Hillary Clinton's 'obsession' with money could be an obstacle for her 2016 campaign

[KamaAina]

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-obsession-with-money-affecting-her-campaign-2015-2

Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner in 2016, is under a barrage of criticism for her finances including her six-figure speaking fees and her foundation's fundraising practices. The headlines have some experts on both sides of the aisle convinced Clinton's cash could be an issue in her prospective White House bid.

Multiple Republicans working on the 2016 race told Business Insider they thought Clinton's finances were a major weakness for her on the campaign trail.

"I think that it absolutely would be a potent attack against Hillary Clinton, if only for the fact that she's just not able to relate to the guy who's actually waiting paycheck to paycheck," one GOP operative said.

In the most explosive development, The Washington Post reported Wednesday night that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation broke an agreement it made with the White House by taking a $500,000 contribution from the Algerian government while Clinton was secretary of state. The agreement was designed to prevent foreign governments from indirectly currying favor with the State Department through Clinton.

Ruh-roh, Rorge!

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. what "obsession"

More rightwing bullshit memes on DU?

You do understand that the Clinton Foundation is not a PAC right? Do you know what that organization does? Its not making the Clinton's rich....its a charitable foundation.

[KamaAina]

3. "rightwing bullshit memes"? In the Washington Post?

You must be thinking of the NY Post.

I do indeed understand that the Clinton Foundation is not a PAC. That isn't the point. From the article:

The agreement was designed to prevent foreign governments from indirectly currying favor with the State Department through Clinton.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. Where do you get Washington Post?

Business Insider is an American business and technology news website launched in February 2009 and based in New York City. Founded by DoubleClick Founder and former CEO Kevin P. Ryan, it is the overarching brand where Silicon Alley Insider (launched May 16, 2007) and Clusterstock (launched March 20, 2008) appear.[2] The site provides and analyzes business news and acts as an aggregator of top news stories from around the web. Its original works are sometimes cited by other, larger, publications such as The New York Times[3] and domestic news outlets like NPR.[4] The online newsroom currently employs a staff of 50, and the site reported a profit for the first time ever in the 4th quarter of 2010.[5] In June 2012 it had 5.4 million unique visitors.[6]

[KamaAina]

10. From this:

In the most explosive development, The Washington Post reported Wednesday night that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation broke an agreement

[NYC_SKP]

9. These might be considered RW attacks if the Clintons were Left Wing. But they aren't.

By their policies of war and globalism, they are clearly center-right.

The womens' rights, etc., are all just easy-to-do "feel good" ways of garnering support.

When you look at what they did while in office, none of it looks all that good, even for those under represented people.

[NYC_SKP]

18. "Fought against electric rate cut" "Yes: criminalize flag burning" "Yes to wiretapping"

From your reply:

1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)

Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning. (Jan 2010)

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

OpEd: Disagrees with progressives on corporatism & military. (Dec 2014)

Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison. (Aug 1994)

to name a few problems

Why not just elect a moderate Republican?

[arcane1]

34. So many things in that list are so vague or meaningless as to appear deperate.

"The economy is not working for middle class families" is what every politician says.

"Supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed" doesn't sound very liberal to me.

"Click here for 16 full quotes on Crime" um... click where?

"1969: held herself aloof from college drug counterculture" Who cares? Talk about padding a list!

"Sent Chelsea to public schools in Arkansas, but not DC" So?

"ISIL is more advanced and well-funded than al Qaeda" Obvious stattement everyone agrees with.

"Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers" Surely the only Dem who is against illegal guns!

"Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military" A classic liberal position: larger armies!

"Served on Armed Services Committee & was always prepared" "Always prepared" sounds like a great slogan!

[NYC_SKP]

39. "OnTheIssues" is the source and they carry the links for most of these. I.E, Clinton supports TPP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251397026

and http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

and:

Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.

Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history.

