Archive for March, 2008
Clinton Didn’t Pay Health Insurance Bills, by Kenneth P. Vogel
Campaigns resemble businesses in many ways. Like businesses, one of their biggest costs is salaries, payroll taxes and the benefits of their employees. Also like businesses, they tend to carry unpaid bills as debt from week-to-week or even month-to-month.
Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.
The unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.
They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for “employee benefits.”
During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.
Jay Carson, Clinton campaign spokesman said those bills will be reflected as paid on the next FEC report. Carson stressed that Clinton’s campaign pays all its bills “regularly and in the normal course of business.” (Huh?)
But Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, did not report any unpaid bills to insurance providers at the end of February. And the only insurance-related debt reported by Obama, an Illinois senator, was $908 to AIG American International Group for “insurance.”
Their campaigns also reported substantially less debt overall than Clinton’s, which owed $8.7 million at the end of February. Obama owed $625,000 and McCain $4.3 million, though most of his debt was from a bank loan, and only $1.3 million was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors. (end of article portion)
Perhaps Sen. Clinton has considered cattle futures as a means to make enough money to pay her campaign debts. She should check with Sen. McCain first to see if that’s legal according to McCain-Feingold which restricts funding of campaigns in several ways. PLEASE read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr…, by Charles R. Babcock, which explains Hillary’s cattle futures trading .
If McCain had Clinton’s luck with cattle futures, his campaign might have the funds he needs.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Hillary wants to fix America’s economy. Before we trust her with that job, let’s take a look at her track record and see if she has the talent to do so.
“Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.”
A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.
The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $38 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $16 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.
The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, the cash she would have had available at the end of last month to spend on television ads and other upfront expenses would have been less than $2 million. (End of article portion)
The candidates have raised almost $1 billion to fund their campaigns in an economy that they say is in shambles and even in a recession. $1 billion isn’t bad for a recession. What would they have raised in a good economy? Wow. How well has Hillary managed her funds? It’s not looking that good. And she wants to manage everyone’s health care. She wants to tinker with social security, the IRS tax dollars and the national budget.
Together, Hillary and Obama are spending money like it grows on trees and none of their constituents need it. Is this an indication of how Hillary and Obama would spend the national budget?
Hillary’s campaign fund is in recession and shambles. Her managemnet skills include 1) not paying the bills, 2) stop answering the phone, 3) don’t respond to certified letters, 4) KEEP SPENDING LIKE MONEY GROWS ON TREES and 5) worry about where it will come from tomorrow.
Obama’s skills are unknown, but he does know where to get money if he needs more.
Rezko helped raise up to $250,000 for his various political races, Obama’s campaign said. The campaign had previously put the figure at $150,000 but now says that amount was only for his 2004 Senate race.
And in interviews with two Chicago newspapers, the Democrat again said it was a mistake to involve Rezko in his purchase of a new home — not just because Rezko was under federal investigation but because he was a contributor and political activist.
Rezko is on trial on charges including mail fraud and attempted extortion. Federal prosecutors say he tried to use his connections to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to demand kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with state government.
(In spite of this, Obama still says “He never gave me any gifts [IF YOU DON’T COUNT $250,00 OR THE HOUSE PURCHASE DEAL] or gave me any indication he was setting me up to ask for any favors in the future.” Excuse me, but that’s what this guy, Rezko, does! That’s exactly what he’s on trial for. )
Rezko advised Obama on buying a new Chicago home in 2005 and Rezko’s wife bought a vacant lot next to the Obamas’ house. Rezko’s wife, Rita, later sold part of the lot to Obama so they would have a bigger side yard. Obama said he got no price break on his new house because Rezko was buying the lot next door from the same sellers. And he said it was Rezko’s idea, not his, to buy the lot. “He said, ‘Well, I might be interested in purchasing the lot.’ And my response was, ‘That would be fine,'” Obama said. “This is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment, where I could have said ‘No, I’m not sure that’s a good idea.” Obama will need far greater judgment as president than he’s shown so far. Either he’s crooked or he’s too young and naive. Those are dangerous traits for one managing America’s huge budget, the national debt, our health care and the IRS tax dollars.
