Political Punch

for al lthe naysayers, there is so much more to this story of colombia. do you know we have american troops fighting in colombia in a their civil war? google mena airport, the cocaine importing agency (CIA) and bill and hill are all over it. they are are an insidiuos lot.

If Bill and Hillary filed a joint return
what part of the $800,000 speaking fee was used to loan $5million toHillary's campaign? Isn't it against the law for a foreign government to contribute to a Presidential canpaign?

I have to ask people, what is wrong with Michelle speaking her mind of being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life? Heck, I am too. People who are unaware accuse her of a crime for saying that. Can you imagine, she's traveled from coast to coast and people are chanting for her husband even in the deep south. It is very emotional and impressive. So, saying that does not make her a bad person, just HUMAN! Please people get on with the real problems and quit making evil of Michelle's sincerity.

FREE TRADE IS NOT ALWAYS FREE, and Not all trading partners are alike.

Here's an example of free trade's headaches when dealing with a not so friendly foreign power ....

Chavez making decisions on a Lousiana refinery? Rules are needed and some oversight is required.

what is your choice?

Hillary, along with the input of Bill who will go down in history as one of our most successful presidents..

or
Barry, who can't talk the talk without listening to someone elses solutions first... and then only when the teleprompter work.... and his beloved wife, the unbeloved Michelle once he releases her from prison..../
Oh yeah.... and the third member of this triumvirate.... the very wrong pastor wright...

Or

Mcain and his beloved Cindy.... who at least keeps her mouth shut?

Joan - I agree - if this was a simple disagreement - say about whether Americans should carry the Olympic torch, who cares? Of course married couples disagree - especially political ones.

The problem is a lot bigger than that, though. 1) Since day, the Clintons has presented themselves as a joint team. Hillary's "35 years of experience" is based on a foundation of 8 years in the White House. 2) This involves money, and a lot of it - almost a million dollars. The Colombians gave Clinton that mney for the same reason lobbyists get paid - influence. 3) The Clintons didn't bother to let us know they had their hands in the pot until they were forced to - when they finally released their tax returns. 4) Hillary is running on a fiercely pro-union platform when her husband, and two of her chief strategists were accepting money to fight for the most violent anti-union government in the Americas (fairplay - Wolfson resigned his day job first). 4) The free-trade agreement with Colombia has as much to do with human rights as it does with money or influence. the Colombians are not just opposing union leaders, they are murdering them. I do not want anyone who supports the Uribe government even in the White House, let alone in a position as an unelected co-president.

She benefited in her personal joint bank account for the lobbying. How can she not be held accountable for this? Wow, this is a bullet train to the biggest gross abuse of power I have ever seen. She says one thing, he does another. She gets off, they both benefit financially. Clever, but we cannot let this happen.

Well Well, Hillary backers:

Now let's see if we got this right.

Bill is promoting trade with Col0mbia, but Hillary disagrees.

Bill was in support of NAFTA, but Hillary disagrees.

Bill was in support of Monica, but Hillary disagrees.

Hell, Bill's the man.

Or we are all being lied to again as Bill and Daddy Bush hold hands going all over the world preaching the same message that Hillary will allow Bill to do (another Bush) and get away with.
Just as she has done with her own family problems.
Love Bill and Hillary, but (BIG BUT), WE NEED A CHANGE FROM THE BUSH IDEAS.

BLEEDING IS NOT FUN; BEING BEATING BY THE RIGHT WING RULE IS NOT FUN.

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

If we elect Hillary, we get Bill. Plain and simple backdoor business deals and God know what else. If we get Hillary and Bill, she will SAY one thing publicly and he will DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO behind the scenes. That $109 million will be chump change to what they could pull off.

Bill can make all the backdoor deals he wants to, Hillary will run cover for him, but the deals will get done. The deals get done on the backs of small Americans.

We can't let that happen to this country. We are in real economic straits and they just want to line their pockets. We have to say NO MORE CLINTONS and hope in the process we cripple them forever politically.