Many proponents of the agreements argue that negotiations need to take place in secret in order to protect the fragile interests of participating countries. This has not sat well with public interest groups and more liberal members of the Democratic Party.
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren" , Aug 24, 2014

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

There's much more. What I copied and pasted was from the word wall reply to which I replied, which I see is now hidden, probably due to copyright violation though I don't know for certain.

[Persondem]

60. HRC may have started the negotiations for TPP but that does not mean

she is responsible for the final product. The direction and contents of TPP could have changed quite a lot with new leadership in State. It is just not fair to hang that on her. Since leaving SoS she has not stated her opinion on TPP for just that reason; it is no longer the same document. Would you accept being blamed for something that other people have been working on for 2 years? I expect you would have a very difficult time finding a statement from HRC expressing her support for TPP since leaving SoS.
Likewise the attempt to paint her with NAFTA is weak. What does "she saw herself in the middle of [NAFTA]" even mean? Did she negotiate it? No. Did she sign it? No. It was Bill's baby, not hers.

The left wing has echo chambers just like the rw, and they are just about as useful. The anti-HRC theme runs loud and strong in such places.

[Mnpaul]

74. "OnTheIssues" is the source

which bans using any of their material without written permission. I'm glad that post was hidden. It is clearly a copyright violation.

Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages without written permission is prohibited.

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

I don't know how that squares off with fair use but I usually just use a link or quote material that isn't their property(book and newspaper quotes).

[davidpdx]

76. I'm glad one of her spam post finally got hid

She copy/pastes the same thing 10-20 times a day everyday.

[Thinkingabout]

20. I hear Bill Kristol with your same talking points, what is the deal?

[MADem]

17. Not just "rightwing," but "sexist." You rarely see that word paired with males, politicians or

otherwise.

The idea is to invoke a "Glenn Close Boils Your Bunny" meme in the minds of the readers--it's a very, very cheap shot. And terribly obvious.

But what do you expect from "Business Insider." I mean, really--what IS that "publication?" It seems like their claim to fame is ripping off the works of others and dropping the odd unsourced turdbomb here and there.

By their works we shall know them, I guess.

[Mike Nelson]

2. Wonder where they found "multiple Republicans" who...

...could speak from a non-obsessive stance!

[misterhighwasted]

4. The Hillary Hate Club quotes right wing memes here on DU??

Digging deep and sounding desperate.
Ban the trolls.
What else did those"Multiple Republicans" have to say? Hmmm..well gee they are just concerned gopers afterall.
..pffft

[KamaAina]

24. I am not a member of the Hillary Hate Club.

I am throwing this out there because you know very well that the repukes will throw this in her face if she is the Dem nominee.

[misterhighwasted]

27. Of course they will. This is actually mild considering what' coming

The GOP must have quite the fear of her to have so much hate.
More the reason to want Hillary as Pres 2016 then.
They have feared & hated her & tried to silence her push for health care since her husbands Presidency.
Considering their wish for women to have no rights to their own person, I see where their fear of Hillary may come from.
She is a very powerful woman. She comes from the era of bra burning, birth control & women's right to choose.
Yes they do hate her. They are the Fundy KKKristian Right wing.
They too have much power.
I will support Mrs Clinton to the bitter end.
Thanks

[KamaAina]

28. You got it. Hillary : GOP sexism :: Obama : GOP racism.

Imagine if we had an openly gay candidate!!

[misterhighwasted]

30. Yes. A black man, a woman, a gay Pres & then a Hispanic

l I would love to see that happen.
Maybe this Nation could begin treating human beings & our planet with dignity.

[rhett o rick]

35. Instead of refuting the arguments against HRC for president, some just disparage those

those that they don't agree with. "Ban the trolls". That pretty well sums it up. No discussion of issues, just ban those that disagree. That isn't "politically liberal".

We can do better.

[davidpdx]

77. And don't forget screaming sexism

Everything said against Hillary Clinton is sexist.

