The Embarrassment of Riches
Call those folks in Hillaryland the "Friday Night Dumpsters". Through all the scandals and controversies of the Bill Clinton presidency, those of us who reported on that soap opera learned never to lock in social plans on a weekend.
They had it down pat: After fighting and maneuvering for as long as they could to avoid releasing records of some misadventure, real or imagined, the Clinton handlers would always "dump" all of them too late for anyone to make heads or tails of them on the evening newscasts.
The first embarrassing nuggets would only be discovered after hours of siftingthrough thousands of pages.
True, they would make the morning newspapers, but we're talking SATURDAY morning when most people are too bleary to read anything, much less think about it
Then as the really juicy stuff trickled out after days more of analysis, it would have become the "Old News". The fickle reader and viewer was tired of the story and wanted different stuff.
It's nice to know little changes. Those who read this morning's papers will see why candidate Hillary Clinton was reluctant to release these tax records.
Call it an "Embarrassment of Riches". Every Saturday front page features the Clinton 109 million. Right next to that is the headline about growing unemployment. It's the hard life up against the Clintons' extraordinarily good life.
The dump occurred late in the very same day that Clinton had proposed the creation of a cabinet department to combat poverty in this country. How is this for starters: What about taxing the hell out of those who make obscene amounts of money and giving the money to the poor?
Let's not hold our breath on that one, but while we wait, let's ponder who paid those millions to Bill and Hillary? Setting aside the book deals the question is not only who paid but why?
Was a Bill Clinton speech really worth hundreds of thousands? Was his investment advice really that valuable? Or was this another case of fat cats investing in the possibility that another President Clinton might be able to return the favors when she was in power?
There's another story that gets overshadowed on this big news day. It's the disclosure that campaign's chief strategist, Mark Penn, met a few days ago with Colombian government officials to discuss ways to pass the free trade agreement between their country and the United States.
When he isn't running the Hillary campaign Penn's day job is CEO of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's biggest lobbying firms.
The problem is candidate Clinton publicly opposes the trade deal. To hold any other position would be political suicide in economically bleak Pennsylvania. But right in the middle of that state's critical primary battle, Mark Penn (no relation to William Penn I assume) slips away from campaign strategy to discuss lobbying strategy with the Colombians.
Now he's apologizing for his "error in judgment". Baloney. He's apologizing for getting caught.
It's like one of John McCain's chief advisers, Charles Black, who was reported to be calling his lobbying clients while he was actually riding the bus on McCain's wildly successful gimmick, "The Straight Talk Express".
Black, we're told, is not doing that anymore. Of course not. He got caught.
Let's not forget Barack Obama and the backyard sweetheart dealhe got from his now-indicted old buddy Tony Rezco. Obama now calls it a"boneheaded" mistake. But was the biggest mistake feeling back then he could get away with it?
And is our biggest mistake ever believing there's no quid-pro-quo, a at least an implied one, a chit to call in, sometime?
Here's the point: Those who believe these people buzz around the candidates and gorge them with money without expecting anything in return, please line up. I have some land in Arkansas, Arizona and Illinois to sell you. And Colombia too.
Speaking of Arkansas we haven't even seen the roster of those who contributed to the Clinton library. The way things are going it'll take a millennium before we do. Only then will be find out if these Clinton if it's a list of the civic minded or a rogue's gallery.
This is hardly a new issue. Surely we've all noticed that the big fundraisers are usually held in someone's mansion. The hosts and hostesses know that they can keep their mansions if they have friends in high places.
If all of this appears to be seamy, it also explains why, when going public is unavoidable, the best way to do so is the furtive "Friday Night Dump". What an apt name for the garbage of politics.
Follow Bob Franken on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frankenb
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama’s sweetheart deal. The real story.
Tony Rezco (Rezco’s wife) sold a portion (1/6) of the property Rezco purchased for $660,000, contiguous to Obama’s property for $125,000. If you do the math, Obama paid $15,000 over the real market value of $110,000 ($660,000 divided by 6 equals $110,000). Where I come from, that’s hardly a sweetheart deal. That’s fair market value plus, plus.
So take your disinformation and shove it, you pathetic excuse for a journalist.
