Sun, 01/04/2009 - 6:02pm — lambert
Here's a hilarious caption from an article in the Style section of the Times about how Village hostesses can snag the Obamas:
COVETED GUEST Will the new president and first lady be more like the stay-at-home Bushes or the gregarious Reagans?
"Or," eh? Gee, wasn't there another administration in there, somewhere? Let me think....
Follow the airbrushing. The Village
just hates the Clintons. Just hates them. As Amberglow says, I'll believe in the Hillary SoS thing when she actually sits down at the desk, and not before.
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Wishful thinking
The only thing that would stop her nomination would be something outside of her control. She has an amazing high tolerance for Village
bullshit.
The Village
hates the Clintons, and, well, the Clintons don't care, it seems. I guess that's what all that talk of imperviousness meant.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
this kind of thing, Damon -- NYT --
A Donor’s Gift Soon Followed Clinton’s Help
there's not much difference bet this and all the other pay-to-play shit everywhere -- and this one case in the NYT story is not the only one around.
not much difference?
That would be true only if you consider a contribution to a worthwhile charity the same as a contribution to a political campaign.
Personally I believe there is a hell of a difference.
to the husband's charity? come on.
it's like hiring Michelle Obama in a big bucks job after you get a hospital millions in public money.
this is not some random unconnected charity that a donation was made to.
Actually, it's NOT
because the money goes to the charity, not to Bill.
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
the $$ only goes to Bill's charity bec it's Bill's --
not because Hillary wanted to help charities, or wanted those people to donate to charities in general.
Just as govt grants and subsidies and pork, etc, all go to orgs and charities, etc, connected to the officeholder and/or their donors/funders. They don't just get handed out evenhandedly--without connections--ever.
& Obama made exposure of Bill's charity donors a key factor
in whether or not to give Hillary the appointment --
IHT -- Arab states and business moguls are big donors to Clinton charity
Congress can still use all this to stop Hillary from getting SOS. Plus, they're talking about Bill himself being made a Middle East Envoy -- how does he himself not have conflicts of interest, given that there's big Arab money in his charity?
So what?
To anyone not infected with CDS, my point stands and yours is of no consequence.
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
so what is that this stuff all matters --
and that none of it and no one is clear of it -- yet some get stopped by it, and/or held to different standards, while others skate by.
Daschle's wife is a lobbyist and he's worked at places that lobby too, but he wasn't required to disclose her clients -- or his own.
and knowing that Clintons are scrutinized more than others is not just CDS -- and it's why some of us won't believe her as SOS til we see it for real.
Clinton hasn't resigned her senate seat.
She won't believe it until she's handed the keys either. Great minds think alike.
The key difference is this - as far as i can see - there is nothing extraordinary or inappropriate about the bills passing that benefitted that particular donor. He's a New Yorker. He has an appropriate resume for the jobs he was working on. The projects are consistent with other work being done by Senator Clinton.
In New Mexico, I guarantee you, there are plenty of pissed off contractors wondering how a Californian got a $1 billion contract that takes money out of state. Hmmmm..... And yes, Richardson's campaign received the donation so that's pretty darn direct. If Bill wins, Bill benefits.
With the Clinton Foundation, Clinton does not benefit directly. All those AIDS infected kids in China and Africa do.
I wonder if Bill Clinton draws a salary? I'm sure he does, but I wonder what it is.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Great point, B.A.
Nice to know we're all sufficiently para... er, realistic. "Hope, but verify."
To me, the whole Richardson thing reminds me of the way people around Obama mysteriously explode -- from Jack Ryan onward.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
it's not just his foundation --
there are people in NYS that she helped like Richardson, and there's a long history -- as we all know -- of all their money things being seen as corrupt whether they are or not.
Obama requiring Bill's donors to be disclosed itself is a horrendous double-standard to place on her -- and not any kind of sign that he trusts her at all. She's more vulnerable to the charges of the kind of thing that Richardson got dumped for -- and always has been.
It's also one of the reasons Obama's team gave for not making her VP, remember?
This stuff with an indian outsourcer -- Tata -- was big last year -- and just one example anyone could make an issue of. (this kind of thing is what i've been thinking of since the Richardson stuff came up -- and it's very conflict-of-interest in terms of working with other countries, no? )
(Light bulb goes on.)
I hate missing the point so clearly.
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
Seems like a shot across the bow
Remember how incensed the Village
hostesses were when the Clintons didn't come to their dinner parties. And since the Village
hostesses (i.e., Sally Quinn and Maureen Orth) were married to powerful media figures, that spelled the end of any media honeymoon the Clintons might have enjoyed.
The first shot was Sally Quinn's directive that the Obamas attend church at the National Cathedral. This is the next.