[NYC_SKP]

5. $500,000? $300,000? Eh, chicken feed. An hour's work. Please give us Warren or Sanders!

I really think we can do this.

We had better be working on this NOW, not waiting until the big announcement and then the embarrassing skeletons.

Fuck, to think that all it took was a scream to kill Howard Dean's candidacy.

This mingled money influence peddling appearance problem is pretty serious.

I mean, I don't like the Clintons because I think they are phony opportunists who don't really care about regular people.

But this could cost us the election, we can do so much better!

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. and I think they cannot win....

are you willing to bet a Republican President (with a Republican House and Senate) on that? Because I am not!

[NYC_SKP]

12. I will vote for the most Progressive and Honest candidate no matter their chances of winning.

And I am certain, even this early in the game, that it will not be Hillary Clinton.

By definition, she isn't qualified.

She or He who best represents, with words and with deeds, traditional core Democratic and Progressive values will have my vote.

If everyone were to vote by that same criterion, Warren or Sanders would easily win, and even get a sizable chunk of the Independent and Republican vote because working class Americans who need a champion are found in all parties.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. but you don't want to be blamed for a President Cruz...or President Walker or President Rubio

if she wins the Nomination and you just can't vote for her because of your "principles" right?

By definition she IS most certainly qualified to win the Primary....much more so than say an Independent like Bernie Sanders is...

[Thinkingabout]

21. With current events I doubt either Warren or Bernie could win.

Their vote on the ISIS Resolution would be a huge problem.

[rhett o rick]

36. You may be correct. Wall Street will be tough to fight, but the people want change.

I am fed up with the "best of evil" manipulation by the Powers That Be.

22% of American children live in poverty and 45% live in low income homes. A Wall Street candidate won't fix that.

[Thinkingabout]

40. I am also but dont see how fighting Wall Street is going to put food in their mouths.

It was Republicans voting to lower food stamps while putting big bucks into farm subsidies. We should focus on electing Democrats in Congress as well as the state level. The GOP is more interested in halting Obama's immigration EO than funding HSA, They are more interested in repealing ACA than giving the proper assistance to Veterans. They are more interested in abortion stop measures than the children born from forced births.

[rhett o rick]

46. You are right we need to elect Democrats that will tax the wealthy to pay for food stamps.

HRC is not that Democrat. The middle class has been hit hard and need the help of the wealthy to fund social nets and fix our infrastructure. Forcing that on the middle class will just drive them down to the poverty levels.

Wealth inequality is the evil we need to fight and HRC isn't going to do it for us.

[Thinkingabout]

49. From what i have heard in the past few days she wants to change taxes so the

Wealthier will pay a higher % of taxes. Unless you heard something today I am going to stick with her being for higher % than the wealthy are paying currently. Have you heard a different statement today?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49150934


She has also been talking about the income inequality.

http://mobile.thehill.com/policy/finance/206341-clinton-presses-business-on-income-inequality

[misterhighwasted]

13. Sound like they would prefer a Walker before a Hillary..

How's that Scott Walker feel about women's issues? LBGT? ..
Geez to post Republican pols & quotes here on DU because they don't like a candidate who has not actually said she's running for 2016 is digging deep. I swear DU has been hijacked by Yahoo comments page.

My god this is becoming a sorry bunch lately.
You dont have to like a candidate at all. But to resort to GOP polls & GOP quotes as valid is pretty disgusting for a Democratic Leaning website.

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. Yes it sure does....they just cannot see themselves can they?

[NYC_SKP]

19. Do you think HRC has a monopoly on supporting LBGT and womens' rights? Do you?

Hillary hasn't even declared a candidacy yet, FFS.

[misterhighwasted]

22. ?? Oh duh! just effin go away. Re-read my post.

Never said she did.
You hate so deeply you cannot even say she does fight for those two groups of Citizens.
You can only hate.
So hate away then.
Talk your GOP talking points & have a great day.
Ignore to You.