Come on, the Colombians didn't pay Bill Clinton $800,000 for a speach without quid pro quo. The Colombians didn't fire Penn for no reason. They thought he was speaking for the CLINTONS and was going to deliver them the whole Clinton Package.

Dear Mrs. Clinton,
I am deeply concerned by the fact that you are surrounded by people who accept money from foreign powers and corporations. What if your now famous 3am call turns out to be from a Sheikh reminding you you owe him a favor? How can you fully defend US interests (or for that matter Israel's) under such circumstances?
Would you be kind enough to explain why the solutions you now have to all America's problems have not been implemented during the 8 years of your husband's presidency or defended since you are a Senator? Also, I wonder how (I mean HOW, not what) you will set up a decent health care system. You failed to do so a few years ago, having all the time you needed to focus on the matter. And how about trade treaties such as NAFTA (which you once supported) and Colombia? What about Wal-Mart from whom you have received benefits in the past while workers were being paid the lowest possible wages?
Could you explain why you now want to urgently end a war you have voted for before goals you have supported are reached?
I would be most grateful to receive information on your generous tax-deductible donations to charities. How much of that went to the Clinton Library or Foundation, if anything? And, by the way, could you let us know who are the contributors to these institutions, including the amounts paid by each of them?
It would be good to clarify your position concerning the role of super-delegates. I heard you saying only super-delegates will count at the Convention. I have also heard you telling voters in States like Pennsylvenia, Florida and Michigan that their votes are crucial and that democracy is democracy. This seems contradictory.
These answers will help voters to make up their minds.
Thank you very much.

The Clinton's are despicable. Not as despicable as Obama but despicable nonetheless.

You all are funny, comparing Michelle Obama's job with the hospital when he was a state official and one of Obama's 50 advisors who didn't have the authority to speak on behalf of Obama... to Bill Clinton who is entrenched in national government pitching a massive trade initiative and taking a million dollars "for speaking" ... he is a lobbyist...a very powerful lobbyist with a different name who will be living in the white house with Sen Clinton.

The Commander Guy -- You're absolutely correct. What was it that Goolsbee was saying to Canada while Obama was pitching his message to Ohio?

Would this not be like a lobbyist living in and sleeping in the same bed as the president of the United States.

Different Opinions are fine...but if someone takes money or should I say close to a million dollars from an organization whose purpose is to pass legislation through the American government and gets up and says they believe in that groups cause ...isn't that a lobbyist.

At worst should we elect someone who is a spouse of someone who actively takes political involvement in a cause that is the opposite of what they say and are running on?

Will we see any stories on Michelle and the hospital where she worked, the connections to Obama and the $300,000 raise Michelle received?

LOM

I'm not sure having a candidate that is both for and against the trade deals is a good thing.

LOM,

I agree. Of course, the Clintons can and do differ on free trade with Columbia. After reviewing the issue, I see two very arguments, for and against. In fact, from what I now see, I would probably be voting for a full free trade agreement. I am not anti-union at all, but Columbia/Uribe, as a staunch ally in South America, should not be discounted. Think of the SA despots who hate the USA.

@antoine | Apr 10, 2008 10:44:27 AM:

And they aren't allowed to have differing views? In that experience as first lady, we now know that she had reservations about NAFTA, according to recounts by David Gergen. So, she was able to have conflicting views then but not now?

people place Hill and Bill together because she running off of his experience, being his first lady meaning bill will be hers. See the point.

Jack, no personal opinion quip at the end of this story? No, thoughtful question for us discerning bloggers to ponder and thus post a comment?

Well, allow me to shoehorn one in for you:

Hmmm, per David Gergen, she was a "good soldier" during the ratification of NAFTA, but secretly denounced it. What about Bill on this issue? Is this sexism?

What are your thoughts?

This trade issue is another example of what Clitons are best at: HYPOCRASIES and LIES.

Note, this was 2005 and the Andean Trade Pact was enacted years prior. Congress has consistently voted for extensions. I think if you want to go back to statements of 2005, you will find many democratic congressmen supporting those extensions.

