are not!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

90. how about Rev Moon?

[catgirl]

93. Thanks for posting this

and handling all the expected crap from Hill supporters/and or disruptors.

[ProSense]

116. Thanks. n/t

[thereismore]

110. filing jointly exposed her to a potentially devastating criticism. We should not risk it with HRC. n

[ProSense]

113. MCCAIN ALSO HITTING OBAMA ON ENERGY BILL

MCCAIN ALSO HITTING OBAMA ON ENERGY BILL

[ProSense]

117. Bill Clinton, China linked via his foundation

CAMPAIGN '08

Bill Clinton, China linked via his foundation

A firm that has donated to the president's charity is accused of collaborating with the government in its crackdown on Tibetan activists. Hillary Clinton has spoken out against China's actions.

By Stephen Braun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2008

NEW YORK -- As Chinese authorities have clamped down on unrest in Tibet and jailed dissidents in advance of the 2008 Olympics, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken a strong public stance, calling for restraint in Tibet and urging President Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies in Beijing.

But her recent stern comments on China's internal crackdown collide with former President Bill Clinton's fundraising relationship with a Chinese Internet company accused of collaborating with the mainland government's censorship of the Web. Last month, the firm, Alibaba Inc., carried a government-issued "most wanted" posting on its Yahoo China homepage, urging viewers to provide information on Tibetan activists suspected of stirring recent riots.

Alibaba, which took over Yahoo's China operation in 2005 as part of a billion-dollar deal with the U.S.-based search engine, arranged for the former president to speak to a conference of Internet executives in Hangzhou in September 2005. Instead of taking his standard speaking fees, which have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, Clinton accepted an unspecified private donation from Alibaba to his international charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation.

<...>

The Clinton foundation and the former president's library in Little Rock have received millions of dollars in donations from the Saudi royal family and the Middle East sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar, along with the governments of Taiwan and Brunei.

more

[ProSense]

119. Obama releases 2007 tax returs

Obama reports income of $4.2 million in 2007 tax returns

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

PHILADELPHIA - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama reported $4.2 million in income in 2007. The presidential candidate released his tax returns on Wednesday. He said his adjusted gross income was around $4.2 million, with $4 million coming from the profits on his two books — "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." His Senate salary is $260,735.

Obama paid federal taxes of $1.4 million. Charitable contributions were $240,370.

The campaign released the returns just hours before a candidate debate.

Hillary's turn.