[NYC_SKP]

26. She doesn't fight, she picks an easy-to-defend position, no courage required.

Courage would be to challenge the rich and to support the poor.

Every democrat does or certainly should support LGBT and womens' rights.

Really, how hard is that?

[Thinkingabout]

31. Well, you can mark this one off your list, she has taken a stand on the income inequality, she

Thinks this is an issue which should change. You need to research before posting statements like this.
Hillary has advocated for the poor for many years, pushed for women to make as much money as men doing the same jobs, has pushed for better education of children, took cases without pay to help the poor.

I know this is going to which you, but when she and Bill was a young couple in Arkansas they did not have lots of bucks to live on, she had to build a clientele in order to get paid and the job as governor did not pay a lot of money, they have been on the bottom, I also doubt their college days included lots of money. You see, others are obsessed about money, not the Clintons.

[rhett o rick]

47. Instead of giving good reasons to support HRC you try to claim

that anyone that doesn't worship her, wants a Republicon. Really? That's the best you can do?

[unblock]

8. now all they need is to find a penniless republican candidate that billionaries will admire and...

... oh wait.

[Thinkingabout]

23. Hillary is not obsessed with her and wealth, it is those who continues to ride this train who are

Obsessed. It is RW talking points, look at her record of advocating for women's rights worldwide, Civil Rights, children's education and health care. Why do I not see in the RW character post complaining about the Clinton wealth these issues also, conveniently left out.

[misterhighwasted]

25. Thank You [phone]

Absolutely correct.
Busy day for the haters & their GOP talking points

[rhett o rick]

37. So do you think she will raise the taxes on the wealthy and make Goldman-Sachs pay their

fair share? I don't think so. Do you think she will end the wars in the middle east? I don't think so.

Will she cut defense spending?

[Thinkingabout]

41. What do you base these two statements?

[rhett o rick]

44. LOL. I knew you'd respond with a question. Never commit, right? Point out the fault

in what others say, but never commit yourself.

I don't think HRC will address the wealth inequality. Her and Bill have gone from broke to a wealth of over $100,000,000, placing them in the top 0.01% of our wealthiest. That means they have amassed about 7 million dollars a year for 15 years. I don't think they are interested in making the wealthy pay their fair share. Do you?

[Thinkingabout]

50. I thought you may be gathering information I am not aware. BTW

I sent you links in another post which spells out her stand on this. Not everybody of wealth and who has acquired wealth forgets about working people. For instance, FDR was born into wealth and I've of the greatest social programs, Social Security, was enacted during the time he was president. Don't judge the Clintons by what you have heard or read about other people. The CGI was created by Bill Clinton and others to help poor and needy people. Your logic needs to include sometimes rich people give to others. Warren Buffett has amassed lots of wealth, he gives money to projects, Bill and Linda has amassed wealth, they have projects they give. In fact you don't have to be wealthy to give, there is time which can be shared.

[rhett o rick]

53. By their very nature the wealthy are our enemy. They steal a Trillion dollars from us

and give a million to charity. Yeah! We have millions of children living in poverty and some here still worship the wealthy. I am guessing you favor the trickle down theory.

[brooklynite]

69. So, you're saying she did NOT vote to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the upper income tiers?

Is that your final answer?

[rhett o rick]

70. More questions. Is that all you guys got?

I guess that way you don't have to commit yourselves. "So you're saying" is a favor of you guys. Why are you so afraid of telling us where you stand?

Here's how I feel. I don't believe that H. Clinton is our best choice for a number of reasons. And none of you guys have even tried to explain why she is our only choice. You are too busy asking questions. H. Clinton has very close ties to Goldman-Sachs, one of the worst of the worse. H. Clinton turned her back on Democrats when she bowed down to George Bush. The Democratic Party has very good people that don't have her baggage. But if you want another corporatist in the WH, then vote H. Clinton.

