we vet you.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Starr stuff is ancient history. Everything in the list comes post-presidency.

of Hillary and Bill have not been vetted. Just yesterday there was an article on the front page of the Chicago Tribune  detailing how Bill Clinton sold worthless stock options for 700k to some unnamed party that he recieved for one appearance for a fledging search engine company..Annocon(sp).. which is half owned by the Chinese govt. Boris Kasparov also made and appearance, got the options, and says he could never sell them for any value with the stock price too low. It smells funny. Full disclosure time Hillary and Bill. Who are the buyers? Time to be vetted.

I have heard absolutely more than enough about this release of the tax forms stuff. If you are an American then you would know that we ALL have until April 15th to file our taxes. I don't know what that means in Barack time but for the rest of us it means we have more than a month to file our taxes.

Do you know for any fact (I realize I may have to define the word for you so if you have problems looking it up on wikipedia just let me know) at all that the Clinton's have filed their tax forms? Any proof (another challenging word, I 'm sorry) that they are withholding something?

He tried his best to stay "above" the political warfare, but at some point it becomes necessary.

Well, I'll give you that Hillary's Obama/Rezko smear campaign has just started but this is an old story. He will be in the news  so the distortions will continue I guess. Just has NAFTA gate was all hot airs so is Rezko.

Glass Jaw? Funny he was back with the media the next day. It was a 'back of the plane' session, not a news conference sorry.

Looking for some reason to trash Hillary are you?  Doesn't even matter.  You just don't get it yet.  None of this stuff even matters to the average voter who voted in Ohio.  They don't follow this trash you spew.  They don't even care about this stuff about Rezko.  What they care about, and what Hillary offers is a competent and able person to do the damned job.  They did not think Obama was up to the task, and neither do I.  He needs more experience,  as VP maybe but not OJT in the WH.  We are in trouble out here, and Obama just doesn't have the stones for that, I'm afraid.  All your rants won't make a bit of difference in the end.  They don't even read your junk.

then Hillary's supporters would be yawning at this, not threatening to vet Bob Johnson, etc.

Vetting is helpful to both candidates.  Allows them to hone responses and play the "we've been over this, its a dead issue" card in the GE.  

AP:

"Obama's campaign immediately delivered on his pledge to criticize Clinton. Aides distributed a memo and held a conference call to question why she won't release her tax returns. The Clinton campaign responded with a statement e-mailed to reporters while they were on the Obama call that said the Clintons' returns since they left the White House will be made public around April 15."

Today is March 5th.  Why does she need more than a month to release tax returns for previous tax years?

She obviously doesn't want to give anybody much of an opportunity to scrutinize them in detail before the April 22, PA primary.

What is she hiding?

"what is she hiding?" meme has been duly received and used. Personally, I don't give a shit about that, or Rezko for that matter though the NAFTA stuff bothers me. And really, this diary comes off as petty and mean spirited because the bottom line for me is that she is the best person left standing to lead the country. Short of proving she slays kittens with a severed baby head, I'll continue to think so. (Honestly, I don't know where that image came from. Yikes.)

What is Hillary hiding?

I'd just note that there is a certain amount of dissonance between the "Obama has this thing locked up due to delegate math" narrative and the "time to look through the tax returns" narrative.  As long as you understand that, I'm hardly the one to get all "how dare you!" about it.

Personally, I think the notion that Obama has refrained from going negative to date is absolutely ludicrous, and I welcome some rummaging through Hillary's garbage pails simply because I'll never have to hear that myth again.

I should explain, by the way, that the concept of having been "vetted" doesn't actually mean that there has been nothing newsworthy about the Clintons post-presidency.  What it means is that there has been so much BS flung at them both over the years that attacks with no substance just seem to bounce off at this point.  The Kazakhstan thing is a good example since the blogs seem to think it's a colossal scandal just waiting to break, complete with all the good buzzwords ("foreign dictator!" "uranium!").  But seriously, you can wait all you want for the media to start asking questions about this, but you should realize that it's already been on the front page of the New York Times.  People have simply heard so much about the Clintons at this point that they have no interest in going there.

But I mean, this is a theory that can be tested.  Obama's campaign can make all the hay it wants over tax returns and whatever else, and if it sticks and hurts Hillary's chances, there's your proof that the "vetting" argument was invalid and that she's not made of Teflon after all.  So go for it, I say.

Bill Clinton's various '92 and '96 campaign committees still owe $319,630, according to the FEC.

They've got $13,128 cash on hand, too, for what, I don't know.

