View Story | 313 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Perfect for Colbert since the real writers are still on strike.
by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Bill lives to give.
EOM.
"Steve Holt knows 'Unity' begins when Hillary drops out." - Steve Holt
by cookiesandmilk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM PDT
Clinton, demanding transparency, fails to disclose chief campaign strategist's ties to UAE wealth funds
During Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton renewed her call for "aggressive" measures to reign in sovereign wealth funds, the investment funds owned by oil-producing states like the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. She said she was "very concerned" about the multi-trillion dollar funds which are now buying substantial shares of American enterprises such as Citigroup and Merill Lynch. Clinton, who first raised this issue six weeks ago, said the funds "need to be more transparent," adding "we need to have a lot more control over what they do and how they do it." Despite Clinton's tough talk about transparency, she failed to disclose that her chief campaign strategist has close business connections with sovereign wealth funds owned by Abu Dhabi and Dubai, two small -- but oil-rich -- emirates located on the Persian Gulf coast.
During Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton renewed her call for "aggressive" measures to reign in sovereign wealth funds, the investment funds owned by oil-producing states like the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. She said she was "very concerned" about the multi-trillion dollar funds which are now buying substantial shares of American enterprises such as Citigroup and Merill Lynch.
Clinton, who first raised this issue six weeks ago, said the funds "need to be more transparent," adding "we need to have a lot more control over what they do and how they do it."
Despite Clinton's tough talk about transparency, she failed to disclose that her chief campaign strategist has close business connections with sovereign wealth funds owned by Abu Dhabi and Dubai, two small -- but oil-rich -- emirates located on the Persian Gulf coast.
Barack Obama. President.
by Steven R on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:21:35 AM PDT
She's an insurgent.
Stick it to the man, Hill!
by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM PDT
I will beg you to refer to it as 35 years of insurgency... sir!
by cookiesandmilk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM PDT
Not like those inexperienced fake insurgents.
Meanies.
Once the faintest stirring of hope became possible, the dominion of the plague was ended. ~Camus
by ayawisgi on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM PDT
...in reference to the unique situation in Nevada. And he's absolutely right.
Clinton '08 // Putting People First
by Berkeley Vox on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM PDT
... Democratic workers from voting? The :insurgent" candidate who is backed by the Nevada Dem establishment led by Harry and Rory Reid, a Clinton staffer?
And exactly how many union members did Bill talk with? He is speaking for whom?
His claim strains all credibility, Berk, no matter how you slice it.
by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:33:44 AM PDT
do you actually care about the fairness of elections or are you just using whatever you can to disparage the Clintons?
It is unfair and in this case, Hillary is the insurgent. It is unfair to allow some people to caucus in their work place while not giving others the same opportunity. It is a powerful union taking advantage of the power it holds over the democratic party in Nevada. Plain and simple. The insurgent is the one that has to go up against the power of the big bad establishment, right? So then, in this case, Hillary is the insurgent.
For the record, I am against the lawsuit to block the caucuses, but it doesn't mean that this isn't an unfair set up. The party should not have signed onto such a ridiculous agreement in the first place.
Give me a f'ing banana - Eddie Izzard
by linc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM PDT
Bill is claiming that in the case of these union workers, Hillary is the "insurgent."
Yet, at the same time, her backers are trying to bloclk these same union workers from participating in the caucus!
So which is she? Their "insurgent" leader or their oppressor?
She can't be both. Bill is full of hot air.
by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:03:07 PM PDT
not the union workers that is at issue. Do you think every single Culinary services union member will back Obama just because of the endorsement? They won't- it would be a successful endorsement if he managed a plurality of the members.
The teacher's union that is suing hasn't endorsed anyone, but is probably looking out for its own best, powerful union interests. You intimate that Hillary is calling the shots with the suit- completely based on supposition.
Bill Clinton is doing what ALL campaigners do and that is playing to his audience. All of the candidates in this primary (at least the three remaining) do this.
All three of them are establishment. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you review all of their records- particularly Obama's non-record/record of capitulation in IL.
by linc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM PDT
The people pushing this suit are Clinton backers. Now, you and others can feign ignorance over this fact, but the people filing the suit were part of the very group of state Dem leaders who approved the caucus and the work sites back in March.
Read this even though it contradicts your worldview:
But the lawsuit, filed by six Nevada Democrats and the Nevada State Education Association teachers' union -- whose deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is a member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council -- seeks to prevent those At-Large Districts from meeting in next Saturday's caucuses. ... The lawsuit was filed by the firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Senior partners Michael Bonner and Christian Kaempfer have donated money to Clinton in the past, and Clinton ally and former Rep. James H. Bilbray, D-Nev., is an attorney at that firm. The state party approved the at-large precincts at its Nevada State Democratic Party's State Central Committee meeting on March 31, 2007. According to those minutes and attendance records of the obtained by ABC News (Click HERE), four plaintiffs now suing the state party to stop these "at-large" precincts from convening were in attendance: Clark Party Second Vice Chair Vicki Birkland and John Birkland, Party Third Vice Chair Dwayne Chesnut and Clark County Public Administrator John Cahill.
But the lawsuit, filed by six Nevada Democrats and the Nevada State Education Association teachers' union -- whose deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is a member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council -- seeks to prevent those At-Large Districts from meeting in next Saturday's caucuses.
...