[brooklynite]

72. Actually, I have

I've explained why I believe that Hillary Clinton can, in my analysis, win an election against any likely Republican opponent. You are welcome to dispute that point, but it needs to be based on something more than "she didn't win last time". Last time she ran against one of the best organized and most capable candidates we've had in decades, and you haven't offered any explanation of how a Bernie Sanders or alternative candidate of your choice can win on a national level.

I've explained that Hillary Clinton supports core Democratic principles (women's rights, gay rights, progressive taxation, social safety net support, etc.). You're free to disagree, but try to point to specific policies she's voted for or has advocated, rather than throw out platitudes like "close ties to Goldman-Sachs".

The Democratic Party may well have "very good people that don't have her baggage". But they haven't chosen to run. And you appear not to have lifted a finger to convince them.

[rhett o rick]

73. I recognize that H. Clinton supports woman's rights and LGBT rights, but

all Democratic candidates would support those core values. But currently the wealth inequality gap is widening. Big money, big banks, Goldman-Sachs, are in business to gain profits at any expense they can. If we cant turn that around, the 99% will all be paupers within a decade. Our next president must be dedicated to saving the middle and lower classes of this country and I have no confidence that H. Clinton will be interested. She belongs to the corporatist wing of the party. Ending wars and cutting back on our defense budget will be a big part of saving the middle and lower classes. There is no indication she will be willing to do that. How about reigning in the NSA/CIA Deep State? Patriot Act? Domestic Spying? She supports trade agreements that move jobs overseas and endangers our environment laws. And fracking that is destroying our environment and drinking water. She supports fracking.

Yes H.Clinton agrees with progressive on some social issues but that's where it ends.

And maybe most importantly, she has demonstrated that in a pinch she will go to the dark side and support Republicons in their worst hour.

[blkmusclmachine]

29. Clinton has an obsession with bi-partisanship/triangulation. That, we know for sure.

[Dems to Win]

32. WHY do foreign governments WANT to give money to the Clinton Foundation?

I've heard now about contributions from Canada and Algeria.

How many other foreign charities receive money from these governments? Why the Clinton Foundation?

Is it really charitable to take money from the government of Algeria? What can the Clinton Foundation do that's preferable to Algeria spending that money on the needs of its own citizens?

I'm a cynic regarding the Clinton Foundation, in some pretty fundamental ways. Nothing this foundation does as charity can balance out the damage done to basic economic fairness and justice under the Clinton Administration, such as the repeal of Glass-Steagall and NAFTA. (I feel the same about the Gates Foundation not making up for the harm Microsoft does hiring prisoners and temp workers without benefits, and some other foundations, too)

This foundation seems to create a lot of baggage the Democrats don't need in their next presidential candidate.

[KamaAina]

33. The implication was that they were trying to curry favor with Hillary

when she was SoS.

[Thinkingabout]

42. If you were in a small village without good drinking water would you need help?

[rhett o rick]

45. Questions and more questions. Why not tell us what you think? nm

[davidpdx]

78. According to the Clinton supporters we shouldn't be questioning her motives

Bad! Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad!



But seriously I agree with you, especially about the damage the repeal of Glass-Steagall did.

[quadrature]

38. will she stop doing it, if elected Prez?

taking money from foreign gov'ts, that is.

She needs to speak up.

[NYC Liberal]

43. "Multiple Republicans working on the 2016 race" -- more right-wing bullshit smears.

[rhett o rick]

48. Why don't you show us how wrong these "smears" are? Tell us how HRC stands on issues.

Defend her stands on issues in lieu of just disparaging anyone that doesn't worship her.

She supports fracking. Do you?

[Thinkingabout]

51. Questions and more questions. Why not tell us what you think?

[rhett o rick]

52. I have numerous times but you only have questions. What issue do you want to discuss?

Fracking, the TPP, the Patriot Act, ? What?

