Letters to the Editor
-
Joe Conason
Joe should know by now that nothing that is obtained via the Clintons is free – including his advice. The loyal retinue that the Clintons keep ensures that they are never the first to bear the costs for the various public scandals that they seem to be drawn to - that cost invariably is borne by their front line – people like Joe.
Joe Conason’s cheap barb about free advice just doesn’t seem to jibe with who he seems to be in his writing. It makes me sad that someone I have admired through the years for projecting a persona in his writing that seems to say that he believes in standing up truth to power can so easily crumble once a Clinton seems to be in a fix. In a flash Joe has become a Clinton poodle. Only a Clinton poodle would have omitted the most important aspect of the money scandal that is now surrounding the Clintons – her brother. You know the one that was selling pardons to the money folks in the final days of Bill’s administration. The scandal is not about how much money Bill and Hillary have made but via whom. Dig a little deeper Joe and you will find that a few of those wonderful white collar criminals that Bill gave pardon to in his final days in office have somehow (one degree of separation) been involved with the enormous amount of money that Bill and Hillary have accrued since 2000. Joe, I have some free advice for you – the Clintons are not the country – the Clintons are not the Constitution – the Clintons are not more important than the rule of law – it’s about time that folks like you stop protecting them from serious questions that need to be addressed about their character. The vast right-wing conspiracy that Hillary has spoken so much about is none other than her own. My free advice – look at her record without blinders.
-
One more time
As seems to be the accepted method of letters around here right now, Obama is being picked on and no matter what she says or does, Clinton is evil.
Obama needs to clarify just what went on.
Clinton needs to release her tax returns.
Obama is not being picked on and Clinton is not evil.
Quit demonizing the other Dem, everyone, and let's save our hatred for the Republicans.
-
A true disappointment, Joe
Joe, I look to you for serious reporting. The veil of impartiality in this piece is tissue thin, and unbecoming. The truly impartial act would be to call for two simultaneous acts:
1 - For Senator Obama to sit down with Sun-Times and Tribune reporters (these being the most informed members of the press when it comes to Rezko) and answer on the record every question they ask. While they're there, they should nail down the details of the meeting with the Canadian consul.
2 - For Senator Clinton to release her joint tax returns (which, I'm sorry, are absolutely vetted and prepared by now. Because you're right, she doesn't do them herself - which means that they're done).
It would be nice if she would also indulge in a similar sit-down conversation to lay out her role in the achievements of her husband's administration. There's good to be had there, but not, I think, as much good as she's trumpeting. After all, at no point in her husband's tenure did she ever have security clearance. (She should have. But can you imagine the fuss the Republicans would have raised if she had been granted it? I imagine it was a fight not worth having...)
For the record, I actually don't think there's anything to find in Senator Clinton's taxes. But I believe she's wary of releasing the names of a few of her husband's associates before she has clinched the nomination. I think hardcore Dems will find unpalatable the people he's been speaking to, and for.
But, to my dismay, you do not approach this piece with even the hint of balance. Just because we are all weary of calls for a Clinton, any Clinton, to "fess up," that does not excuse Senator Clinton for demanding her opponent's tax returns in 2000 and evading the same calls today. (I know, consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.)
Somehow I'm reminded that Karl Rove also wrote a piece offering "advice" to Senator Obama. We are all quite aware of his ulterior motives, yet in hindsight his offer seems actually less disingenuous than yours.
Please, when you do opposition pieces, remember who the opposition is.
-
KathyD
lieberman has been stumping for McCain throughout the primaries. hillary just made it plain now that McCain is far better qualified to run for the Presidency. ALL three voted for the war on Iraq and ALL three are beholden heavily to the ALL powerful Israeli lobby. Be not surprised when Iran is the next country that will be bombed by American shock and awe. An invasion and occupation will be gleefully endorsed by McCain, hillary and lieberman.
-
Some Free Advice for Obama
Excellent points. I have watched carefully the issues raised by Sen. Clinton. They are substantive and typical matters any politician running for office, especially the presidency, should address.
If all Obama can try to go after is her tax returns, forget it. He strikes me as being full of rhetoric and not much else.
-
Mountain Girl said it better
While I was composing a rambling response, MountainGirl made my point, and far better than I managed. Thank you.
-
@David Blixt
Don't be so sure that Clinton's tax returns are done. When you own many investments it's not uncommon to not receive documents for months after the end of the previous tax year. Often the corporations need to complete audits before sending out some forms. Clinton's taxes may very well be waiting for paperwork.
-
Of course, Hillary has already voted to authorize war against Iran...
...but those pesky whistleblowers leaked the NIE!
Such a shame, as Senator Clinton - who can't be bothered to attend the vote and debate on FISA renewal - jumped on the chance to vote in favor of the GOP bill to certify the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization during last Fall's session. Since any nation that harbors terrorists is subject to pre-emptive attack under the Bush doctrine, Clinton knew full-well she was voting to provide the Chimp-in-chief justification for war.
I can only assume Clinton's supporters also want war with Iran. After all, aren't they the ones constantly harping "actions, not words"?