Letters to the Editor
-
this does not sound....
like a confident candidate. "I have nothing to hide, I just don't want to tell you until that nothing can't impact your decision".
-
Exelon? Rezko?
The only comparably stupid issues Obama could bring up would be something like, "I've been hearing Clinton killed Vince Foster. Why won't she talk about that?" or "wasn't she involved in some kind of securities fraud with cattle futures?" She's trawling for dirt and really coming up empty. Obama's gone nowhere near as low in the dirt so far, but if she keeps this up he might have to.
-
Grab a gun and join the circle, Democrats, the firing squad has been called to order
Here it comes .....
-
In other words, "Fuck You"
She won't release her tax returns...untill she's the nominee. I guess she won't be releasing them.
Her healthcare debacle in the '90's took place in secret. The Rose Law records mysteriously disappeared then reappeared. She won't release her tax returns unless she gets the nomination (don't hold your breath even if she does get nominated).
Why anyone thinks this toxic woman should be President is beyond me.
-
The Victim Card
This is the same way the Clintons seem to respond to any criticism:
1) That (insert criticism here) isn't valid because (insert tenuous legal distinction here).
2) I've been attacked for (insert criticism here) by a vast Right Wing Conspiracy for years but they still haven't proven anything, therefore I must be innocent.
3) It's so unfair that people are asking me this question. It must only be a reflection of some conspiracy to prevent me from attaining my rightful position as President.
-
Uggh
This IS the circular firing squad. I was surprised to see that my primary still had all of the original Democratic candidates' names on the ballot. Rather than gaming my vote between the remaining two, I was glad to have one (possibly last) chance to vote for John Edwards.
-
What a fucking liar
Obama HAS released his tax returns. She has not. To say that she has had "other investigation" or some other BS does not pass the apples to apples test. Either she's just TRYING to be an asshole or she has something to hide. She needs a better answer than this.
Or maybe not. How many Americans are really going to understand this?
-
Twisted
Clinton (like her husband) is a master of making bold statements based on twisted facts, assuming nobody will notice the errors in logic as long as she sounds strong and confident. The fact is that "the other side" HAS released his tax returns and she HAS NOT. That is the only fact here. Yes, there may be other questions worth investigating about Obama's financial relationships, but the issue here is the tax returns and she is the one being secretive.
And in terms of having her cake and eating it too: Clinton is the one who says she will be able to withstand Republican attacks because she has no secrets and has been fully vetted. And here she is saying that she'll release the tax return information once she is the nominee. By her own logical support for her candidacy, shouldn't Democratic voters be given a chance to review the returns before the Republicans can?
-
Yes, where are the questions to the other side???
"Senator Obama, why haven't you released your tax returns?"
"I have."
"Oh. Nevermind."
-
And She adds another reason to my list
to not support her. I don't really care about the tax thing honestly but when she comes back and brings up Rezko and such, that's just low mudslinging crap. The clinton's are notorious for this type of response and it's one of the things that really turns me off. Some of you might like this sort of thing but it's dirty dishonest politics. I expect this from Republicans but not a Democrat.
-
I don't know
I went and researched l'affaire Rezko, looking at all the back articles from the Chicago newspapers when BO ran for the Senate, and I actually do feel like I have all or most of the information. It's out there, it's been reported on. The donated money was given to charity.
Hillary is a very clever woman to continually throw out the Rezko herring. She's got some donor "issues" (to put it mildly - see Peter Paul issue) herself, but she's memorized the Rovian playbook: hit your candidate on his strength to deflect your weakness. I could get behind that if she were running against the Republican right now (she'd have been amazing against Romney). If she gets the nomination I have no doubt that she will have a fighting chance to beat them at their own game. I don't think it will win her any new voters or friends or even the election, but she will fight.
-
Oh my god, OH MY GOD! OMIGAWDS!!!111!!1
She's the devil! The devillllllll! This proves!!!!111!!! She makes Dick Cheney looks like Dick Buttons!!!!!111!!! Burn her, burn her, burn herrrrrr
/head asplode
-
Why wait?
By not posting those returns, it is causing more debate than it should. It makes me think, hmm. What IS she hiding? If she just posted the damn thing, I probably would not have gave it a second thought. Why wait until the Republicans can chew you up?
I figure I am a pretty average Democrat. If I am thinking this, then there probably are plenty more Democratic voters with the same question.
-
Here's come the parade of anonymous pro-Clinton posters
Didn't mean to use the plural as they are probably all done by the same person.
-
Clinton & Transparency = oxymoron
She really wants to go there? honestly? Does she think no one recalls her questionable financial and fundraising tactics?
Let's see people do any of these names ring a bell?
Norman Hsu, Marc Rich, Aaron Tonken, Peter Paul, Charlie Trie, John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Roger Tamraz, Jeff Epstein, John Lee, Pauline Kanchanalak, Abdul Jinnah, Ron Burkle....
I think she needs to be very very careful harping on the Rezcko thing when she has so many skeletons in the closet! I know Obama has repeated that he doesn't play this kind of politics but I will be damned if I would let her have the last word on this one!
-
What is she hiding?
The ________ dollar question.
-
tax returns and questions both ways
When Obama demands that Clinton release tax returns, I doubt he really thinks there is anything bad in those returns. Rather he wants to harp on the refusal to release them as if it were suspecious or gloat over how he made her release them if she were to agree. It is a ploy not a legitimate issue. But the media will see to it that it works, which brings me to the second point.
Clinton may as well give up on complaining about the one sided press. It is complaining to the fox in charge of the hen house. The press simply uses the complaint, cast in a negative light, as more news against her. I have considered that the press just does not think it is being unfair, but it is hard to believe they are all that un-self-aware. I know people rationalize their behavior, and the press just thinks the complaints are unjustified. The facts are the facts, they think. But the problem is that Obama's campaign does just about the same, and for some reason that is not news.
Here's one that won't get on the news: A friend of mine who has not been to church in decades, and who is an independent with slightly conservative tendencies, thinks Obama is the anti-Christ because he is getting so much support without having to work for it. I kid you not. As wierd as that opinion is, it highlights the favoritism that Obama is getting in the press.