[libdem4life]

54. The Purity Party, AKA Hillary deniers, are out in force. There is no logic that can be

explained any clearer than this: If I had to raise over a billion dollars in a couple of years (this would be any candidate, BTW) just to play the game of national politics, I'd better damn well be "obsessed" about it. First of all to prove to the donors I could go the distance, then to, yes, do a number of dances that will give them a say in how that immense amount of money is spent. Deal with it.

And reading the entire thread, all I have to say is "Picky, picky picky". NO ONE is going to have all their cherished and well-polished political gemstones tied up all neatly in a little velvet bag because there are like 150 million ??? voters and just over half of them are going to pick who is in the White House next.

The Democratic Candidate Schizophrenia called...We hate corporations, but we need a billion dollars to even play the game...is almost too ignorant to state.

The Democratic Voting Schizophrenia is ... We didn't get our precious way (along with most of the voters). so I'm going to elect a Republican, oh, excuse me, stay home.

Discuss and Debate and LISTEN, although the group mentioned in the Title don't seem to get what that means. Then participate in Democracy and support the Imperfect Candidate...no one gets to have it all.

One Billion Dollars. That's a glaring result...just one... of what the last Republican got us. Citizen's United. That's where the angst should be, but because it is beyond our puny little one-vote power to address that travesty, we attack our own for playing the rules set by the other side. Same for the down-ticket imbalance results of gerrymandering districts, but that's another story.

We should fear Candidate Jeb Bush because he has a smidge of respectability (comparably speaking), but it's looking more like ignoramus and mentally deficient Scott Walker. Sweet Mother of Democratic Sanity, this is a gift, albeit very expensive, but we need to start wrapping it...soon.

I'm neutral, but I can't see anyone but Hillary who can be "obsessed" enough and savvy enough and tough as nails enough and able to understand and willing to deal with the blind, white-hot Republican hatred, as well as the above-mentioned cases of Democratic schizophrenia to raise the money, work her ass off and see this through to the results of a Democrat in the White House. (and maybe a VP Hispanic-in-training up next.)

[Jim Lane]

55. I see several dozen posts here but nobody disputing the accuracy of the accusation.

What I get from the OP:
1. The Clintons (Hillary and/or Bill and/or the Foundation) made an agreement with the White House that the Foundation would not accept contributions from foreign governments while Clinton was Secretary of State.
2. The Foundation nevertheless accepted such a contribution, in violation of the agreement.

Putting aside whether it comes from a reliable source, and putting aside whether some people have an irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton, and putting aside whether her ties to Goldman Sachs are troublesome -- is there any good-faith basis for disputing the accuracy of those two points?

[wyldwolf]

56. No one has sufficiently explained why this is a problem for Hillary either.

Oh, yeah - prominent in the OP: "Multiple Republicans working on the 2016 race told Business Insider they thought Clinton's finances were a major weakness for her on the campaign trail."

[Jim Lane]

62. If an agreement was made and then violated, it's a problem for somebody.

It's not necessarily a problem for Hillary if someone at the Foundation screwed up and Hillary was in no way culpable -- but if the facts in the OP are correct then at a minimum it shifts the burden to Hillary to explain how this happened.

I take such agreements seriously. Whether it was necessary for there to be such an agreement is another question. Nevertheless, even if you think the agreement was ill-advised because it unduly restricted the Foundation's good work, once the decision was made to impose that restriction, the decision should have been honored.

[wyldwolf]

63. It isn't a problem for anyone

1. If an agreement was violated, the Obama administration doesn't seem to mind. It only becomes a problem is the Obama admin makes it a problem. Chances are they won't.
2. This narrative we've been seeing from the left for YEARS and the right for (days? hours?) hasn't been problem. Her poll numbers have remained high despite being the most investigated woman in history.

There doesn't appear to be a problem.

