Can you name some examples? Because the things Republicans complain the most about - tax cut expiration and health care, for example - do the exact opposite of enriching her and her family.
Read Dick Morris' book detailing his life and times with the Clintons. Morris does not like Hillary -- and he knows her well.
How about you provide some examples. You don't have to quote verbatim, but a general idea of what Morris says would be appreciated.
Normally Friday afternoons are my cooling down time. Today I have crises all over the place so I don't have a lot of time. Following is an example -- but rather than get into a SamFisheresque tit for tat, read Morris' many observations on Hillary: “Running a presidential campaign is good for business." Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist and the Worldwide CEO of international public relations/ lobbying firm Burson-Marsteller, wrote those telling words in his confidential internal corporate blog. Given the breadth of his company’s representation of special interests, Penn’s assertion may be the understatement of the year. The number of Burson-Marsteller clients — both corporations and foreign governments — that will likely try to influence the next administration is staggering. And so is the potential for a serious conflict of interest. As a campaign strategist, Penn meets and speaks constantly with both Clintons and with other key policy advisors. He is in a unique position to influence what the candidate supports or opposes — not only during the campaign but also later on in a future Clinton administration. And he has ample opportunity to weigh in on issues that are vital to Burson-Marsteller’s clients. But neither Penn nor Hillary Clinton seems to see any problem there — even though Penn has already showed poor judgment in this area. During Bill Clinton’s second term, while Penn was the president’s chief political strategist — with unfettered access to the President and First Lady, his polling firm, Penn & Schoen, contracted to lobby the Clinton administration on behalf of a bank operated by several Central American countries — for a half million dollar fee. (The firm had never registered as either a lobbyist or foreign agent before.) Burson-Marsteller ultimately bought Penn & Schoen and Penn became its head honcho. The firm’s publicly known clients are a veritable "Who’s Who" of corporations in crisis, as well as companies and foreign governments looking for favors from Congress and the White House. Just look at recent Burson-Marsteller clients that have been in the news in the past two weeks. BLACKWATER — the hired guns in Iraq. Blackwater’s CEO, Eric Prince, hired Burson’s lobbying subsidiary, BKSH, to prep him for his Congressional testimony — helping him to glibly explain why the civilian cowboys who work for him have been involved in 195 shooting incidents. After news reports about the controversial representation, Burson-Marsteller ran screaming from Blackwater, describing it as only a “temporary” engagement with no involvement by Penn. And the Clinton campaign affirmed its support for Penn. While Blackwater is certainly no Whitewater for Hillary Clinton, it is yet another reminder of the ethical imbroglios that dogged her in the White House and raises serious questions about Penn’s dual roles as strategist for the potential next president and adviser to corporations and governments who have ongoing big business in Washington. Then there was Countrywide Financial, the beleaguered sub-prime mortgage lender that is desperately trying to save the company and clean up its image. And Microsoft — trying to stop the Google/Doubleclick merger. Throw in Armenia, (trying to pass a Congressional resolution accusing Turkey of genocide) and The Peoples Party of Pakistan (working to bring Bhalizar Bhutto back to power in Pakistan). It’s been quite a week! You get the picture: They’re everywhere! Penn is often compared to Karl Rove, but there’s at least one big difference: When Rove became Bush’s chief strategist, he sold his consulting business. Penn refus es to even take a leave of absence. Although he claims to have no involvement in the firm’s day-to-day business, published internal e-mails suggest otherwise. And, Penn demonstrated his blatant lack of sensitivity to conflict of interest issues during the last Clinton administration. In October 1998, while Penn was the White House chief political strategist, he registered his polling firm, Penn & Schoen, as an agent for the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, operated, and controlled by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua with Mexico, Taiwan, Argentina, and Colombia as additional shareholders. In plain English, a number of foreign governments, seeking to persuade the President of the United States to adopt legislation in their economic interest, paid the president’s trusted adviser to make their case in the White House. Question: Did the president know this and permit it? Did Hillary know? Is this kind of dual role okay with her? Will she permit it if she’s elected president? Because that’s not how Bill Clinton used to operate. In his first term, the former president required all consultants with regular access to either him or the White House staff to file a financial disclosure form with the White House counsel’s office — to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. So, what happened to that sensible policy? Apparently, it went out the window. According to Penn’s hand-written filings with the Justice Department, he was the only partner working on the contract that required his firm to “lobby the [Clinton] Administration” and “encourage” it to adopt a NAFTA-like trade bill for Central America as “a primary legislative priority.” And what is it that did Penn inside the White House — for half a million dollars — to advance the foreign bank’s agenda? He reports that in November 1999, he made two telephone calls to Maria Echaveste, the White House deputy Chief of Staff “relating to visit of member countries to the U.S.” That’s it. Not surprisingly, Penn’s lobbying skills were no longer needed once Clinton was gone. Penn’s handwriting indicates that the contract expired on January 1, 2001 — days before Clinton left office. Now Penn is deeply immersed in the lobbying world. Burson-Marsteller is sought out by clients who are well