Memo to Democratic voters in states whose primaries matter
Here's Reason No. 1 why I really, really don't want to have to vote for Hillary Clinton: She and her husband are crooks.
| Posted at 10:25 PM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 20, 2007 10:25 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Greed, stupidity, or what?.
The next post in this blog is In sports news.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (13)
I suspected there were a lot of reasons I feel the need for a hot shower after watching her on television, or hearing her speak. I was truly a fan of her husband in the 90's..didn't pay attention or care about the slime and money trail. If only Edwards would get off that darn populist soapbox, folks might take him seriously ;)
Posted by jimbo | December 20, 2007 10:44 PM
Perhaps populist is what we need?
Posted by blogmayor | December 20, 2007 11:20 PM
I seems the vast right wing conspiracy is attacking the Clintons again.
Posted by Sharon | December 20, 2007 11:33 PM
Actually, this time it's a vast left-wing conspiracy.
Posted by Jack Bog | December 20, 2007 11:45 PM
But $500 million says they're good at it.
Posted by allan L. | December 21, 2007 6:33 AM
Jack: you should show more respect for the greatest trader of cattle futures of all time.
Posted by joel | December 21, 2007 7:00 AM
once a slime ball always a slimeball....It looks like this upcoming election will have a lot of us holding our noses as we vote....a dismal and pathetic future for our country unless we are fortunate to have someone show up that has true values and ethics...and I am not talking "family values"...an overused and meaningless phrase.
Posted by kathe w. | December 21, 2007 8:14 AM
"But an examination of the foundation demonstrates how its fund-raising has at times fostered the potential for conflict."
"The potential for conflict"?! Stop the presses! I've never HEARD of this thing in politics before. Someone gives money and there's the potential for conflict? If that's the no-vote criterion, I'm afraid the list of candidates for any office is going to be pretty short.
Posted by Jud | December 21, 2007 8:33 AM
Again, both Clinton's legal expertise shine through like "is, is"- "where there is conflict of which I AM AWARE". Just another legal all-skate phrase.
I like how the Clintons hare saying mining in other countries is ok, but not in ours because we are environmentally sensitive.
Posted by Jerry | December 21, 2007 8:57 AM
From the article:
the foundation demonstrates how its fund-raising has at times fostered the potential for conflict.
The potential for conflict! That's news? Our WHOLE SYSTEM fosters the potential for conflict. The Times pulls the familiar trick here of focusing on a suspect tree when the frigging forest is bad. Please. EVERY political donation creates the potential for conflict. I don't give. My neighbor gives $2,300. Whose call or email gets higher priority?
Posted by Pete | December 21, 2007 9:03 AM
A banana slug would be more palatable.
Posted by max | December 21, 2007 9:37 AM
I savor those exceedingly rare moments when we agree, politically speaking.
:-)
Posted by Cousin Jim | December 21, 2007 8:28 PM
I savor those exceedingly rare moments when we agree, politically speaking.
May I echo "cousin Jim's" comments as well, THEY SUCK!
Posted by Jack Peek | December 25, 2007 9:47 AM