The fact that Bill Clinton supported the Andean Trade Pact was in no way controversial then. John Kerry had some giant vision of involving all the Americas in free trade and that was a centerpiece of his presidential campaign in 2004.

Andean Trade Pact is one-way, allowing for importation of (here) Columbia's goods to the USA, sans tariff. It does not allow our exportation, sans tariff. The proposed pact now before congress would open up trade so that it is a two-way agreement.

Truth be told, Uribe has made giant strides in Columbia in stemming anti-worker violence. I am no expert on this but the stats are impressive. Of course, the criticism of the stats is that they concern violence against union members. While that has sharply decreased, some say that is tied to union busting measures by the government. I have no idea who is telling the truth but the stats are impressive nevertheless.

Upshot, you need to put Bill Clinton's statement in the context of 2005. Justapose it against Democratic leaders and their opinions in 2005.

This speech is from May 2005 - before Hillary began her bid for the presidency.

We now know that on NAFTA Hillary had reservations when it was being formulated, but presented a united front with Bill when it came to addressing it publicly. (An everyday correlation to this is parents who disagree on an issue concerning a child, but present a united front when addressing the child.)

This would be a good opportunity for both Clintons to address Bill's role during her presidency. I think this is the top question people have in regards to this unprecedented presidency.

Asked about her husband's different position on this issue yesterday outside of Pittsburgh, Sen. Clinton said, "I don’t think any married couple I know agrees on everything and we disagree on this

This time she is being vocal.
but if you read all her statement

You know the Colombia free trade deal in my view is not appropriate because of the history of suppression and targeting killings of labor organizers in Colombia."

which mans i can always change my mind if they change their ways.

give her a year or two.
she is hoping that bush will deal with this before she gets into office.
so she gets to duck and run

Fascinating how people focus on what Bill Clinton says regarding Colombia, which Hillary Clinton has clearly stated that she disagrees with her husband. But barely a mention when Michelle Obama makes statements like, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." She actually said this twice on the campaign trail. What double standard?

Financial woes, miscalculations, misspoken, shake-ups, agree to disagree with husband; all these make some of us to question Hillary's Leadership Ability!

I dont see what the deal is.
She said he supports the deal and she doesnt.
She has a long standing record on the issue.

Why try to create an issue where there is none?

"I don't think any married couple I know agrees on everything. And we disagree on this," Hillary said.

"This" however concerns Bill Clinton opinions and commitments he got paid a LOT of serious money for by FOREIGN countries, with interests that DIFFER from American interests. He is expected to do something IN RETURN for that money, as in the nature of such deals.

This is not about a disagreement in a marriage. This is about the prospect of having the most serious kind of conflicts in interests on two pillows of the same bed in the White House's Presidential bedroom...

In other words, this is about the disqualification of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate.

seah, I disagree. The Clintons have always presented themselves as a two-for-one offering until public opinion weighed in against that concept. To believe that Bill is not running for co-presidency now is naive.

The Clinton's sold the rights of workers & the Unions in America for $800,000 in 2005. Bush sells America to the Chinese for $12b each month to fight Cheyenne's /Haliburton's war and Mark Penn tried to continue Clinton's plan for 2009 until they got exposed. Double speak is all I can say. America is not for sale

This means if Unions reps. dont get killed or surpressed in the next couple of years ten we will enact it.
can we say bye bye american jobs again?

You know the Colombia free trade deal in my view is not appropriate because of the history of suppression and targeting killings of labor organizers in Colombia."

Just think of it:

The Clintons share their back accounts. So, the 800,000 dollars Colombia paid to Bill are on Hillary's bank account as well. The millions the Saudi's and other Arab countries and oil sheiks paid to Bill: on Hillary's bank account.

All this is money that was paid for political commitments, standing up for foreign and sometimes individual interests, etc. Some of these go, even according to Hillary, AGAINST American interests.

Now tell me:

should this Clinton bank account EVER be the account of the President of the United States again?

It's the classic "good guy-bad guy" routine that partnerships often play with.

It can work in business, but not in politics, at least not with these two clowns.