Rezko advised Obama on buying a new Chicago home in 2005 and Rezko’s wife bought a vacant lot next to the Obamas’ house. Rezko’s wife, Rita, later sold part of the lot to Obama so they would have a bigger side yard.
Obama said he got no price break on his new house because Rezko was buying the lot next door from the same sellers. And he said it was Rezko’s idea, not his, to buy the lot.
“He said, ‘Well, I might be interested in purchasing the lot.’ And my response was, ‘That would be fine,'” Obama said. “This is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment, where I could have said ‘No, I’m not sure that’s a good idea.”
Obama will need far greater judgment as president than he’s shown so far. Either he’s crooked or he’s too young and naive. Those are dangerous traits for one managing America’s huge budget, the national debt, our health care and the IRS tax dollars.
Left with no one to support in this presidential election, whichever side you’re on, we can write in a candidate with more common sense – someone who knows how to keep his mouth shut and not make embarrassing blunders.
I nominate Marbie for president!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
YES WE CAN
IS THIS WHAT WE WANT?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
No words necessary. Just watch the video. BaROCK Obama for President, if substance and experience doesn’t matter, oh, or character, either.
Just feel good and follow him anywhere. When he walks in a room, just swoon.
Hollywood loves you, Rock!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
“From the Land of Lincoln, ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Barack Obama.” Mayor Bloomberg in New York
I’d like to remind them that Obama is from the Land of Lincoln – a Republican who signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317 ABC News Online
Racial Slur Stirs Trouble for Shock Jock – Imus “nappy-headed hos”
April 11, 2007
Last week, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, most of whom are African-American, as “nappy-headed hos.” He has since apologized for his remarks, and CBS and MSNBC suspended his show for two weeks.
“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”
Obama said he appeared once on Imus’ show two years ago, and “I have no intention of returning.” “He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. (how about in their own church?)
Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them. (end of article passage)
Imus was on the radio for hours a day for years and years. He must have talked for thousands of hours, but they took a half minute little sound clip and played it over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country. No, Obama didn’t say that about Imus’ snippet. He called for Imus’ firing. But when his pastor said very devisive, hateful, racist statements on several occasions that we know of, and how many we probably don’t know about yet, Obama gave him a pass, saying the following:
“This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down … into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country,” Obama told an audience in this central North Carolina city.
Referring to Wright’s racist video played for Sharpton by Greta Van Sustren on her Fox News Channel program: “I have not heard anything you played denigrate someone based on their gender or race. Don Imus used derogatory racial and gender biased terms.” Al Sharpton
DOUBLE STANDARD !
Al better get his ears cleaned or get a hearing aid.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
In the Democrats’ debate in Austin, Texas in February, Obama … beat Clinton to the punch in declaring that the economy is “in shambles”. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/22/ny_senators_rhetoric_fa…
During a town hall meeting Monday at a community college near Pittsburgh, Obama said the “economy is in shambles.” He wants the economic stimulus package signed by Mr. Bush to be supplemented by tax cuts this year. Clinton says this is a time of economic “stress and uncertainty.” http://22.214.171.124/search?q=cache:LepvE3_Low0J:www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvo…
Which brings us back to the beginning. What are Democrats–all Democrats–actually for in 2002? Though some party leaders realized that campaigning on the economy got them nowhere–“No one has really felt the pain of the Bush economic policies yet,” says Democratic Senate whip Harry Reid–many believe it’s time to go after Bush’s tax cut. “The economy is in shambles because of that tax cut,” says Pennsylvania Governor-elect and former D.N.C. chair Ed Rendell. “We can translate that into things people understand: ‘You’re not going to get money you need for social services to make your life better. Why? Because they gave all the money away in a tax cut.’ Find everything that people are concerned about, everything that they need from government in their lives, and attach it to tax cuts.”
Democrats were yelling “economy is in shambles” way back in 2002. Every election cycle, except when a Democrat president is running for re-election, the Democrats pull out the old “economy is in shambles” game plan. In 2002, they admitted that it didn’t work because no one was feeling it.
