Bradley: Bill Clinton's Financial Backers Could Pose Big Problem

Though known for his soft-demeanor, former senator and current Obama supporter Bill Bradley let off a bit of steam at the Clinton campaign during an appearance on NewsHour Wednesday night.

Calling into question the known unknowns (channeling my inner-Rumsfeld) of former president Bill Clinton's financial backers, Bradley raised the specter of down-the-road quid-pro-quos and one-hand-behind-your-back general election fights against Sen. John McCain. As he explained to host Jim Lehrer:

"I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.

And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain."

Here is the video:

Tip of the hat to goldmj at Daily Kos for first noticing this.

Comments

[scandals&skeletons]

is howard wolfson an idiot?
why on earth would anyone in the clinton campaign invoke the name ken starr?
talk about opening a can of worms.

[scandals&skeletons]

question of the day: should mccain picl lieberman or hillary as his running mate.

[Macready]

I hope Bill Bradley and the MSM will follow this up . . . it needs to be done . ..

[Jennysaypa]

Balderdash. It's simple: Obama has gotten contributions from over 1 million Americans and Clinton we can surmise (given her reluctance to release contributor lists) has a few wealthy sleazebags who are looking to buy power and access just like they did during the administration of her co-conspirator.

Why won't Clinton release her tax returns? Because they will show an unseemingly stream of graft tagged as "income".

She has said she will only release her tax returns if she manages to wrest power from the righteous because it will become clear to the grassroots of the Democratic party that she serves only the rich and corrupt.

[JTyroler]

Where did HRC get $5,000,000 to loan herself? When Bill left the White House weren't they having money issues and didn't have a home?

It seems HRC is willing to win at all costs, even if it means destroying the Democratic party. She needs to keep in mind that her actions have an effect on 30-some US US Senate races and 435 Congressional races.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I don't care for any of em. Look, I'll drop my offer to 9 bucks an hour, ok? Give me 6 months, and if you don't like my results, write to your representative and tell them you don't want that Bert guy anymore.
But I'd ask for 2 weeks after that to try to mend my ways, eh? New on the job, and all that. If you don't like these three, and you're game for a novel change, gimme a shot at it. I promise to do my level best not to wreck it. K?

LOL

[Monkeytime]

Have a redo in FL & MI.

If after the redo (and the other remaining contests) HRC is ahead in elected delegates, whether or not she needs the superdelegates to get over the top, I will vote for her in the general election. I'll contribute to the campaign.

However, if we go into the convention with BO ahead in popular votes, elected delegates and states won and he is still denied the nomination, not only will I not vote for her, I think the DNC will have a serious shitstorm on their hands

The Dems are supposed to be the party of the people. They are supposed to be the progressive party.

If they overrule the voters and railroad a popularly elected candidate that did not vote for the war, the first viable African American candidate, in order to install an individual who lost the popular vote, who voted for the war and who is also the spouse of an ex-president who did more to move the party to the right than any other major political figure in recent US history, there won't be much worth voting for that appeals to progressives.

[OverIt]

WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO RUN A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CLINTON PARDON LIST AND DONORS TO THE CLINTON LIBRARY????

[Horst]

How dare you insult Marc Rich!

[BronxGOPer]

Well, I am pretty sure no one will do such a comparison unless and until the donor list is revealed.

As a Republican, I must admit to some amusement at watching and listening to Democrats suddenly discovering the Clinton scandals of years past. You find corruption in both parties because it is quite frankly a flaw of human nature. Politics being as it is, political opponents will seek to exploit scandals and charges of corruption for political gain. There is a natural urge to defend candidates you support or who are from your party when they are attacked. But when serious charges are substantiated, I think the country (and our respective parties) benefit in the long run if we withdraw our support instead of blindly defending our guy/gal or attacking the accusers. Of course, definitions of substantiated may vary.

When Hillary went on the Today Show and spoke about a “vast rightwing conspiracy” out to get her husband, she was partially correct. There were right-wingers out to get her husband, but their charges were true. With the benefit of hindsight I think that Republicans were ill served by focusing so much on the Clintons’ personal scandals. Through some truly amazing political jujitsu Clinton emerged as a sympathetic figure. Republican sentiments were possibly best summed up by an SNL sketch from years before most people had ever heard of Bill Clinton. Jon Lovitz, playing Michael Dukakis during a debate with Dana Carvey’s George Bush turns to the camera and says “I can’t believe I am losing to this guy.” Well Republicans couldn’t believe we were losing to Clinton and in frustration focused more on the scandals then we did on a positive message about why people should vote Republican.

I will close with this: Obama supporters be warned. The Clintons are masters of both using and defending against negative attacks. They have had so much practice at it.

[wiltmellow]

You write, coyly, "There were right-wingers out to get her husband, but their charges were true. "

Which of those were true? The drug running via Mena? The murder of Mr. Foster? The ties with the KGB? The love-children scattered throughout Arkansas and Oklahoma? The millions made off their Whitewater investment? That they had numerous critics murdered?

You should read "The Hunting of the President", for instance, to understand the viciousness and amorality of the anti-Clinton ploys in Arkansas.

I support Obama. He counsels restraint and a coming together of the Ameican nation. However, that reconciliation demands a truthful accounting of two starkly different versions of reality. You accurately note that the Clintons were subject to a conspiracy. Yet you find some accusations "true." What about those that weren't true? Which were true and which were false? Where the untrue accusations generated by the RNC using fronts like Scaife or Starr?

When you're through with your disingenuous assertion that the charges against the Clintons were, somehow, true, will you be willing to fund a similar investigation into the anti-Clinton investigators? Will you support a special prosecutor using the same rules Ken Starr used in an investigation of the Bush machine? Will you be "amused" discovering the Bush scandals now being hidden, in part, by executive orders or squelched by the open and explicit defiance of the Presidential Records Act.

That's the problem we face. Tit for tat, goose and gander, pot and kettle, etc.

Do you actually care about what's true?

[BlackWidowPilot]

OK, so you admit you're a loyal member of the party that has brought us corruption in government that would make Boss Tweed blush with embarrassment?


Cool.


You want corruption let's talk about these Cheney cronies:


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030608B.shtml


We can then go into the no-bid contracts, the Katrina rebuilding that isn't, the Iraq construction projects that have sucked up billions of our taxpayer dollars, and actually delivered nothing, defective body armour issued to our troops, rotting food served to our troops by KBR, telecomm immunity, signing statements, and a war for oil and empire based upon over 900+ lies about WMDs.


And let's also discuss the actual record of "family values" of the "party of family values:"


http://www.armchairsubversive.org/


Now mind you, I happen to be an independent who favors Obama over Hillary, but if it's a choice between Hillary or "Hundred Years War" McCain who now clearly wishes to continue the Chimp-in-Chief's degenerate "strad-ge-dee" in Iraq and equally corrupt policies here at home, I'll take Hillary any day of the week, thank you very much.


How's your mortgage? Reset yet? You're health insurance? Try mine; I'm one of the 47 million and counting shut out because I'm "not profitable enough" (actual quote from a Blue Shield broker speaking off the record).


Yes, perhaps the Clintons are actually *politicia­ns.* Big surprise to anyone who can be bothered to actually read, do research, and/or engage in critical thinking.


A "positive message as to why people should vote Republican?" After what Chimpy "Mission Accomplished" McFlightsuit and his loyal members of the "Gang of Pedophiles" in congress have done to our country -and the world- these past seven and a half years, this independent voter would rather take his chances with another Clinton in the White House. Your fellow travelers Pappy Bush and Reagan were not much better, just less bold in their conducting themselves as functional autocrats.


IMHO if your vaunted GOP survives to the end of the next two decades it will be a miracle. One thing is clear to this independent voter; if the GOP is to survive it will have to do a major internal reform of epic proportions. Otherwise the GOP will go down as the most corrupt and despicable political entity to inflict itself on the American body politic in our nation's history.



Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[pilotinfla]

The list of library donors is being kept secret. I'm sure they would have been more ready to release the donor list (or at least part of it) if they had been able to keep the pardon list secret.

[STORMATSEA]

when is someone going to look into the investigations stopped and squilched by the two Bush administra­tions....i­ncluding all three of his sons, namely never.

[Barackanot]

You may not want to go down this slippery slope. Barack still has to explain the $300,000.0­0 campaign contribution from Exelon and whether or not it had anything to do with his change of attitude toward their failure to report their radioactive leak. He has accepted over $13 million from lobbyist attorneys, $6 million from various businesses; $300,000.0­0 from the Swiss corp. UBS AG, $2 million from the medical profession, etc. etc. Normally, this would be politics as usual except it appears Obama has misled voters into thinking he is different and doesn't accept money from lobbyist or corporations. He still needs to provide the records on the Rezko funds and he has failed miserably at trying to explain away NAFTA-GATE. And as long as people like to drag Bill into this...Mic­helle has some explaining to do about her college thesis, "Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community.­" The Clintons have been active in politics far longer than Obama but, at Obama's rate, he will need more closets than the Clintons to hold all of his skeletons and in a much shorter time.

[JasonEverettMiller]

He has accepted contributions, unbundled, from individuals who happen to work for GIANT corporations. Get real. This is a chimera. A ghost argument.

Likewise, Rezko, after more than a decade of investigation, is also a non issue. Barack has been cleared of all knowledge or participation in any of the events surrounding that man. Any "association" is peripheral at best. Next.

His adviser, very appropriately, reiterated to the Canadian representative that Barack has no intention of scrapping NAFTA or in pursuing a protectionist trade policy, but that he did plan on renegotiating certain provisions of existing trade agreements, as all new presidents do. The same exact stance he has taken in public. Again, no story.

Every one of your lame skeletons have not only been out of the closet for quite some time, but they have danced around the room and been donated to a medical school now that they are no longer needed. None of this crap is keeping Obama from raising record amounts of money from everyday people, like me and my wife, nor is it keeping from people continuing to flock to his campaign.

[PhyloSeFiser]

You might want to get up to date on NAFTAgate Barackanot.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html

[MsLiz]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/mark-penn-tied-to-controv_n_86722.html

There is your Exelon story. Looks like Mark Penn got more money than Obama did.

[KQuark]

Scandals follow the Clintons because they are corrupt people. Taking millions of dollars from Arab sheiks is just the tip of the iceberg.

Another thing that people are failing to recognize is that Hillary gets millions of dollars of contributions from the health care industry. Then she supports mandatory purchasing of health insurance. Her plan will make the health care industry that is already one of the highest growth industries windfall profits by using government subsides to fund the difference between what people pay and what they insurance companies get. Meanwhile Obama's plan will make health care more affordable with government subsidies but just mandatory for children. Obama's plan is the only plan that will minimize costs because the health care insures need to stay competitive to attract the un-insured. It Economics 101, Hillary's plan artificially increases demand by being mandatory that will increase costs.

[DAbraha]

The vetting is just getting started...­thank you Mr. Bradley.

These are things why I think Superdelegates have to look into before they cast their vote for this lady. I am afraid we are going to see a republican if Clinton is the nominee and she will be destroyed with all her baggage going home with her tail behind Bill's behind.

Obama is the right person for the job with a 12% lead against McCain right now.

[Patrickvashon]

Obama has not had a full explanation of his own real estate deal where he got a three Hundred thousand dollar discount on his house purchase as well as the sweetheart deal he got from Mrs. Rezco on the property next door, bought on the SAME DAY, COINCIDENCE OF GREAT CONVIENIENCE.
His cocaine use as a teenager has been glossed over, did he sell the drug did he commit crime to get money to feed his habit? As for His SPEECH of which he is so proud, he was in the state senate district that included the headquarters of The Nation Of Islam and Louis Farrakahn, in fact he could not have won that state senate seat without the approval of Farrakahn. Was he pressured to make the speech by the racist Farrakahn? Bradley knows that there are too many unanswered questions about Barack as well as Hillary. Get serious, Obama has as many flaws as any other politician, there are no great politicians there are just politicians.

[JiminNC]

You know the tide is turning when you have to page down twice before you the word Rezko.

[kevenhussienseven]

FISA ALERT! New cause for optimism???

The House has delayed voting on FISA until next week. There is an argument that this is a good sign. Please read:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/122326/0124/368/470497

And take action come Monday.

Especially call Blue Dogs, many of whom are agitating for Telecom immunity.

And a report on Nancy Pelosi thinking like an idiot. Of all the parts of the Senate bill, there is only one part that is irreversible once passed, and that is retroactive immunity. Many other elements of the Senate bill are odious, but all could be reversed, especially assuming substantial gains for the Dems in Congress and a Dem president.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/16164/73515/183/470690

Please place several calls on Monday. At minimum to: Pelosi, Hoyer, Conyers, and your congressman.

[santafenm]

I am sorely disappointed in former senator Bill Bradley.

What happened to hope and inspiration? His mean spirited diatribe is beneath him. He has forsaken the higher road- and once again I see my fellow progressives eating up such trash talk.

Former congresswoman Ferraro was rightly taken aback at Bradley's harsh tone and attack style- not his customary approach to dialogue and discussion.

[theuniversal]

He's talking about people who gave Clinton money for favors. Facts that will be a liability in the general. Calling it mean spirited doesn't make it any less true. Would you prefer it be ignored and McCain bring up Clinton's pardoning of dozens of criminals for cash in the general?

[Lugdunum]

What happened to the articles on Vinod Gupta? Just Google his name if you want big time questions about the Clinton's finances.