LOL Obama's arrogant run from the Illinois state senate to the White House is doing wonders for the Republican Parties chances.

Senators have to release financial disclousure every year they are in the senate? Doesn't that kind of make this who think about the tax returns meaningless? If there was something there the repubs would have found it by now.

Also, has Obama released all financial info from 2002 forward?

My day wouldn't be complete without one of your cheery missives.  Predictable as the sunrise.  It's so good to hear from the folks at DailyBarackos on a regular basis, since I am on hiatus for a bit.

The thing about past allegations, and the ones you bring up, is that they have been looked into, and nothing incriminating was found.  If there had been, we wouldn't be here, would we?  The VRWC just throws stuff at the Clintons, out of habit I think by now, in hopes that occasionally something will stick.  The sex scandals did, but as for the rest, not so much...

the new "change."

(i will never use the word "change" again...ugh)

MyDD. I just picked a few from March:

I would suggest My DD... (16+ / 0-)

... (where you already hang out). but you specifically asked for a DEMOCRATIC blog.

by Bob Johnson on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:04:34 AM PST

************** *
I want to see if... (3+ / 0-)

... Jerome will let it get to the Rec list, assuming it get enough recs. And if it does, how long will he let is live there?

by Bob Johnson on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:53:53 PM PST

************** *
Oh, I'ms sure you'll get an apology from the good (0+ / 0-)

************* *

Given all that, kos, how do you explain Jerome's (8+ / 0-)

... backing of Clinton
Was it all just words for him?
by Bob Johnson on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:12:35 PM PST

************** *

************* *

In the spirit of watching heads explode... (15+ / 0-)
... would those with MyDD accounts go over and rec this diary over in Hillaryland?

Thanks! It'll be fun to watch!

by Bob Johnson on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM PST

Yawn.

You don't get it.  All this type of stuff rolls off the back.  We've heard it all before.  These attacks against HRC are BORING.  Next!

With BHO, however, it is all fresh and new and exciting.

Get it?

1. Huge payoff when Bill ended his business relationship with Burkle, see http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1 20097424021905843.html

2. Travel and business in Abu Dhabi and other Middle Eastern locales, including his work for the UAE in the deal that was nixed in 2006 that would have given a company from UAE control over US Ports, available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60414c4c-a95e- 11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html

Not to mention, Ms. Stronach, http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/coverstory_stro nach.html

Looks like Canada is going to actually play a role in our elections.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-c linton-financesmar04,0,5935166.story

WASHINGTON - In December 2004, former President Bill Clinton made a much-publicized appearance at a launch party in New York for Accoona, a new Internet search engine billing itself as a rival to Google.

Clinton's presence at the gathering at Tavern on the Green in Central Park was a coup for the unheralded, privately held Accoona, which paid for the former president's appearance by issuing options for 200,000 shares of stock to Clinton's charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation. In 2006, the Clinton Foundation sold the shares for $700,000.

Another celebrity hired by Accoona, Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, did not fare as well. Kasparov also was paid in stock options, but his agent said he has not exercised them because his financial advisers told him last year that the shares were worth less than their $1 option exercise price.

The Clinton Foundation's good fortune with Accoona stock is among several lucrative transactions involving the former president's personal and charitable finances. Since leaving office in 2001, Clinton has wiped out millions of dollars in legal bills and become a multimillionaire through a brisk schedule of speechmaking and book-writing, as well as a pair of consulting and investing agreements that have yielded as-yet-undisclosed sums.

Hillary Clinton's negatives went up this week.

Just like her experience, the likelihood that she actually ends the war, that she'll govern like a Democrat and not a political opportunist.

Unless by vetted you mean repeatedly and mindlessly saying, "I've been vetted."

She says she has nothing to hide, but she won't release her tax returns?!?

I hope she doesn't have anything to hide, because words have a tendency to come back and haunt you.

From Wikipedia

"In comparison, 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton began to disengage from Hsu at an earlier phase of the scandal when Hsu's long time fugitive status was first revealed.[49][6] After indications of additional misconduct by Hsu,[14] the Clinton campaign then decided to refund a total of $850,000 in bundled contributions[53][54][55][56] Clinton was the first major candidate to give up bundled contributions from associates of Norman Hsu.[57] However, it is also true that her campaign ignored earlier private warnings about Hsu[39] and that Clinton was the largest recipient of bundled donations from Hsu.[58]