Trust me this is just like her Bosnia story: a LIE. She based her whole campaign on the brilliant principles of the Clinton administration and now when it's inconvenient she backs off. I am SO threw with her.

And Elton John can go to hell.. who does he think he is? Not even American...

She made major money from Columbia and now she is against it.What a lying witch.....Billy needs to be seen for he will be and does now give her major import ,if you think it is all her HA-HA think again....

As if by coincidence, for there's a discussion about Colombia going on as a result of the Penn scandal, the focus has shifted to Bill Clinton's role. Colombia paid him 800,000 dollars for speeches that would back up the country's agenda for the free trade arrangement. So, Bill in Colombia is a liability in this campaign.

But there is SO much more in what Bill Clinton has earned his millions with in recent years that is a liability, not only for Hillary's campaign but in case Hillary would become President.

I think Americans should demand an analysis of what Bill's political agenda has been after he left the White House: where did he say what, what did Arab countries and others exactly pay him for, what commitments did he make, etc.

All these highly lucrative activities have not been controlled by anyone except for Bill himself, guided by the quest for money, whereas all these speeches, advices ete, are about politics and issues that involve American interests, as the Colombia case clearly shows.

Colombia is just an example, and see what we get. I would think that there's a great risk in having Bill Clinton back in the White House as our President's first and most intimate adviser, certainly because even Hillary is paying her private bills with the money that Bill earned by speaking up for Colombian or Saudi causes.

Wouldn't that be a weird situation, and a VERY serious conflict of interests? Yes, no doubt it would.

Hillary is only against job exporting trade deals in EVEN numbered years.

Hillary supports these trade deals in ODD numbered years.

This is all you need to know.

Obama is a tool of the corrupt Chicago machine. Why are we getting stories about Bill Clinton and not Michelle Obama?

She may disagree now,but for how long. The Clinton's are offering two for the price of one, like a co-presidency (you get hill you get bill)Hillary may be the prsident,but since she his claiming 8 years of her experience from being first lady,this sound like a conflict of interest. America must also weigh the financial ramification ,such as the $800,000 bill was supposed to have made through his columbia connection.

Please no more Clinton dynasty!
Yes We Can!

Today is 2008

Bill Clinton is not running for anything
the last time I looked.

Kingston, you have a very important name and a very smart way of summarizing these Hill and Bill relationships. If Hill is in the White House with Bill on her side, several NAFTAs will happen as long as money can flow under the table of negotiation so the 109 million Bill will get most of it. Hillary the Bosnian General will never be able to decide because she belongs to Bill who will be de defacto VP. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.

See- none of this would matter if Hillary had run her campaign independent of her husband. Now we are lummoxed ..do we accept Bill as a two for one deal or believe that Hillary has own own ideas and plans? She really can't have it both ways, you can't run on Bill's reputation and then pick and choose which instances you want the public to embrace and which one's you want the public to ignore. It leaves people to question what your position truly is, as I am left wondering and I am guessing many others as well. This is just a point I am making before everyone gets upset- I support Obama but will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee , but it does make me feel uncomfortable on her stance in this free trade arguement.

"I think we have to miss the electoral pressure in the United States," Clinton said, according to the newspaper. "This is a bad time for the free trade in the United States. There is an emotional momentum away from greater integration "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TRANSLATION:

We are going to pretend like we are against it during the election, but don't worry, we'll get it passed.

The "Clintons" are pathetic.

This is exactly what the American public fears about having the Clintons back in the White House. These conflicts of interest will become huge problems as Bill is not likely to shelve his career for an HRC presidency and if he does not there will be more special prosecutors and the same garbage we went through during Clinton I.

ALL the Clinton people and allies are in favor of this free trade agreement, as they were in favor of NAFTA. Hillary included, as is on record thanks to her White House schedules.

But since Hillary is a liar and spinner who is only dedicated to the embrace of power, she's putting up a pretty miserable show for the Unions and the blue collar workers in which she plays the role of the independent wife who is a fighter against the Big Boys's ideas on trade. The truth is, she is a doll in the Big Boy's hands. A puppet.