Letters to the Editor
-
maybe I missed something...
...but I would think that one of the ways you'd want to "go after special interests" was by being open and transparent about your earmakrs.
I know Sen. Obama has done so, but to my knowledge she has not. I know she joined the pledge to freeze them or put a moratorium on them or whatever both Obama and McCain have also said, but I do not know that she has released hers, though if someone can say definitively that she has, good.
If that's not the case, though, and she hasn't released them, well, then this ad seems like just so many empty words.
-
Actions, not words... remember?
I agree with Senator Clinton's words. Unfortunately, her actions belie them, and McCain will have the upper hand on the issue because of his famous "no earmarks" policy. Hillary, on the other hand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/clinton-by-far-worst-abus_b_84102.html
"In the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill Hillary Clinton received 261 earmarks, more than five times the number of any other presidential candidate. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton obtained 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006. This record establishes her as by far the worst abuser of earmarks among all presidential candidates in both parties.
Clinton's earmarks are an important issue for Democrats who worry about the growing corporate control over their party. But the earmark issue may be even more important in the general election because it could become the swing issue this fall allowing the presidency to remain in Republican hands.
In the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, Clinton pushed for more earmarks than any other senator except the chair of the Armed Services Committee. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million (by contrast, Obama had only one earmark, requested with several other senators, to help children with severe disabilities). Clinton has been particularly active in obtaining earmarks for defense companies in New York, helping them sidestep the normal competitive system for contractors. She's also raised more than $270,000 for her campaigns from these defense contractors.
Hillary Clinton's $1 million earmark for a museum to celebrate the 1969 Woodstock music festival could become one of the biggest issues of the 2008 campaign. Not only does it anger the culture conservatives who see Woodstock as nothing more than a bunch of pot-smoking naked hippies, but even the people with fond memories of the rock festival must acknowledge that a museum is not exactly the best symbol of its meaning, and that a million dollars should be spent by pandering politicians for this project. The Woodstock earmark was voted out, 52-42, on October 18, 2007, making it one of only two earmarks to be voted down (the other was $129,000 for the home of the perfect Christmas tree project in North Carolina).
The Woodstock earmark raises further questions about the corrupt system of obtaining earmarks. On June 21, 2007, Clinton and Charles Schumer's $1 million earmark for the Woodstock museum was approved by a Senate committee. Nine days later, billionaire Republican Alan Gerry, the driving force behind the museum, donated (with his wife) the maximum of $9,200 to Clinton's presidential campaign. That same week, Gerry and his family gave $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee run by Schumer. Since 2005, the Gerrys have donated $18,600 to Clinton.
* * * * * * *
While Clinton has exploited earmarks for political gain in New York, Obama has led the fight to expose earmarks and change the system. Reason magazine noted that Obama's role in passing the Federal Funding and Tranparency Act "can't be overstated."
Obama, unlike Clinton, refuses to endorse any earmarks that directly benefit a private corporation. Since coming to the Senate, the Los Angeles Times discovered, Clinton had gotten $500 million in earmarks specifically benefiting 59 corporations, and she received donations from employees at 64% of those companies.
Obama was one of only two senators (with Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona) to release his requests for earmarks. Clinton and other legislators only have to reveal the earmarks that are approved, not all of their requests, and Clinton has opposed Obama's efforts to require open scrutiny of these requests. Obama's website offers his promise, "Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." This may not sound like much, but it would result in a massive decline in earmarks.
* * * * *
John McCain declared during a Republican presidential debate on October 21, 2007, "I have fought against out-of- control and disgraceful spending that's been going on and I have saved the American people as much as $2 billion at one stroke. In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time."
McCain observed, "No one can be president of the United States that supports projects such as these. And I believe that wasteful spending has got to be eliminated. And I will have this debate and win because she is a liberal Democrat and I am a proud, reliable, consistent conservative Republican." McCain is right. Columnist Robert Novak noted that "Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail...is cheered for promising to veto bills with earmarked pork." Unless the press continues to ignore the corruption issue for the next year, any Republican presidential candidate could make a devastating critique of Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.
-
What in Hillary Clinton's past reusume..
...points to her as doing anything other than gobbling pac money up like a greedy hog?
-
NOt new
This is the same ad she ran in Ohio, but them Obama is running many of the same ads too.
Don't see how she can run againist special interests. If you got to "The Hill", you will Hillary the most endorsements from lobbyists who represent the very companies that are taking the PA jobs out of this country.
She cannot run on her foreign policy experience now,
as it has proven not to be true.
-
Rovian
Standard playbook from the past decade or so of this PR marketing-style of politics. Denounce exactly what you're most notorious for and hammer it home like you're the champion against it.
Some call it Rovian, seems Owellian to me, but whatever it is, it seems to hook a lot of people.