In 2006, former President Clinton referred to Hsu as "our friend Norman".[26] After the scandal went public, Bill Clinton remarked in colloquial language, "You could have knocked me over with a straw".[59] Democrats are continuing to try to reconcile positive personal impressions of Hsu with his criminal behavior. Mark Gorenberg, who now sits on 2008 Presidential candidate Barack Obama's national finance committee, remarked, "Despite it all, I still love the guy, despite everything you read, every experience I ever had with him was nothing but delightful, and I just scratch my head."[60]"

______

Just my opinion, by Obama may not be pounding the drum on Hsu because

1. he took money from him too
   
2. alot of Democrats (read Superdelegates) did as well
   
3. Senator Clinton responded early in returning moneys he bundled for her campaign.

Having read the article linked above, I'm curious to know why the diarist feels this is still a live issue.  It appears Senator Clinton was "vetted" on Hsu before the California primary.  

Having read through the linked article I think there may be some smoke here with no real fire.  

1. Can or should the Obama campaign take responsibility for the validity of every contribution made to his campaign?  Do we have the resources and time to examine how every one of those contributions were extracted?  If every donor seems financially able to make their contribution given their living conditions? If every donor used their correct name?  Where their funds came from?

2. Having worked some within a Chinese community I see where all of the articles "beef" could have plausible probable explanations that do not reflect poorly on Senator Clinton.

I would not be surprised at all to find persons able to make $1000 contributions to a political campaign living in rundown housing WITHIN A CHINESE COMMUNITY.  In my limited experience, recent Chinese immigrants are close knit and not likely to move uptown once they have the means.  

Given the extremes of the language barrier, I would not be at all surprised to see Americanized names spelled incorrectly, wrong addresses or professions misrepresented.  I would also not be surprised to see a Chinese waiter with considerable savings.

Lastly, in my work with Chinese immigrants, they themselves spoke of the importance to them of following the lead of community leaders without question and maintaining personal prestige within their community.  The cultural differences in this regard are startling.   while this sets up the possibility of what could look to western eyes as coerced donations or donations made in ignorance,  these practices with the community hardly reflect some breech of ethics from the Clinton campaign.

Agreed, there is some meat here, in this sense --

Were Senator Clinton to win the nomination and the election we have alot to sort out regarding the role of Bill Clinton in her administration and how best to place firewalls between his activities and hers.

Within the course of the campaign, there needs to be a thurough investigation of the Clinton Foundation -- where the moeny comes from, where the money goes.  This is not to suggest any impropriety as it appears the foundation does amazing good and can do that only by tapping into wealthy donors.  

However, Bill Clinton's legitimate activities as a former president would come into conflict with his role as the husband of the president.  

So, I agree with the diarist, examine the Foundation and Bill's activities closely but I would argue there is not yet evidence of impropriety only potential conflict of interest down the road.

Lastly, we need to be careful in assuming married persons are of like mind, ethics and choices, but more on that below.

From the linked article it appears foreign funding sources for the library and the foundation are not all that unique to the Clinton Library, except in the reticence in releasing the full list of donors.

Like the Kazakstan story, this speaks to the new potential conflicts of interest presented by a Hillary Clinton candidacy.  There is much here to sort through, but not necessarily scandal at the bottom of the pile.

Taking donations from foreign governments and leaders is not unusual apparently, even Jimmy Carter accepted funds from the Saudis.

that said, Obama makes a strong case for oversight  especially given the uniqueness of a potential president whose spouse has a presidential library and foundation.  Here's hoping Senator Clinton will come forward in support of such measures.  (if she hasn't already...too late for me to go digging on that one)

tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle

Not sure what the diarist is trying to suggest with this link as the entire point of the article is to point out how former President Clinton is openly attempting to swiftly DE-tangle himself from a legitimate business concern.

___

form the piece itself:

"Appropriate Transition

Asked about the unwinding of the Yucaipa relationship, a spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president "is taking steps to ensure" that there will be "an appropriate transition" for the business relationship should Mrs. Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination.

The spokesman added it isn't yet known how much Mr. Clinton will receive from his involvement in Yucaipa. A Yucaipa spokesman declined to comment on the firm's relationship with Mr. Clinton.

As part of the effort to sever financial connections that could complicate Mrs. Clinton's presidential bid, the couple in June disclosed that they had sold millions of dollars worth of stock in public companies and put the funds in cash accounts.

The first public sign of Mr. Clinton's pullback from Yucaipa came recently when a Clinton spokesman confirmed, in response to questions from the Journal, that the former president hadn't participated in an investment that the Yucaipa foreign fund made in Xinhua Finance Media Ltd. Top officials of the Beijing-based news and information company have had close ties over the years to China's Communist government."

