"People don't change," says uberliberal Frank Rich (!), detailing why a "Billary" nomination would be a gift from heaven for the beleaguered Republicans. How come? Here's part of the reason:
To get a taste of what surprises may be in store [if HRC gets the nomination], you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”
Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.
Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.
Awful people. And the GOP's best hope this fall.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It's nice to hear Frank Rich speak reason and agree with what I've been saying.
""we need to be careful not to confuse his administration with the conservative movement"
We DO? Why? Bush himself doesn't; why should we?"
Because Bush is not a conservative.
Because you're not a Bush Admin stooge.
Need more?
where's the carping about the hundreds of millions that scaife handed out? The problem seems to be in the Senate which is bottling up the bill that would require disclosure. There's the story, not that the Clintons [or whoever else, e.g. Reagan library, bush library] are not disclosing what they are not required to disclose. i favor disclosure as much as the next person.--- equal disclosure and equal demands for disclosure.
"That special Clinton consistency":
n., see "Little Rock Oysters"
The Clintons have Barrack in the "black box". In SC the 89% black vote put him there. The Hispanic voters are Clinton supporters. Watch super-duper Tuesday when Mrs. Clinton will win 16 of the states with the most delegates from the largest states. Also, a Clinton/Obama ticket would crush any Republican candidate out there. The republican flip flopper, the noun-verb-9/11er, and an Iraq war monger...... I don't think so. THE PEOPLE will reject them.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.