They don’t care what the facts are and trust me, they know. Proof: Reuters News story at http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2640367720080326?feedType=RSS&fee…
“Big Money in Politics – sign of excess?” by Deborah Charles, March 26, 2008.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – With eight months to go before the U.S. presidential election, the candidates have raised almost $1 billion to fund their campaigns — more than the size of the economies of several African countries.
The unusually long race for the White House — which began in earnest more than a year ago — has been a cash bonanza, especially for Democrats who are breaking all records.
Republicans lag behind.
While they were careful not to criticize the American political process, people in some aid organizations mentioned other possible uses for so much money.
An official with CARE, one of the world’s leading humanitarian organizations fighting global poverty, said even a fraction of $1 billion could help tens of millions of people.
Experts said the amounts being spent in this presidential election are much higher than in most other countries, though still only a fraction of what Americans spend advertising some basic products or eating out in restaurants.
(end of article)
I’m tired of Democrats lying to the American people, playing on their fears, and actually hurting citizens by talking down the economy.
Perhaps the Democrats should put their money where their mouth is. Just say” no” to asking cash-strapped heavily indebted Americans (if you believe that) to donate their grocery money or their children’s college funds or their gasoline money or their medicine money to put themselves in the White House. They say they are worried about so many people losing their homes and jobs. If they really believe America’s economy is in shambles and the people are suffering, then stop asking for what money they do have. How hard-hearted and selfish of them to have their hand out all the time, spending it on flying around the country in airplanes, staying in hotels (taking large staffs with them) feeding everyone, advertising and printing costs, television ads, etc., etc., etc. They don’t act like they believe the economy is in shambles.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Rock star status means that a person has become a celebrity beyond the norm – that almost everyone swoons over them. They draw record crowds. Accolades are showered on them, deserved or not. They are superhuman. They can do no wrong. Fans get very angry over any criticism, even if it’s true. It doesn’t matter if they have real talent or not, are smart or not, make a difference in the world or not, just that they make people “feel” great. A rock star is anointed with celebrity for three reasons: they have good looks/sex appeal, they are very wealthy or they have the “gift of gab” (smooth talker). I didn’t include talent, because there are millions with real talent who have never been rock stars. Talent alone doesn’t get one noticed to the degree of rock star status, and one doesn’t need talent to achieve rock star status (Paris Hilton).
Barack Obama has all three; good looks/sex appeal (according to some news articles I’ve read), wealth (look at his tax returns recently published – $1.6 million in 2005) and the gift of gab (his speeches get the crowd on their feet cheering – and no one can tell you what he plans to do specifically if elected). When you have all three of the criteria, your star doesn’t rise, it rockets to the loftiest, brightest position in the celebrity heavens, a.k.a. media. BaROCK Obama for President!
Let’s give him the country without question. Let’s waste no time investigating him before we give him the greatest power any man holds on the planet. Forget his associations with racist hate-mongers and crooks. He is sacred. Don’t question his beliefs, morals, experience, motives or plans for the future. Don’t look at his associations. Definitely DO NOT CRITICIZE HIM or you will be publicly flogged or worse. BaROCK Obama is a Rock Star!
His middle name is off-limits. Maybe because it could be linked phonetically with insane. His last name cannot be linked with Osama, even by mistake. Don’t forget. ABSOLUTELY NO “Insane Hussein” and NO Osama Obama or vice-versa. I agree, totally. That is counter-productive and unfair. So far, his first name is still acceptable for use. If not, we’re down to “Senator” or “Your Highness.”
Barack is probably the name of choice because it lends itself to BaROCK the Rock Star or BROCK for short. Why don’t we all just get along and give him the White House? The door to the Oval Office can sport a star like the dressing rooms in Hollywood with the name “Rock” underneath. His credits will include The David Letterman Show, the Jay Leno Show, Saturday Night Live, the Opray Winfrey Show, the Ellen Degeneres Show, etc., etc. etc.