It's a joke to comment about the Clintons money as if the average family sees any difference between the Clintons or the Obamas. The only real difference is how Michele whines about how tough it is to make it on a million a year.
The issue is not that the Clintons made so much money after Bill left the White House. I'd say they can make as much as they want. The problem is they've made so much money and then want back IN the White House. I mean, it's a common practice that government officials leave the government after years to go into private industry and become consultants and rake in the millions as consultants. But the understanding is they STAY out of government so there is no buying of influence. And regardless what someone folks want to believe, the money does taint politicians. That's why you have the Cheneys of the world who push for war - he made millions in the private sector with related companies once he left government years prior. Or politicians who push for government programs and legislation that benefit the industries that paid them huge consulting fees once they previously left the government. In short, it encourages corruption.
Corporations love political dynasties for that exact reason - they can buy influence with the next leader while legally lavishing the former leader with $$$.
Why no outrage about Daddy Bush and the Caryle Group - and the mega-millions that
Daddy Bush rakes in? A high-tech company where he made millions in a very very short amount
of time for doing nothing. Even the moron Reagan made $ 2 million for a speech in Japan.
This non-stop attacking of the Clintons borders on the pathological, they paid more in taxes -
$ 33 million than almost anyoone in this tax bracket. They gave $ 10 million to charity - how much
did Daddy Bush pay in taxes and how much did he give to charity?
There is nothing embarrasing about this - no one was forced to buy their books - millions of
people did - sounds like more jealousy - don't you people ever get tried of attacking President
Clinton and Senator Clinton?
Perhaps the most enraging aspect of this revelation is that it also comes at the same time we're hearing that the Clinton campaign is refusing to pay vendors such as event planning companies, staging companies and real estate companies that have been contracted to provide services for the Clinton campaign. There's nothing particularly wrong with being a capitalistic person but just because your running a failing Presidential campaign doesn't give you the right to skip out on paying your bills.
So, only those who have taken vows of poverty are allowed to be interested in the lives of those less well off? I guess that's going to cut down on the blogging on this site tremendously. The Clintons paid more than 30% in income and they tithed, which even if you aren't into the whole religious 10% thing does speak for their charitable generosity.
http://str
Charitable donations to their own personal charity foundations. Sweet
Is there a list of the charities to which they gave or are you assuming it was to "their own personal charity foundations"? Is the implication that they are benefitting from grants and proceeds from their foundation? 'Cause if you are, that's a pretty huge accusation. Or can we assume that you mean they set up a foundation, contribute to it, and get nothing but a charitable gift deduction on their taxes, which is completely legal.
What's missing in the release of their tax returns is an itemized list of Bill's speaking and consulting fees, so the payments can be matched up with legislation pending before Congress at the time Bill received the money. The other obvious omission is the list of donations to the Clinton library. Moreover, Hillary's earmarks should be released so these can be matched up with the large-donor contributions to her campaign. Doubtful the Clintons will ever disclose any of that information, especially considering how long they stonewalled releasing their tax returns, and even so, managed to withhold the most important tax returns until the nomination contest is over by requesting an extension for reporting 2007 income. Perfectly legal, of course, but highly suspicious. Given all the scandals these two have been associated with over the years, prudence requires that we assume they are both corrupt unless proven otherwise.
What's the point? So, nothing has changed and every politician is for sale and will take advantage of a financial opportunity. I'm looking for a new idea.
Obama voted for President Bush's class action bill that made it harder for victims of pollution and other corporate malfeasance to be compensated. Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers.
Obama voted for President Bush's 2005 energy bill that included massive oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies,
Obama voted to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent
One of Obama's first votes as a senator was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her integral role in pushing the now-debunked propaganda about Iraq's WMD.
Just as Ned Lamont's antiwar primary campaign against prowar Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was gaining momentum, Obama endorsed Lieberman and actively campaigned for him against Ned Lamont.
Progressive? Maybe in Saudi Arabia he would be considered a progressive, but in Europe he would be on a far right of the Christian Democrats.
I'd like to correct three wrong impressions, at least that I see. Senator Obama voted against the the credit card bill precisely because it would alow the banks to charge 30 percent interest to their customers. Senator Clinton voted to let the Banks charge 30 percent. Senator Obama thought that was too high. A flawed bill that played into the hards of the credit card issuers. Senator Obama did vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, but then so did Senator Clinton. Senator Obama endorsed Lieberman, as the incumbent in the primary, as did many other progressives, such as Senators Boxer and Dodd. So did Senator Clinton. What tells volumns though, is that a month before the Connecticut primary this year, which Obama won, Ned Lamont enthusiasticully endorsed Obama over Clinton, http://ned
Nonsense, JustObamaZealot.
READ THE SENATE RECORD.
CLINTON- YEA
OBAMA-NO.
I'm kind of torn about this. Though I am an ardant Obama supporter, the simple fact that the Clintons have made 109 million since leaving office should not in itself be held against them.
I agree, though, that deeper digging is useful. For example, though they appear to have paid their fair share of taxes (something like 35 million) I also read that the apparently generous 9 or 10 million they gave to charity all went to their own foundation, and only half of that was actually distributed to the needy.
A bit more info seems needed here.
Please ask yourself what you would be typing if this was Bush ir Dick Chaney? Really? When Reagan went to Japan to make 2 million to fgive a speech after he left office it made me sick.
How is this different?
I can't imagine how much money he took from shady types for his Library and Charity.
Imagine how foolish Jimmy Carter must feel. He could have done what Clinton done and skipped Habitat for Humanity and just bought all those nice folks a house.
Is there a law that prohibits the Clinton's from using their own money in this campaign?
Didn't Mitt use millions for his?
I'd rather fill up my gas tank than give any money to rich people.
The Word CORRUPTION comes to mind.
I remember Bill telling Dan Rather in an interview just before leaving office that he had never made any money for his family and was going to start doing so as a private citizen.
Look, making money is great, I like money as much as the next guy; but, to prostitute your name, reputation, position, influence to just about every lobbyist and special interest PAC in Washington
so you can make up for lost time smacks of very low scruples to me.
My objection to Hillary's candidacy eminates from this fact.
I do not knowingly back, encourage, support, look favorably upon CORRUPT POLITICIANS.
We have enough of them as it is.
asere: Why not read through the Clinton returns before you pronounce any judgments? Like Bob Franken, you're making all kinds innuendos against the Clintons before you know what was "dumped" on Friday. Be as fair to the Clintons as you'd want others to be fair to you. ReaderK.
I guess I have respected another Bob Franken all these years. I almost feel this article was written by some alien that invaded his mind. I always felt he handled current issues with such professionalism. This article was written to incite all supporters of the candidates and to make a headline of some sort. I hope this will be the last of this type of tripe that Mr. Franken writes. There are so few professionals left in the media, I hope you will rejoin them.
Bob Franken, an ex-"journalist" is now writing hit pieces like this that should make all Americans question the integrity of every living journalist or media poseur. I would like him to PROVE beyond a doubt, as any responsible journalist should, his insinuations that the Clintons earned their money irreputably? Does he question the multi-millions that Cheney, Bush and even ALL former Presidents have made after leaving office? Does he realize how stupid he sounds whining about this in an article that makes no point at all? The Clintons paid $33 Millions dollars in taxes....n
We should stop calling these people "journalists," - they have agents, stylists,
make-up people - and they are flacks and stenographers. They no longer investigate
probe - they all want to be pundits, when in reality they are flacks. What they all seem
to want is to be viewed as faux personalities - which is beyond pathetic.
And cable television is where all the hacks and never-been's end up...
No wonder the Clintons were unwilling to show their income tax returns. The disgraced Ex-President has used the residual influence of his former position to fill his pockets. He has disgraced and degraded the once august Office of our land. He has shown himself to be a lowdown money grabbbing miscreant to our Republic.
That fact has cast a pall over the entire Clinton legacy and credibiliy of Mrs. clinton's alleged allegiance to the ordinary American and her husband's role in paying back the Dubai lobbyists for their 15 million dollar investment.
". He has shown himself to be a lowdown money grabbbing miscreant to our Republic."
Just following in the footsteps of St. Ron...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