aware of his close relationship with the Clintons. Take the case of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In late March, Bill Clinton traveled to Cartagena for the 80th birthday tribute to Nobel Prize winner Gabriel Garcia Marquez, where he spoke to Colombian president Alvaro Uribe about the difficulties in passing the agreement. Eager to help, Bill himself called several Democratic Congressmen. And, coincidentally, within days, Burson-Marsteller and two of its subsidiaries, BKSH and Penn & Schoen, signed on to lobby for the Colombian Embassy for $300,000. Other countries come calling, too: Earlier this year, Burson-Marsteller closed a $250,000 polling and lobbying and image making project for former Prime Minister Bhutto’s People’s Party of Pakistan, which opposes the current Musharaaf government. Bhutto arrived back in Pakistan this week, after an eight-year exile. And in June, Burson signed on with the Abu Dubai Investment Authority for $802,250 — in Bill Clinton’s favorite Arab country, the U.A.E. Armenia was another big contract for Burson. According to Justice Department filings, Burson-Marsteller signed a contract with a Stepan Martirosyan, a member of the U.S. Armenian community in Glendale, California to: “share information with the U.S. government, regarding the policies and actions of the government of Armenia as well as facilitate meetings for [Prime] Minister Sarkisian.” At the same time that Burson-Marsteller was lobbying for the Armenians and Penn was actively involved in her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton became one of the 32 Senate co-sponsors of the controversial Congressional Resolution to declare that the Turkish killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians from 1915 to 1923 — at the end of the Ottoman Empire — was genocide. Without a doubt, the key policy of the Armenian government is to get the genocide resolution passed. The Armenian Prime Minister is in Washington this week for meetings with Congress and key members of the Administration. Although there has been strong support for the Armenian Resolution, it suddenly ran into strong opposition from the Turkish Government, one of our most important allies in the Iraq War. Turkey permits the U.S. with use critical air fields. Ei ght former Secretaries of State — Democrats and Republicans — have written to Congress, urging defeat of the Resolution because it would “endanger our national security interests.” And three former Secretaries of Defense have warned that Turkey might decide that the U.S. can no longer use its air bases. But Hillary is still sponsoring the Resolution. Wonder why? The Armenia contracts paid Burson-Marsteller close to a half million dollars. Penn is not paid anything at all by the Clinton campaign. His compensation at Burson-Marsteller is directly tied to the performance of the company, which is booming. Running a presidential campaign may, in fact, be good for Penn’s business, but, ultimately, it won’t be good for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Edwards and Obama have severely criticized her for taking lobbyists money. It won’t help if her strategist continues to oversee a lobbying f irm. Last year, Burson-Marsteller’s parent company, WPP, raked in more than $53 million in fees from its various U.S. lobbying affiliates. (It’s been gobbling up D.C. lobbying firms in the past few years.) Interestingly, when Penn contributed to Hillary’s presidential campaign this year, he supplied a Miami Beach, Florida address instead of his home address in D.C. He also listed his employer as Penn & Schoen — not Burson-Marsteller — where he is employed in Washington as its “Worldwide CEO.” Can you think of a good reason for that? Could it possibly be so that anyone searching for political donations by employees of lobbying firms would skip over it and think it a different Mark Penn who lives in Florida? Or maybe he just forgot that he lives in Washington, D.C. and didn’t remember that he works at Burson-Marsteller. Given the unmistakable merger of his corporate and political work , its time for Penn to make a choice and follow the example of Karl Rove — and end either his corporate work or his political activity. They’re a dangerous mix. (NOTE: Burson-Marsteller is a major player in the world of corporate and political spinning, with offices all over the globe. A short list of clients are as followed: Phillip Morris, Occidental Petroleum, Bristol-Meyers, Entergy (nuclear power), Lockheed Martin, Texaco, AT&T, Allergen (makers of Botox), Greece, Taiwan, Cyprus, Virginia Tech, Doha16. Qatar (to try to get the 2016 Olympics there), Comcast, Sony Ericcson, Ikea, the National Fisheries Institute, Visa International and many, many others. In the past, the company has also represented the Chinese National Offshore Oil Co (CNOOC) (Burson operates over one hundred offices — including four separate offices in China), the Russian Government Press Office, Haiti, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Ahmed Chalabi, the disgraced president of the Iraqi National Congress who pushed for the overthrow of Saddam. But most of the firm’s clients remain secret: Unless direct lobbying is involved, there is no disclosure requirement.) I know you are going to come back with the Bush-Cheney chummy relations with companies that did business with the government -- but, really, do you want eight more years of that kind of ..... stuff. And, please, I know you guys are not so naive to think Hillary's not making a mint from her support. I don't have time to go look up the cushy book deals for the Clintons. Just read Morris. He knows the Clintons -- he loves Bill and hates Hillary.
I was originally responding to this: Like I said, you can accuse the Clintons of a lot of stuff, but you can't accuse them of pushing policies that lead to personal enrichment. What you've shown here is a guy making money off of Hillary, not Hillary making money off of legislation she's advocated. And just so you know, there aren't many Dems that care for Penn. He's a fairly odious guy. So, the criticism of Hillary's personnel judgement is fair game here. The idea that she designs legislation and advocates policies that will increase her personal wealth is not. Regarding book deals, there's been no deal by Hillary or Bill that is out of the ordinary for who they are.