The lawsuit was filed by the firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Senior partners Michael Bonner and Christian Kaempfer have donated money to Clinton in the past, and Clinton ally and former Rep. James H. Bilbray, D-Nev., is an attorney at that firm.
The state party approved the at-large precincts at its Nevada State Democratic Party's State Central Committee meeting on March 31, 2007.
According to those minutes and attendance records of the obtained by ABC News (Click HERE), four plaintiffs now suing the state party to stop these "at-large" precincts from convening were in attendance: Clark Party Second Vice Chair Vicki Birkland and John Birkland, Party Third Vice Chair Dwayne Chesnut and Clark County Public Administrator John Cahill.
How can Hillary be the "insurgent" for union members when her people are trying to block them from even participating in the caucus?
Is she their champion or their oppressor?
by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:20:47 PM PDT
that is still inference. Just because you link an article that is fully of suggestion and assumption doesn't mean that somehow your own assumptions are somehow substantiated.
And really, a deputy executive director calls the shots around union headquarters these days? Thats a new one to me.
by linc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM PDT
Now you're making me laugh.
I'm picturing you with your fingers in your ears, humming loudly.
by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:29:33 PM PDT
At least we can agree on something!
by linc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:30:55 PM PDT
them.
Faster than you can say "Flip-flopping hypocrites"!
by John Poet on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM PDT
the union leadership because they have made great gains for their workers. And I also think the members were polled.
by ronnied on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM PDT
between a 12 member board.
If a poll of the members did happen, who is to say what sway that had over the bosses.
by linc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM PDT
by Bob Johnson on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:21:46 PM PDT
I am not defending the power structure of the unions here bob, just trying to bring down the constant supposition about the Clintons that dominates this site as of late.
I would rather people attack her policy stances, her ideas, her record than make issues from assumptions.
by linc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:25:56 PM PDT
the teachers wanted a Saturday caucus because they are off that day. That is also one of the busiest days for the casinos. So they all agreed to the at large precincts so that those who worked not only at the casinos but within the 2.5 miles of them could vote. They all agreed including four out of the five that are bringing the law suit. So you don't know what they are talking about.
by ronnied on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:06:43 PM PDT
This whole thing is a bit too much about the unions controlling the process in Nevada.
My problem is with the suggestion that somehow the Clintons are some evil, control-alls that represent the worst in the "establishment". Given the information you have just presented, I am inclined to believe that this is merely a union versus union issue- not a Clinton versus union issue.
Thats my point, one of them. I am also driven to defend the Clintons when everyone so easily paints them as sooo establishment and thus evil.
by linc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM PDT
Obesa cantavit
by wystler on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM PDT
give the feeling of insurgency...
Do we have any figures on how scared they are? ~ MPFC's 'Mr. Neutron' episode
by itsbenj on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:51:53 PM PDT
that's just too delicious
by Steven R on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:29:57 AM PDT
is.
by Timothy J on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:39:18 AM PDT
"We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution
by elwior on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM PDT
I do not want a return to the 90's.
by pamelabrown on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM PDT
"Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald
by latts on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:46:31 AM PDT
I mean, '94 was just boatloads of fun...
by Steven R on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM PDT
a very calm and balanced diary.
Senator Clinton is not an insurgent candidate, unless words have no meaning at all. Bill sometimes is a linguistic nihilist ("what the meaning of is, is"), but I think that was just situational linguisstic nihilism, i.e., trying to wiggle around the truth.
I don't think we can communciate if there is no shared meaning at all to words. The meaning may be indeterminate, even breaking down at the margins of a defintiion, but, damn, ain't no way Hillary Clinton is an insurgent.
"There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08
by TomP on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:17:17 AM PDT
from The Big Lebowski it is this: I do not fear nihilists. I just throw bowling balls at their crotches.
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB
by meatwad420 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM PDT
They don't even have an ethos!
by TomP on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM PDT
There's a "ve cut off your chonson" joke just waiting to be made here, but I can't get the bat off my shoulder.
Ethical, open, honest government. Yes We Can.
by mistersite on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:57:09 PM PDT
And aren't we tired of that one??? How many wiggles did we have to endure in the 90s? Sorry, at this point Edwards and Obama are running against THE CLINTONS.
This Week With Barack Obama. Because you need to stay informed.
by icebergslim on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:49:03 AM PDT
..."situational linguistic nihilism," to discover the hidden meaning:
Bill Clinton is a fucking liar.
by Faheyman on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM PDT
Clinton are not entirely wrong, it turns out...
by John Poet on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM PDT
The Clintons:
****** "In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
by Akonitum on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:42:11 PM PDT
Fight the power!
Next thing you know, Edwards and Obama will be showing up with a former two-term president willing to say anything on the campaign trail.
by ayawisgi on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:52:37 AM PDT
being an insurgent for 35 years!---all that anarchy and rebellion---you'd think she'd be plumb tuckered out. And that Bill---quite an imagination, eh?---and the deeper he sinks into the land of make-believe, the more foolish he looks. Wonder what's next---Hillary was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review?
by dotster on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM PDT
to Senator Reid, Maria, that was just LUCKY enough to be chosen to ask Hillary the "Diamonds or Pearls" question at the 1st Nevada debate, Hillary is the "ONLY ONE SHINING UP THERE", she is not exhausted! :) mjd
Catholic, white woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (endorsed 12/06)
by mjd in florida on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM PDT
by elwior on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 313 comments