Hillary Clinton used her trademark laugh Thursday to deflect a question about the $800,000 her husband earned in 2005 giving speeches for a Bogota-based group that supports the Colombia free trade agreement — the same trade deal she currently opposes.
Asked by CNN if those earnings represented a conflict of interest given that she has dipped into her family’s pocketbook to pay campaign bills, Clinton threw up her hands and laughed loudly for several seconds.
“How many angels dance on the head of the pin?,” she responded, continuing to giggle. “I have really, uh, nothing to … I mean, how do you answer that?”
The New York senator explained there are different sides to the argument over trade, and re-emphasized her own opposition to the trade deal, assailing the Colombian government’s “outrageous” record of “targeting labor leaders.”
“I am against the Colombia free trade deal,” she said. “It doesn’t matter who talks to me. It doesn’t matter any circumstances. I have been against it. I am against it. I will be against it absent the kind of changes in behavior that I have been calling for from the Colombian government.”
Earlier in the press conference, describing her husband’s advocacy for the trade deal, Clinton said: “Everyone is free to express their opinion.”
“Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,” says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. “The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.”
Idaho’s governor, Cecil Andrus, who has endorsed Barack Obama’s campaign, shipped out word today that Clinton and Joel Ferguson, the offending Michiganer who dissed on Idaho’s delegates, ought to apologize.
“Senator Clinton’s surrogates are telling Democrats in almost half the states in the country that they don’t matter, and that they are second class,” Andrus said in a prepared statement. “Senator Clinton needs to immediately denounce these comments and tell her campaign surrogates to stop taking cheap pot-shots at committed Democrats across the country.”
While researching material for this blog, I have become overwhelmed by the high percentage of stories that, with just a little extra research.. literally, a few mouse clicks.. reveal flat out lies by Hillary. Sure, all politicians lie, we say. But at what point do we start to be concerned.. maybe when 30 percent of EVERYTHING that person says can be quickly and clearly disproven?
Take this story, for example… I planned to use the headline for Hillary’s famous “It Takes a Village” book to start this post. It is common knowledge that Hillary borrowed a classic african proverb as her title, but I wanted to learn a little more about it, in the same way that I try to learn a little about every Hillary news article before I link to it. While there was nothing unusual about Hillary’s use of the title, save from the socialist theme it presents, I was lead straight to yet another bold-faced Hillary lie.
Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It Takes a Village. The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman. When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying “The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington. Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text.”
Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work. Feinman, however, was not mentioned anywhere in the book. Clinton’s acknowledgment section began: “It takes a village to bring a book into the world, as everyone who has written one knows. Many people have helped me to complete this one, sometimes without even knowing it. They are so numerous that I will not even attempt to acknowledge them individually, for fear that I might leave one out.” During her promotional tour for the book, Clinton said, “I actually wrote the book … I had to write my own book because I want to stand by every word.” Clinton stated that Feinman assisted in interviews and did some editorial drafting of “connecting paragraphs”, while Clinton herself wrote the final manuscript in longhand.
This led Feinman to complain at the time to Capitol Style magazine over the lack of acknowledgement. In 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that “New York literary circles are buzzing with vitriol over Sen. Clinton’s refusal, so far, to share credit with any writer who helps on her book.” Later, in a 2002 article for The Writer’s Chronicle, Barbara Feinman Todd (now using her married name) related that the project with Clinton had gone smoothly, producing drafts in a round-robin style. Feinman agrees that Clinton was involved with the project, but also states that, “Like any first lady, Mrs. Clinton had an extremely hectic schedule and writing a book without assistance would have been logistically impossible.” Feinman reiterates that her only objection to the whole process was the lack of any acknowledgement. A 2005 Georgetown University web page bio for Barbara Feinman Todd states that It Takes a Village was one of “several high-profile books” that she has “assisted, as editor, writer and researcher.”
I personally am ambivalent about the argument that ‘it is about time for America to have a female president.’ I couldn’t care less what the gender is of our Commander in Chief. I am much more concerned that the leader of our nation has a firm and consistent record of integrity.
I also feel that a person’s integrity isn’t shown by large gestures, but rather is apparent in the small everyday occurances that often go unnoticed. An example would be of the diner who is polite to the waitstaff during the meal and tips beyond the prescribed minimum after. Giving credit where credit is due, and humbly stepping aside and allowing an underling to accept praise when it is warranted is something we could use more of in our society.
But lying to steal the credit for another person’s work shows nothing but a maladjusted psyche and an overambitious mind. This is not a person I would recommend for any elected office, much less the highest in our land.