[Jim Lane]

64. I disagree with both your rationalizations.

1. If the Obama administration wishes it hadn't happened but makes the tactical choice not to make a stink about it (an eminently reasonable choice), there's still a clear indication that something went wrong somewhere.

2. Polling doesn't determine ethics or competence or anything like that. Millions of people get upset about total non-issues yet ignore serious problems. That's another way of saying that my judgment doesn't always concur with that of the majority. In 2008, there were apparently some people who were concerned that Hillary wore something that showed too much cleavage. I, as someone opposed to Hillary, thought that was the most ridiculous "issue" imaginable. Well, except for maybe whether John Edwards overpaid for a haircut or whether Barack Obama wrote something incriminating in a kindergarten essay.

[wyldwolf]

65. Only because you want it to be a problem

The endgame is the presidency, not a girl scout badge.

1. If the Obama administration wishes it hadn't happened but makes the tactical choice not to make a stink about it (an eminently reasonable choice), there's still a clear indication that something went wrong somewhere.

So if the Obama admin "makes the tactical choice not to make a stink about it (an eminently reasonable choice)" then there is no problem.

Polling doesn't determine ethics or competence or anything like that.

No it doesn't. But at the same time, "ethics or competence" has never been a prerequisite to getting elected.

Millions of people get upset about total non-issues yet ignore serious problems.

Yeah...

That's another way of saying that my judgment doesn't always concur with that of the majority.

Ok...

In 2008, there were apparently some people who were concerned that Hillary wore something that showed too much cleavage. I, as someone opposed to Hillary, thought that was the most ridiculous "issue" imaginable. Well, except for maybe whether John Edwards overpaid for a haircut or whether Barack Obama wrote something incriminating in a kindergarten essay.

Hillary has no problem in regards to the OP. Despite the steady drumbeat of this narrative, her number continue to soar.

[Jim Lane]

66. OK, you believe that no one could disagree with you on this except from a bad motive.

I don't particularly "want it to be a problem" -- I was just assessing the merits.

You choose not to believe that, so further discussion would be pointless.

[wyldwolf]

67. Otay!

[davidpdx]

79. The answer is don't question Hillary Clinton on anything

If you do, then you are a Hillary hater.

[Jim Lane]

80. I wish your post were satire. Unfortunately, it's merely an exaggeration, and a mild one at that.

If Clinton herself were ever to visit our little DU playpen, I suspect that her reaction would be to ask her supporters to tone it down a little. She would recognize, even if they do not, that whoever wins the nomination will want the votes and the active support of as many people as possible, and that repeated personal attacks are NOT the way to bring that about.

[wyldwolf]

57. At least your OP finally states where this 'Hillary has a money problem' is coming from.

Multiple Republicans working on the 2016 race told Business Insider they thought Clinton's finances were a major weakness for her on the campaign trail.

oops.

[KamaAina]

58. And that's where it's going to come from if she's the nominee.

[wyldwolf]

59. So?

[KamaAina]

68. So, this could be the financial version of swiftboating.

[wyldwolf]

71. It already is - and has been for 20 years.

[Aerows]

75. Hillary Clinton

is the only person consistently getting in Hillary Clinton's way.

[BainsBane]

81. Personalizing an enormously important issue in our political system

Is the best way I can think of to maintain the current role big money plays in politics. The problem is systemic and, thanks to SCOTUS, can only be addressed through a constitutional amendment requiring public financing. Clinton could drop dead tomorrow, and exactly nothing would change. That is precisely how too many want it.

Money doesn't just effect who is elected and who runs for office, It frames the content of legislation itself, and is why NAFTA, TPP, Obamacare, and a huge percentage of legislation is so in keeping with the interests of big business. In fact their representatives and lobbyists even write legislation. None of that is caused by Clinton. and none of it goes away with her defeat.

[quadrature]

82. how many people work for the Clinton's foundation?

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 06:42 AM - Edit history (1)

100
500
1000
4
?
...........
if you want to spread the wealth around,
offer somebody a job