He has the endorsements of Oprah, Kanye West, Jay-Z, Russell Simmons, Will.i.am, OK Go, Pearl Jam, The Grateful Dead, Shudder to Think, Kathleen Turner, Robert DeNiro, Hulk Hogan, Paul Rudd, Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter, David Wain, Alberta Cross, Joan As Police Woman, Stevie Wonder, Black Eyed Peas, Scarlett Johansson, John Legend, Q-Tip and much of the entertainment industry. Surprised?
A rock star in the White House will certainly bring about change – from respect to celeb – from substance to fluff – from statemanship to smooth talk – from character to “I’m human” – from teamwork to super star driven – from accomplishment to photo ops. The White House will be rockin’, or should I say hip-hoppin’ and rappin’.
“Rock’s” star has eclipsed Bill Clinton’s, who used to be Hollywood’s favorite, only because Al Gore hadn’t invented the internet yet, when Bill ran for president. Rock has united the internet’s social networking tools with old-fashioned door knocking techniques for campaigning, according to Rolling Stone Magazine’s Eric Bates who endorses Rock because he sees in Obama political gifts that come along once in a generation. Bates said that Rock generates chemistry and portrays and exhibits intellectual and emotional honesty that strikes a chord resulting in mass turnouts. Bates is very impressed with the way Rock has changed the nature of campaigning in a way no other candidate ever has. He further states that it’s not about policy positions and there is not much separating Rock from Hillary. He says that Rock wins stylistically and that Hillary’s is disgusting (his words, not mine – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23740104/ Click on the far right title “Rolling Stone endorses Obama”)
Bates brags about how much of the youth vote Rock gets. Pardon me for saying so, but a large number of youth associated with the Rolling Stone Magazine are drug users, as are a good number of the rockers, hip-hoppers, rappers, and the entertainment industry at large. We’re all too familiar with arrests, auto accidents, shootings, and rehab stints in this constituency. I’m not saying they all behave this way, just that the youth vote associated with Rolling Stone Mag. includes a lot that do. Rock has admitted to using weed, inhaling frequently because that was the point and using cocaine in his youth. I hope today’s youth aren’t voting for him because they relate to that and think he’s okay with the law-breaking, life-wrecking behavior.
My question is why anyone gives the presidency to someone because of their campaigning style . Once a person gets in the White House, the campaigning is over and there must be strong leadership, good moral values, good judgment and wisdom, and not giving in to peer pressure. If a person wants to remain popular, they have to give in on issues of great importance. That isn’t good in high school, college or the Presidency. Doing what is right often means doing what is unpopular. It’s no “show” with applause at the end. Rock IS good at “no shows” when it comes to voting on issues that require unpopular stands which could cost him votes, according to his fellow senators.
Why did Bill Clinton and Rock Obama rise to stardom? Because of their gift of gab. They are both smooth talkers, very charming and persuasive. But of course they are. They are trained to be lawyers, gifted talkers, crafting the closing arguments, wordsmiths toying with the definitions of words, able to “talk around” an issue without making any commitments or admiting or denying anything, not allowing themselves to be pinned down one way or the other, saying a lot without really saying anything, explaining in lofty terms that mean little or nothing in reality. “Hope”, “Change”. These are such broad terms that the listener can construe them to mean whatever is important to them personally. No wonder Rock appeals to everyone. Every individual believes he is talking about that which they think is important.
I don’t want to follow the Pied Piper to my doom. I want a plain-spoken down to earth person who tells us where he/she stands, knowing that not everyone will agree. I don’t want a rock star floating around in the celestial media protecting his/her rock star status, afraid to make committing statements because he likes it up there. Feet on the ground rather than head in the clouds. No rock stars in the White House. I prefer grounded people with true convictions. If that means partisan, so be it.
http://www.adifferentplace.org/piedpiper2.htm Who is the Pied Piper? He stole the children of the town with his lofty pipe tunes/ dreams. Electing a pied piper exacts a price. When it comes time to pay the piper, I hope the price isn’t too high. I hope it isn’t our children or our children’s future.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Democrats’ mantra for years has been, “BUSH LIED”. Their new mantras are “SNIPPETS” and “SNIPERS”. The Republicans can now adopt the mantra, “CLINTON LIED – AGAIN” and/or “OBAMA LIED”.