__________

I'm not sure if the criticism here is that the former president sells his influence to make money (a common practice from former presidents) or that his involvement made alot of money for Yucaipa (seeing as that is what he was paid to do) or if Senator Clinton is to be faulted because her husband makes alot of money (while collecting hundreds of millions for charitable causes).

Shall we fault Barack Obama for Michelle's profitable work in the private sector?  (grant you much less without the star power...yet)

This entry strikes me as all smoke, no fire and an attempt to throw as much confusing crap at the wall to bring Senator Clinton's finances into question.  It's reaching and thus dilutes the diarist's argument.  

It appears from the link that President Clinton is making every effort to DEtangle himself from any potential conflicts of interest.  This is a GOOD thing.

Well, just from the above reading it would appear the Clinton's tax return is just a wee bit more complex than mine and not something you drop off at H&R Block and pick up next Tuesday.

It is not only complex but yes, potentially damaigng to her campaign BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR ANY IMPROPRIETY.

This is politics and she happens to be campaigning head to head against a man who has not amassed a great fortune, nor will Senator Obama need to delve into the financial windfall of being married to an ex-president.  
while no Jimmy Carter, I have admired Bill Clinton for the philanthropic work he's done with his celebrity when he could be getting filthly rich like every other past president and only playing golf while doing it.  

And yet, yes, whatever is on that tax return can be recrafted into fodder, decanted down into sound bites, used to portray the Clintons badly -- if only for the confusing nature of it all and nothing more.

If it means anything, I would urge Senator Clinton to get her talking points in a row (I'm sure they're working on it, thus the delay) and get that return out ASAP.  The longer she stalls, the more it appears they have something to hide.  But I would argue there is nothing damning in that return, only further evidence that the Clintons are financially shrewd which could be used by Obama (but not McCain) to fashion some image of her that may not sit well with regular Americans going through hard times.

All that said, the press is and has been pounding her on this since February and the American people have responded with one big yawn.  Yeah they're rich, yeah Old Bill has his thumb in many pies but ya know what?  They're still good people...at least to those who don't buy into the Clinton Conspiracy bugaboos.

oh no you didn't.

Here's where the diarist lost me for good and for all -- Bill Clinton's extracurriculars are common knowledge, did nothing to effect his popularity as president and so I am hardpressed to understand how any unknown dalliances would constitute "vetting" of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has been "vetted" on her husband's promiscuity like no other woman ever in the history of promiscuous man.  Who are we going to find out he's been doing that could possibly reflect on her ability to serve?  Mrs. Ahmadinejad?  One of the Bin Laden sisters?  Cindy McCain?  (not that would be not only plausible but make for some big fun politics)

You know, Old Bill is getting up there (pardon the pun) and it's just possible he's either slowing way down or has learned his lessons on discretion the real real hard way. (pardon the pun) Most likely he segueing into his golden Teddy screw you with his eyes years.  

But the bottom line is -- we already ran around this bush (sorry) so many times we all know the drill (sorry) -- IT'S NOT HER FAULT.

To start, maybe Obama and CNN could make some serious hay around how President Clinton would be able to distance her administration from the activities of the Clinton Foundation.  Go for it, but unless we make it illegal for spouses of former presidents to serve, we're just going to have to figure it all out together, hopefully not as we go.

The tax return?  Yeah, she needs to move on that ASAP.  I'm betting she's crafty enough to know that without me telling her.  And the issue has gotten at least some press time and didn't seem to get any traction with voters in Ohio and Texas and everywhere else she's one.  But yes, vet away on the tax return.

the rest of it?  Well, I'm all for the press digging into all of it all they want.  I'm all for the press digging on anything that needs digging as long as it's presented fairly.  But from the press digging I've seen in the links above these are old stories or stories without teeth.

As for "vetting" -- it's not just about having all your laundry on the line -- it's about how your respond when it gets thrown at you -- THAT'S the "vetting".  Do you stand up to whatever it is and give the best possible answer?  Or do you run from reporters hard questions like you just crapped you pants.  So you allow the hard questions to throw you into disarray?  Or do you keep your eye on the ball no matter what.  Does the muck seem to stick?  Or does it seem to slide off?  