Oh my! TJs of the world can not be pleased... Obama Takes Lead In Iowa The new Washington Post/ABC News poll that Dems have been talking about today has finally been released -- and it finds that Obama has edged into a lead over Hillary in Iowa, though the race remains close. Obama has 30% of likely voters, while Hillary has 26% and Edwards has 22%. The poll shows that Obama has marginally increased his standing since WaPo's last Iowa poll in August, which found Obama at 27%, with Hillary and Edwards at 26%. But various findings in today's poll suggest that rival criticism of Hillary might be working. Obama is ahead of her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate. And 55% say that "new ideas" is more important to them in a candidate, while 33% pick "strength and experience." Obama has argued that he's the race's true change agent, while Hillary counters that only she has the strength and experience to realize real change. Key fact: Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women, 32%-31%. http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/poll_obama_takes_lead_in_iowa.php
I just heard this. Great news. Did you see the footage of him, correcting the elderly lady in the audience at the question and answer gig? She was saying something about Iraq and protection from terrorists, and Obama laid down the law. It was great.
One thing that's going to be an interesting test is the ultimate effect of the youth vote. Obama really relies on it - and making things more complicated, the Jan 3rd caucus means a lot of the college kids may just be gone. We'll see, though - they are also the most likely to be "inspirable", so maybe they'll stay around.
Sorry blade, missed it. In fact the new job is keeping me so busy, today was the first time I've been able to check the BBS in a week. I'm sure the clip is on utube. Another poll out today shows Rudy in free fall in New Hampshire. nice...
Yes, I recall this. SamFisher guaranteed the election through the under reported masses that comprised the "cell phone vote". another great liberal idea that went t*** UP
I agree - one thing to note, Dean attracted the "youth vote" through anger with the mainstream; Obama does it through inspiration/hope. Not sure if there's any real difference there in terms of ultimate turnout either way, but it's been talked about by some of the talking heads.
This is actually good for Obama as Iowa college kids will be spread throughout the state rather than all in one or two districts.
So what I'm hearing is that you guys are banking on Iowa's college kids to vote for Hussein Obama? Have you ever seen Iowa's college kids? Lol. Some of you guys need to take a step back and think through your positions better.
Another interesting thing someone pointed out about these poll numbers was that Obama was the leading first choice and second choice. If that is close to the truth, even though it is difficult to poll Iowa a month out, then I can't see Clinton beating Obama in Iowa. I doubt those supporting a candidate other than Hillary or Obama would make a deal to support her over him during the caucus.
Rove tells Obama how to beat Hillary Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race By Karl Rove Published: December 2 2007 22:00 | Last updated: December 2 2007 22:00 TO: Senator Barack Obama FROM: Karl Rove SUBJECT: How to Beat Hillary Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere. You are way behind her in most national polls. The only way to change that is to beat her in Iowa so people around America take another look at you. You did a smart thing organising effectively in the early primary states. But you can take advantage of that only if you win Iowa and keep her from building an overwhelming sense of invincibility and inevitability. The good news is you have again got “the buzz”. Polls are looking better for you in Iowa and the other early states. Your press is improving, with your performance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner a big help. Hillary Clinton has made unforced errors. But she is still the frontrunner and there are several things you need to do quickly to win. First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way. Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise. Take the exchange in the Philadelphia debate about Bill and Hillary keeping documents hidden about her role as first lady in his White House. She was evasive. You spoke next. You would have won a big victory if you had turned to her and said: “Senator, with all due respect, you and your husband could release those documents right now if you wanted to. Your failure to do so raises questions among a lot of Americans about what you’re hiding and those questions would hurt our party if you were our nominee.” But your response was weak as dirty dishwater. Do not let other great opportunities pass by. Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster. You know better than most what they are worried about; they have told you their fears. It is why you have done so well raising money from Bill’s backers and gaining support from Clinton administration officials. Talk about those doubts. Put them in a bigger context than just the two of you. Remind primary voters that these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances. Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you – and she does. Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers’ licences for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her. Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one and Democratic voters know you were against the war and represent the idea of something fresh. But they do not know who you really are, what you want to do and where you want to take the country. Taking her down a few notches is step one; telling people who you are is the next. Both are necessary. Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on. The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation. Democrats do not like her sense of entitlement. She is not owed the nomination. It does not belong to her simply because her name is Clinton. So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humour and a smile and it will sting even more. Hillary comes across as cold, distant and conspiracy-minded, more like Richard Nixon than her sunny, charming husband. During the Clinton presidency she oversaw a disaster (the effort to sell Hillarycare) and argued hard against welfare reform, one of the promises on which he had campaigned. She is a hard-nosed competitor with a tough and seasoned staff. But her record is weak, her personality off-putting and her support thin. If she wins the nomination it will be because her rivals – namely you – were weak when you confronted her and could not look her in the eye when you did. She is beatable but you have to raise your game. Iowa is your great chance for a breakthrough. Win it convincingly and you can build on it in the contests that follow. Lose it and victory becomes much more difficult.