Hillary Clinton has obviously lied about her trip to Bosnia and the media has exposed her. Her snipers were real, just not firing when she landed. I wondered why she took her young daughter to such a dangerous situation. Turns out, it wasn’t as dangerous as she has said many times in public. Watching news footage, one notices that Chelsea is right there, not wearing a helmet, her head his not ducked down to avoid sniper fire and no one is running to their cars. In fact, she and Hillary are receiving flowers from an eight-year-old girl and there indeed is a welcoming party, despite Hillary’s claim to the contrary. She says she made a mistake.
I was thinking about how many times I’ve mistakenly remembered having to duck my head under sniper fire and run to my car, when it never happened. Well, never. How does anyone remember such a nerve-wrecking experience, if it never happened? I know that I would remember it if I had to wear a helmet, protect my daughter, duck my head and run to avoid being shot and killed by a sniper somewhere in the distance. EVEN MORE, I KNOW that I would NEVER remember having that experience, if it NEVER happened! How does the mind trick a person into remembering such a dangerous, scary hair-raising situation? It doesn’t short of heavy drug use, which I doubt here. This is a case of a political candidate embellishing her “experience” to win an election. It is in fact, A LIE.
Obama is taking credit for getting bills passed that help people in need, when the truth is that others got the bill passed and he got his name associated with it after the work was done. He did this in the Illinois Senate, according to some of his fellow Senators and in the U.S. Senate more recently as commented on by his fellow U.S. Senators. See my previous blog for more details.
Obama also lied when he first said he had not heard his pastor make racially charged hate-filled charges against rich white men and the American government. He has since owned up to the truth, which is that he had heard them and was aware of them.
The candidates are trying to minimize their lies, Hillary calling hers a “mistake” and Obama calling his pastor’s remarks “snippets”, so that people will think we’re making much ado about nothing. Wright’s hate speech is ruining generations of people and could incite future race riots. That’s much more serious than a “SNIPPET”! Even if the meaning is that it is only a few minutes of speech, the damage is still serious and the harm is still great. There is no way to find Wright’s speech anything but racist hate. It is what it is – short or long. He also equated Bill Clinton shaking hands with Wright to Obama choosing Wright for mentor, pastor and close friends for twenty years. Please! We’re not that dumb. He equated his grandmother’s comment that she became fearful if a black man that she did not know approached her on a sidewalk to Wright’s multiple diatribes designed to foster hatred for rich white men, incite racist anger to a fever pitch, and poison the minds and hearts of thousands of people. No equation. Not even close.
The news media, forced to cover these stories, really hate to call their favorite candidates liars. They have chosen to call these “Pinocchio moments”, of all things. Pinocchio moments. ha. I never want to see “Bush lied” again. I demand to see “Bush’s Pinocchio moment”, instead.
If Al Gore was running, we’d be talking about his outright lies on global warming. Whether you believe in it or not, he has been caught in some real Pinocchio moments!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
“As I see it, the pro-choice crowd has some choice for their nominee: a woman who knew nothing about her husband’s overt, flagrant philandering, and a man who knew nothing about his mentor minister’s overt, flagrant America-hatred for 20 years.” – Rush Limbaugh
How could they have missed it? If they didn’t understand what was going on with someone they were intimately involved with, how are they going to understand what terrorists and leaders of countries all over the world are doing?
“Less than 48 hours after giving a great speech calling for a high-minded conversation on race, the Obama campaign is peddling photos of an occasion when President Clinton shook hands with Rev. Wright, though President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his 8 years as president,” said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson. (as if shaking hands with Wright was comparable to choosing the racist as mentor, friend, pastor for 20 years)
A story and a series of notable quotes: (from the Washingtonpost.com by Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman)
After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the “President’s Room,” just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.
As the half-dozen senators — including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) — headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: “Hey, guys, can I come along?” And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate — a list that included himself.
“I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who’ve actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out,” he said.