We know one thing about the Clintons -- in that regard they have been vetted and how.  the simple fact that Hillary is rising or even still in this race speaks volumes to her vettitude.  We all still wait breathlessly to see if Obama enjoys the same skills because one thing he ain't?  Is vett-proof.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/gallup_hillary_takes_fou rpoint.php

Today's Gallup tracking poll gives Hillary Clinton a four-point national leader over Barack Obama -- the first time in several weeks that she's been able to claim that big a lead. Here are the numbers, compared to yesterday:

Clinton 48% (+3)
Obama 44% (-1)

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/polltracker/pres_08/

Pres '08
Mar 5 ABC/WaPo
Clinton (D) 50%, McCain (R) 44%

that Senator Clinton's claims to be "vetted" are overstated (she has definitely been through the wringer more than Senator Obama, but that doesn't mean she's been completely vetted), but I don't think going negative is a winning strategy for Senator Obama, even if he tries to do it through surrogates.

The gleam comes off of him.

mental note... make appointment for Hillary with Dr. Starr. It seems he forgot to perform the colonoscopy.

Bring it on Bob?? Unlike your candidate we are not scared!!!

What you and Sen Obama's campaign do not seem to realize is that republicans are going Vett every aspect of the Democratic nominee.

Unfortunately Sen Obama can not keep playing his race card and religion cards with Republicans and swift boaters because  they just do not care.

He can not prevent Republicans from calling him "Barack Hussain Obama" because they just do not care

They are going to investigte all his pastors connections because they just do not care

They are going to find out every detail about REZKO and Auchi Connection.

Another thing Mrs Obama will not be off limits for them.

3 of the 5 co-defendants in the rezko trial have contributed to the Bill and HRC campaigns.
Rezko did also.

I note they also contributed to Mark Green (HRC fan) of NYC also.

Why is HRC hiding the Rezko contributions to her and her husband?

This one is from CNS, which (along with CTV) was recently popular with the HRC people because CNS was running some of the Nafta stuff.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp? Page=Politics/archive/200709/POL2007090 7b.html

The fair and restrained "vetting" of HRC suggested by this diary doesn't use the much harsher tactics of S&L.  The anti-BHO critics must be ignoring all the harsh HRC criticism when they pull their material from these right wing attack sites.  As a result the anti-BHO forces are testing BHO against the harshest right wing stuff.  (And the HRC camp is feeding the right wing lies to start with: African picture, staffers sending BHO is a Muslim email, fake Madrassa story http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa
,HRC's muslim comments on 60 min, HRC phone banks calling BHO "Osama.")  But, the false sense that there are no outstanding anti-HRC attacks is mind boggling.  (BHO has a much better case against McCain because he doesn't have baggage, he predicted all of the things that have happened in Iraq, he is willing to be aggressive, but not "dumb.")

Let me give you a taste of the anti-HRC line.  The 9-11 report (Paragraph #274 (on page 48)) says it was foriegn policy decisions of the Clinton administration that inspired Bin Laden that he could do 9-11.  Silly HRC supporters have no idea how much the Clinton presidency was not ready for the 3:00 AM call, but the right wing would make that crystal clear to you and the rest of America.  

I hope the HRC people can get out of their bubble.  So we can all support BHO.  I guess, in a twisted way, it is helpful to have BHO go through the harsh stuff early.

Regarding old issues, the press was more interested in Bill's involvement rather than Hillary's and the issue of Hillary's judgment, character and ethics was not relevant.  The fact that Hillary was not charged with a crime doesn't mean these issues are not relevant. Hillary herself promotes her lifetime of experience.

One example is Hillary's cattle trading profits/bribe where she turned $1,000 into $100,000 via the help of an advisor to Arkansas company Tyson Foods.  Only after the trades were made did the broker code the transactions by customer and thus decide which trade - meaning what profit or loss - to parcel out to whom.

USC's Marshall School of Business take on Hillary's trading http://www-marshall2.usc.edu/main/magazi ne/98winter/hillary.html

"These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day.

Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptional good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account. Many people familiar with these markets think that the first two explanations are exceedingly unlikely. Well-informed traders rarely trade with such remarkable success and consistency.

Although no evidence of fraudulent trade assignment has ever surfaced, this explanation seems most likely to many people. Here is a simple example of how a dishonest broker could achieve this objective: Execute buy and sell orders in the same contract. The contract price will eventually go up or go down. If it goes up, assign the profitable buy trades to the favored account and assign the losing sell trades to an account owned by the benefactor. If the price falls, assign the profitable sell trades to the favored account and assign the losing buy trades to the benefactor's account."

Answer:  YES!

My dog loves new bone than dry bone.  Obama's skeletons in the closest hasn't been touch.  It's fresh and juicy.  Repug attack dogs are going to love it.  Saaweettt.

Even DailyObama has taken it down.

Has Michelle Obama apologized for the unpatriotic comments he uttered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin?