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

[condieshoes]

I hope they cut the money off. People are starting to see .......wha­t they are.

These two have been a disaster for the Democratic party.

Bill Clinton was in the process and had almost completed privatizing Social Secruity when Monica Lewinsky walked in. Can you imagine what we would be facing now if he had done that in light of the feeding frenzy that has taken place on wallstreet with the sub prime lending mess????

Those criminals getting their collective hands on those funds.....­old people in the street, that's what.

This is what is in store if these two get into office again. Make no mistake about this, these people are not progressive, they have turned the Democratic party away from the working class. Just look at her jaded response regarding NAFTA and the Canadian embassy. wink, wink, my ass.

[pfc1369]

I've been away, and may have missed it.

But since I've been gone, did they pass a law requiring every columnist, blogger, and know-it-all in the country to use the phrase, "channeling my inner_________" in every article?

If so, let's get a repeal, real quick, and let's throw in "drinking the kool aid" while we're at it.

[Egghead]

Oh, please let's. I hate both those phrases. They need to go.

[MsLiz]

Add "at the end of the day" to the cliche' list.

[Calcutta]

Obama needs to adopt Bill Bradley's messge whole heartedly. It seems like something (mud) that could stick and also appears even keeled and pratical enough to work alongside his messages of "hope" "change" and "staying above the fray"

[text]

Hope is great. But Obama has to show he has foreign policy knowledge if he wants to beat McCain. His statements about foreign policy have been unimpressive.

[ESK]

Which statements in particular? He was right about going after Al Quada's leaders in Pakistan, even though everyone was critical when he first proposed a strategy that was used and worked at the end of Jan. He makes an excellent point that Bush has done so much damage to our relationships with other countries that, unlike 20 years ago, it will require the in person attention of the president in face to face meetings, even with our enemies to influence and repair that, and he was right about Iraq. He's well studied in foreign policy with a degree in international relations and his written foreign policy statements on his web site are detailed and well thought out. I will, however, be interested in hearing more from him about China and India, which he brought up in a recent speech in San Antonio.

[Calcutta]

I agree, to a point. I don't think the message has been unimpressive per se, just undeveloped. Obama needs to strike a clear contrast between himself and McCain/Clinton In regards to foreign policy he has a formidable senior advisor in Zbigniew Brzenski and Samantha Power. When he speaks upon meeting with enemy nations, lifting flight embargos on cuba, etc he doesn't elaborate or give enough compelling details, emphasis on compelling. Which lends to the image of him being naive or inexperienced on the foreign policy front.

[siegfried]

It is pretty hard to top, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran."

[kevenhussienseven]

Clinton did not win TX. Didn't Bill say she would have to quit if she did not win TX?

[text]

Clinton won the primary. The caucus system is incredibly bogus. Do we caucus during a general election. No

[scandals&skeletons]

ok so i guess obama being ahead by about 600,000 votes doesnt count either?

[kevenhussienseven]

The rules are the rules. They are what they were in '92 when Clinton won. The exact same rules.

Obama won TX.

[scandals&skeletons]

are you saying bill clinton is a liar!!!!


roflmfao

[lungfish]

It was Bill's dishonesty and his impeachment that put the current Administration within reach of a plausibly deniable power grab. IF Hillary gets the nomination it may well be that Bill will do it again.

[oshpd1]

Bradley is spot on. Also what about Enron favors. We all remember how Enron hurt our economy. Thanks to Bill and his favors.
1. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.
2. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.
3. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.
4. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
5. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest level and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
6. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.
BUT...the president under whom all this happened WASN'T George W. Bush.
SURPRISE! It was President Bill Clinton!
Did Hillary approve what Enron was doing.

[Prakosh]

Excellent. The most overlooked story about the previous Clinton administration is just what the Clinton administration did. Most still do not understand how Clinton cooperated with former British PM, Tony Blair to bomb Iraq nearly daily during his administration. Clinton wants to talk about foreign policy. I think Obama should put some of his people on researching just what kind of foreign policy we might expect from another Clinton administration. Unfortunately he seems unwilling to actually go back and look at what the Clinton administration was about. Clinton even signed off on the neo-con PNAC paper calling for regime change in Iraq. The Clinton administration in its attempt to triangulate each and every issue wound up being far more right wing than any Democratic administration since Wilson.

[jinjinpinti]

I was real vague on all this, I admit. All I needed to know was how Bill glommed on to Pappy Bush and how Hilllary say she plans to call on that old geezer to work with her administration. When ever I look into the clintons eyes, I see $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[HGalal]

After HRC"s wins in the Super Tuesday (II) contests, I honestly question how Ohio and Texas can support a message of "fear" and "bigotry", versus a message of universal hope.

By this, I mean very specifically HRC"s running of the now infamous "3:00 A.M. ad" and her coy inability to answer a simple question as to Obama"s faith during a news interview.

Respectively, HRC had claimed for months, to no avail, that she had more experience, and thus better qualified, than Obama to become President. That point, apparently resonated so well with voters euphoric for Obama, that her campaign decided it was time to go all out negative and play the "fear card", days before the Ohio / Texas contests.

Further, her roundabout answer to the question of Obama"s faith only lent fuel to ludicrous speculation, especially coming on the heels of a "timely" photo release (by the Drudge Report) of Obama in traditional Somali attire.

Between these two factors and a few other kitchen appliances hurled at Obama, HRC resorted to what the Clinton team knows best: destroy the enemy at all costs in order to gain victory.

My deepest regret is that voters in Ohio and in Texas fell for the negativity.

With those shallow victories, HRC has embarked on a road to the nomination that will stop at nothing in pursuit of the Presidency.

Along the way, Obama will have been destroyed, the Democratic Party will be in utter disarray, young new enthusiastic voters will shun politics, an opportunity to refocus the country"s urgent priorities will have been lost for decades to come, Independents will migrate to the Republicans and McCain will win the Presidency.

Thank you very much Hillary, and I hope you enjoy the sweet thrill of victory.

[kevenhussienseven]

HRC did not win TX.

[scandals&skeletons]

you mean you have to get more delegates than your opponent to win?
we need to change that stupid rule

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Exactly, if the Pennsylvania Democrats don't see their choice as one of getting behind their front-runner for party unity, versus voting for a politics of further party division and republicant-style fear-mongering, their state will likely hand the November election to johnnymac and return us to more of the same establishment status quo, rather than bring ANY needed change to OUR country.

At this point, Hillary can NEVER catch Obama without again thwarting the will of voters. She'll not get the 65% she NEEDS in ANY state, even WITH their sleaze-machine.


What will you do Pennsylvania, what WILL you do?

[Willis411]

Hillary & Bill's lack of tax return review is evidence that they are hiding somethig. Convinced or not, Hillary & Bill will destroy and divide the Democratic party. Hillary is arrogant and non-professional and only has a self interest in the President's position. Remember, "It'll come out in the wash."

[alwayslearning]

Maybe we should ask, "What is Senator Obama hiding?"

What about the land purchase for his house? Did he have insider information? How much is this property worth now? How much did he gain financially from this loosy-goosy transaction?

Why is the web site for his church temporarily diabled? What was on that web site that was taken down? What are the precepts of the Trinity United Church of Christ? What does 'non-negotiable commitment to Africa' mean? Everyone has a right to adopt whatever beliefs they want but if you are committed to another country or other countries, you should not be President of the United States.

Why did he vote "Present" on so many Illinois State bills? What were those bills? How did they effect the people of Illinois? Why did he use this inside political ploy so often to avoid making a decision?

Many people are beginning to ask these legitimate questions?

[kevenhussienseven]

Ask away.

Bigot.

[combatveteran]

Fuck his house i want to know the story on my country and Clintons Res 114 vote.
How much did she gain from this loosey-goosey transaction.
you bring up a HOUSE, Jesus!

[Egghead]

All those questions have been answered multiple times. And yet, people never seem to tire of asking them.

[IM2THEPOINT]

Do you notice who it is that keeps asking those same questions over and over despite the fact that Sen Obama has clearly answered them? Biliary fans. I know that her "base" has been annointed as less educated than Barack supporters, but considering they can't read to see the answers, are they also deaf or is it they hear only what they want to?

[JavaCityGal]

All this information has already been released, you're not with program. I want to know why the Clintons are taking millions of dollars from Dubai and Arab Shieks...h­mmmmm?

[doggy]

people are slowly starting to see.......­....

[Notapathetic]

My fear about Clinton scratching so desperately for this nomination is that there is a large segment of the population that will vote for the person whom they know will be most destructive of the nation. Hard to fathom without gagging, but it is quite horribly true. Half the electorate went to Bush last time, even though it was entirely clear by then that he was unbalanced and would continue his destructive policies.

Many millions of people WANT to suffer and want a President who will create the greatest amount of turmoil. Sit in any coffee shop in America and listen for ten minutes. The amount of satisfied suffering and interest in turmoil that you will hear will make you roll your eyes.

I'm not worried about Clinton being so smart and clever; I'm much more worried about the people who have an impulse to succumb and want a President who will assist them.

[kellygrrrl]

it seems pretty clear at this point Sen Clinton is auditioning for the VP spot.

I just can't tell if it's on the Rethug or Dem ticket she's going for.

I guess she'll take either.

[kevenhussienseven]

Seriously. If HRC took the VP slot on the Rethug ticket the Dems would first make Barack a saint, then they would elect him in a landslide that would make Reagan blush.

Darling, your fantasy life is out of control.

[hank48188]

It's the other way around, Obama blew his chance on Tuesday and now the best he can do is the V.P. job. Hillary will win PA and they will have a re-vote in MI and FL and Hillary will win those two as well. That will means Hillary would have won all the states needed for a DEM to win the White House, CA, MA, NY, NJ, MI, FL, AZ, NM, , Obama wins states like Utah, Idaho and Alaska, none of these States has voted for a DEM since 1964.

[BluGrrl]

You think Hillary will win in Michigan? I wouldn't bet on it, spank.

[BluGrrl]

So since when does the person with less delegates win? Hillary can't realistically close the gap and putting her in the oval office is akin to throwing a live grenade into your own bunker.

[indie17]

Obama won these states that the Democratics needed in 2004 to win (these all went for Kerry): Illinois, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, and D.C.

Obama also won several 'purple' states that would help the Democrats to actually WIN the 2008 election: Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa.

From your list of Hillary wins: CA, MA, NY, and NJ will all vote Democratic regardless of who the nominee is. Arizona and Florida have both voted Republican in the past two elections. New Mexico is a toss up, although I think they will go Democratic in 2008.

Michigan is still up in the air, there is no win there yet that counts. I expect they will go Democratic in 2008, regardless of the nominee. PA and OR are yet to vote.

The 'large states mean more' "talking point" by the Clinton campaign is a non-starter. Pledged delegates have already been apportioned by state population size. Pledged delegates are what 'count' -- that's the rules. Obama is ahead in pledged delegates.

If Florida and Michigan decide to re-vote, Hillary will not pick up enough pledged delegates to overtake Obama's lead. She will need 58% of all remaining pledged delegates to just come even with Obama. Since she will lose North Carolina, Mississippi, Indiana, and likely Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming, you can see that she will need more like 65% of the vote in PA and the rest to barely come even with Obama in pledged delegates. (The rest include Puerto Rico, Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, South Dakota, Michigan and Florida.)

If you really think Clinton can take 65% of the vote in all of these states, you must be dreaming. She took Ohio with 54% and Rhode Island with 58%. Heck, she only took NY with 57%, and California by only 52%.

The superdelegates will NOT overturn the will of the voters. Pledged delegate count means you win. Obama is the nominee.

[johnnygoodwud]

right on bill bradley, coming from a man who in the past has been nothing but honorable. clinton supporters, what say ye?

[ljsfolly]

Here's the scene: Hillary wins the nomination and the next day Crazy Mac just starts dishing out all of the sewer crap she's been spewing and then the republicans print the menu of what the plans and the next course will be in the attacks. All lined up with every damn thing the republicans are just itching to display. They have some good stuff if they have all of these republican voting for Hillary and all the love and support by rush and bitchy bitch coulter has made Hillary the blue plate special laughing her ass off. Then Bill has the zippergate. Next comes all of those money men who have thrown money and favors at Bill for his name and his face time while hanging with guys who Rezko look like a choir boy! Yep there's a whole bunch of people who will end up with the sewer spew all over them for believing her and those whose republican backgrounds get them out front and center in their reasons for supporting her. Yep sure. They like her they really like her while making sure the crazy mac has the front door opened for him.

[qwr]

Brilliant. Thanks Bill. I'm glad to see all those who were screwed by party insiders rally together. We know that there is always a backlash by the MSM and the insiders against insurgent candidates. This past Tuesday was one such backlash. You, Gary Hart, and all the others who were screwed can hopefully work to create a more equitable election process. It ain't happenin' under a Clinton regime, that's for sure.

[Countess]

Hillary Clinton should be rejected and denounced by all democrats for backing John McCain for president. She should openly join the republican party as she appears to be much more at home with them.

[greejambri]

AGREED!

[Ashman]

AMEN!!

[Seattlelite]

A petition has been generated by petitions.com if you want Hillary to release her tax records add your name. Here's the site, http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hcinctax/

[estreya]

I'd rather sign the petition asking for her to drop out the race. :)

[IM2THEPOINT]

HAHAHAHA. AMEN. I love it!