To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them. But in a presidential contest involving three sitting senators, embellishment of legislative records may be an inevitability, Specter said with a shrug.
Unlike governors, business leaders or vice presidents, senators — the last to win the presidency was John F. Kennedy in 1960 — are not executives. They cannot be held to account for the state of their states, their companies or their administrations. What they do have is the mark they leave on the nation’s laws — and in Obama’s brief three-year tenure, as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s seven-year hitch, those marks are far from indelible.
“It’s not an unusual matter for senators to take a little extra credit,” Specter said.
“If it happens once or twice, you let it go,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter. “If it becomes the mantra, then you go, ‘Wait a minute.’ “
Immigration is a case in point for Obama, but not the only one. In 2007, after the first comprehensive immigration bill had died, the senators were back at it, and again, Obama was notably absent, staffers and senators said. At one meeting, three key negotiators recalled, he entered late and raised a number of questions about the bill’s employment verification system. Kennedy and Specter both rebuked him, saying that the issue had already been resolved and that he was coming late to the discussion. Kennedy dressed him down, according to witnesses, and Obama left shortly thereafter.
“Senator Obama came in late, brought up issues that had been hashed and rehashed,” Specter recalled. “He didn’t stay long.”
Just this week, as the financial markets were roiling in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse, Obama made another claim that was greeted with disbelief in some corners of Capitol Hill. On March 13, Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled legislative proposals to allow the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee new loans from banks willing to help homeowners in or approaching foreclosure. Obama and Clinton were in Washington for a day-long round of budget voting, but neither appeared at the housing news conference.
Yet Obama on Monday appeared to seek top billing on Dodd’s proposal.
“At this moment, we must come together and act to address the housing crisis that set this downturn in motion and continues to eat away at the public’s confidence in the market,” Obama said. “We should pass the legislation I put forward with my colleague Chris Dodd to create meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages so that Americans facing foreclosure can keep their homes.”
Dodd did say that Obama supported the bill, as does Clinton. But he could not offer pride of authorship to the candidate he wants to see in the White House next year.
“I’ve talked to him about it at some length,” Dodd said. “When Senator Obama was there for that full day of voting, we had long conversations about it. He had excellent questions and decided to support it.” END OF ARTICLE
Obama has had opportunities to make CHANGE happen, but was AWOL on the meetings, discussions, debates, and votes, emerging victorious at the press conferences to announce HIS VICTORIES, to campaign on. (read that photo ops and headlines)
Clinton also has her share of colleagues only too willing to scrutinize her claims. Her campaign Web site describes Clinton’s “successful effort to create” the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program during her husband’s tenure in the White House, and she has placed herself in the middle of major international events, including the Northern Ireland peace process and the Balkan conflict.
But prominent Democratic senators, Irish historians and even Sinbad the comedian, who accompanied Clinton to Kosovo, are challenging some of her assertions.
During months of SCHIP negotiations in 1997, her name rarely surfaced in news accounts. Clinton never testified before Congress or held a news conference on the bill. When Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the lead GOP negotiator of the children’s health bill, heard reports that Clinton was depicting herself as SCHIP’s main advocate, “I had to blink a few times,” he said. Hatch said he doesn’t recall a single conversation with Clinton about SCHIP, even a mention of her name. “If she was involved, I didn’t know about it,” he said.
“You know how she says, ‘I started SCHIP’? Well, so did I,” joked Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), one of the Democrats who pushed the bill across the finish line along with Kennedy. Both have endorsed Obama.
Some Clinton insiders also are uncomfortable with some of her assertions. “I don’t really like the way she talks about her role in SCHIP,” conceded one former Clinton administration official, who supports the first lady’s candidacy, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to express his views candidly. “She doesn’t say it right. What she should say is ‘I was the driving force in the administration.’ That’s pretty big,
and it’s all true.”
“At the last hour, the administration supported it, and she was part of the administration, so I suppose she could say she supported it at the time,” Kennedy said.
Clinton could get the support of the manufacturing industry. She has worked “tirelessly” manufacaturing EXPERIENCE for her record, to compaign on.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries