hillary voted for the gas tax before she voted against it

April 30, 2008

Hillary Clinton is calling for a holiday on the 18.4-cent gasoline tax, and she says she’d make up the funding from that (which funds transportation infrastructure) by taxing oil company’s “windfall” profits.

But it’s worth pointing out that Clinton OPPOSED efforts to cut or repeal gas taxes during her 2000 Senate contest against Rick Lazio.


A long long time ago in a galaxy not so far away

April 12, 2008

Hillary’s history of lying goes back a long way. It was documented in the national media as far back as this 1996 article by William Safire, Essay: Blizzard of Lies

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies.

Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be “hell to pay” if the furious First Lady’s desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary’s lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster’s White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years — in Hillary’s closet, in Web Hubbell’s basement before his felony conviction, in the President’s secretary’s personal files — before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell’s father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised to retain separate defense counsel.

Hillary laughs off another question about her ethics

April 12, 2008

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.”

another Clinton ally caught with his pants down

March 12, 2008

US Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton sidestepped questions on Monday about the sex scandal engulfing Eliot Spitzer, her home state governor and political ally.

“I don’t have any comment on that. Obviously I am sending my best wishes and thoughts to the governor and to his family,” Clinton said, opening her first campaign swing through Pennsylvania, which holds its presidential primary on April 22.

Spitzer apologized on Monday after he was accused of paying for sex with a call girl. Authorities say he was caught on a federal wiretap arranging a tryst with the woman at a Washington hotel room.

It was a blow to Clinton, who recently intensified her criticism of rival Barack Obama’s relationship with Antoin Rezko, a political patron on trial in federal court in Obama’s hometown of Chicago for alleged fraud and corruption.

While not personally close, Clinton and Spitzer have been friendly colleagues ever since the former first lady first ran for a US Senate in New York in 2000.

Her aides said Clinton deeply respected Spitzer’s work during his two terms as state attorney general, during which he became a national crusader against corporate corruption and Wall Street investment excesses.

Spitzer faced pressure to resign yesterday as well as questions about whether he would be prosecuted.

A New York Times report said he hired a US$1,000-an-hour prostitute and was caught on a wiretap at least six times on Feb. 12 and Feb. 13 arranging to meet her.

Spitzer, a married 48-year-old who investigated prostitution as attorney general, apologized for what he described as a “private matter,” but said nothing about resigning.

Hmm… a high ranking politician caught having sex with another woman. Now what other politician was impeached because of the same thing? Maybe Hillary could answer that.

life is full of trials

March 6, 2008

While Obama has seen a dip in his popularity due to the recent news surrounding the Tony Rezko scandal, let’s not forget about Hillbilly and Peter Paul.

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul’s team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons’ longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul’s Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons’ legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Joke of the Day

February 19, 2008

Clinton issues Obama skeletons warning

Hillary Clinton argues that she’s scandal-proof after all her years in federal politics.

But Republicans, she says, will have a field day with relative newcomer Barack Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee instead of her.

once again, the Clintons take the low road

February 19, 2008

“Mine will be the most ethical administration in the history of the republic!” President-Elect Bill Clinton, November 1992

The Clinton campaign has launched a furious spin war in the past few days against Barack Obama, ludicrously accusing Obama of “plagiarism” (even though the original source, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, has endorsed and campaigned for Obama), accusing delegates won in red state caucuses by Obama of being “second-class delegates” and threatening to blow up the party’s rules if the race lasts until the Democratic convention.

It’s too early to know if any of these attacks will stick. More victories tonight by Obama in Wisconsin and Hawaii and the momentum will remain on his side, making Ohio and Texas must-win for Clinton on March 4. Clinton can still rebound from her post-Super Tuesday slide. But if she does, it’s pretty obvious that she’ll capture the nomination by taking the low road.

The Politico’s Ben Smith asked a group of Democratic strategists how Clinton could still win. Their answers were revealing of Clinton’s predicament.

“The best thing she can do is either discredit Obama or raise doubts about him,” said Dan Gerstein, a former top strategist to Joe Lieberman. “I hate to say it, but in certain respects, it’s using the Bush strategy against Kerry against Obama.”

Democracy editor Ken Baer invoked a few similar doomsday scenarios:

1) Obama has a massive gaffe, 2) there is a terrorist attack or other major foreign policy crisis that gets people yearning for a steady hand or 3) there is a revelation of some sort of Obama scandal that gets Democratic voters to take a pause.

This advice begs the question: why can’t Clinton win on her own merits? Why can’t her campaign win caucuses, or highly educated voters, or compete competitively in red states? How have they failed to win a single contest since Super Tuesday? Gallup found that recently Obama has begun eroding Clinton’s advantages among key segments of her base, namely “women, Hispanics, and self-identified Democrats.”

These tracking polls, like all other polls this cycle, tend to be fluid and unreliable. Despite Obama’s string of victories, from a delegate standpoint the race is still very tight. Tonight could go either way. I wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton ends up pulling an upset in Wisconsin. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Obama wins, as expected, and Clinton never recovers. Either way don’t expect her campaign to take the high road from here on out.