Even an ardent Hilary hater should look at that editorial and wonder why it doesn’t provide a source for its claim (particularly since candidates’ campaign finances are all out in the open). I’ll give you a hint: it’s because it’s not true (but right-wing media don’t understand how FEC reporting requirements work).
Why don’t you explain it? Please.
In-kind contributions by Hillary have to be assigned a value for reporting purposes, so there is no actual money going out. If you look at the receipts you can see that Hillary has actually self-funded her campaign to the (relatively minor) tune of $468,036.
Well it depends on what you are willing to call an accomplishment.
She got elected senator. Most people would call that an accomplishment. Whether she would have been elected if her last name wasn’t Clinton…who knows.
But then again Ted Kennedy would never have been elected Senator from Massachusetts if his last name wasn’t Kennedy. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have done nearly as much with his life if his last name wasn’t Romney. None of the Bush clan would have gotten very far if their last name wasn’t bush. etc.
Are you kidding?
If Gore was willing to let Bill Campaign for him, he could have won. THAT is the main argument the Nader folks have when we blame them for Bush. Gore could have won if he wasn’t reluctant to become Bill Clinton’s successor. That Monica Lewinsky thing didn’t hurt Gore.
Then your statement verges on becoming meaningless, doesn’t it? Its a pox on everyone’s house, isn’t it?
OR, Hillary is no worse than any other candidate but she has the baggage of hatred that is carried over from a time when women weren’t supposed to be as smart and outspoken as she was in the 1990s. If Michelle Obama were to do the exact same things today that Hilalry did in the 1990s, she would not suffer nearly as much for it.
If honesty was really an important quality in a politician, you would expect more honesty among politicians. As a whole I think whores are more honest than politicians. We don’t call them whores because they take your money and DON’T suck your dick.
And honest politicians don’t even seem to be an important ingredient in a successful democracy.
You REALLY think Trump can beat Hillary? Or are you saying that the indictment will come down too late for the Democrats to recover?
It depends. Should someone who is pulling maybe 20% of the delegates get the nomination simply because Hillary has pushed all the other candidates out of the race before she imploded? Because I can almost guarantee you that Bernie would not be winning the nomination if Hillary didn’t run for president this year. A shitload of other candidates would have jumped in but for Hillary sucking all the air out of the room.
That wasn’t incompetence. She voted (along with many other Democrats like Joe Biden and John Kerry) to authorize the use of military force but it was not carte blanche, the authorization to use military force also
"required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.
Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war–and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction."
With that said, it would have been better if she called bullshit on the Bush administration back then.
Can you provide real world examples of Hillary’s in-kind contributions or give a more detailed explanation?
I support the idea that candidates receive some sort of salary during a campaign which would allow people who aren’t wealthy to participate. Hillary is wealthy and shouldn’t receive a salary. But that is entirely up to her donors.
Sure. Let’s say as part of your own mayoral campaign, PCP for Peoria, you spent 5 hours licking envelopes. Under the FEC rules, you have to disclose the time you put in as both a contribution and an expenditure. Clinton would also have had to disclose things like the market value of “renting” her own home for a campaign event and things like that.
This is the original article that the NY Post and a bunch of conservative news outlets have been parroting. You’ll see an update right at the top about the in kind accounting.
Clinton lost more than $13 million on her 2008 campaign. Whatever shady things she might be up to, personally profiting from her candidacy (at least financially) is not among them.
Not to mention that it’s incredibly ridiculous to interpret “Candidate Contributions” as a salary she’s paying herself. It is pretty obviously what the candidate has contributed to the campaign, not the reverse.
Has Hillary released the transcripts of her speeches yet? At a town hall meeting, Bernie and Hillary were asked to release transcripts of their speeches. Bernie is asking about Hillary’s speaking fees from, and speeches to, Wall Street. Should voters expect Hillary to transparent? Or doesn’t that matter?
At this point I don’t think anything other than an indictment matters for the Democratic primary.
I doubt that the Democrat collective will accept an indictment. Pre, or post, convention.
OTOH, an indictment will have some effect on independents. Can’t win without the independents.
It’s pretty amazing that she’s able to get away with not releasing her speeches for the reason she claims. I’d like an interviewer to take her through something like this:
**Interviewer: **There seems to be a lot of interest in primary voters being able to look at the paid speeches you made to Wall Street. Given how important the roll Waall St. plays in our economy and peoples distrust of it, why won’t you let the voters see what you said?
**Clinton: **I give a lot of speeches, and if everyone wants to release the text of every speech they ever given, I’ll be glad to do so.
**Interviewer: **But your sole competitor, the on person you’re running against, Bernie Sanders has agreed to do so. Why won’t you.
**Clinton: **Bernie is just one person in this race, as I said, if every candidate agrees to release the transcripts of every speech they were paid to give, I’ll be glad to relate the transcripts you’re alluding to.
**Interviewer: **But isn’t that an impossibly high bar, and one that means you’ll never have to release transcripts that the voters would like to see? If Bernie and every Rep candidate agreed to this tomorrow, you could simply claim, “Well, how do I know that is ALL of them.”
**Clinton: **I’ve given plenty of campaign speeches and people know where I stand on Wall Street.
**Interviewer: **How about this…people want top look±specifically—at the speeches you were paid to make for the Wall Street crowd, could you at least identify a list of speeches made by Bernie, Trump, Cruz, Rubio or Katich that you think would be of interest? If they released those specific texts, would you then rtelase the transcripts or tests for the speeches you’ve made to the Wall Street Crowd?
**Clinton: ** …
The last answer would be pretty easy, it seems to me: “I’m much more interested in solving real problems, and analyzing what they have to say now about the policies they push, then digging around to find every last speech that every candidate makes. But if my opponents, including all the possible general elections opponents, make such a list and release their speeches, then I will as well, but I think the American people are much more interested in what we can do to help the economy, help Americans get access to health care, find jobs, and the other problems that every day Americans are facing.”
Yeah, it’s political gobbledygook (though not a bad effort at it, if I may say so myself :)). And Hillary is definitely dodging this – I wouldn’t be surprised if there are all kinds of things in those speeches (praise for Wall Street, jokes at the expense of the little guy, vague promises to help Wall Street, etc.) that could harm her candidacy if released. But at this point there seems (to me, at least) to be very little outcry for her to release these speeches, and therefore no political gain to doing so (and lots to potentially lose), and it’s a pretty easy thing to dodge.
It doesn’t. People seem to miss (or conveniently ignore) that those speeches were made after she left the government. It’s perfectly legal.
Pfff…Abramson writes weekly pro-Bernie articles for Huff Post. If you read his articles, you’d think Sanders had already won the nomination. Take with a grain of salt.
I think these speeches are comparable to Romney’s 47% comment.
A whoosh? No way are these like the 47% comment by Romney. Romney basically said half the country, including a great deal of Republicans, don’t have any work ethic and are only concerned about what the government can give them.
In contract, Clinton says nice things about a big company that invited, and paid her, to speak. How would Trump even use this against her in the general election?
Oh, that’s easy:
“I don’t have to do things like that because I’m already really really rich. She’s sold out to corporate interests and I make the best deals with them from a position of yuge yuge strength.”
Trump would have a real time selling his bull manure to democratic and center-left independent voters. It’s mostly anti-intellectuals who vote for Trump. Both he and Cruz have ceilings that are going to be hard to break through, though I’d give Cruz a much better chance if only because he can rally his base of red state Christian jihadists to show up at the polls and rile up everyone else who has an allergic reaction to the name Clinton. Trump won’t even be able to unite his own party.