CLINTON, Hillary – Election 2008 Dossier

Hillary Clinton [aka Hillary Rodham-Clinton] (D-NY)

Born on October 26^th, 1947, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is presently a United States Senator from New York and a member of the Democratic Party. She is married to William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton who was the 42^nd President of the United States and was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Her professed religion is Methodist.

Hillary is from Illinois, and according to Wikipedia:

…initially attracted national attention in 1969 when she became the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College. She began her career as a lawyer in the 1970s, moving to Arkansas and marrying Bill Clinton in 1975; she was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979 and was named one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991. She served as the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992, and was active in a number of organizations concerned with the welfare of children.
As First Lady of the United States, she took a more prominent position in policy matters than many before her. Her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval by the U.S. Congress in 1994, but she was successful in other areas, such as establishing the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997. In 1996 she became the first First Lady to be subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury, as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal; however she was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during the Clinton administration. The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the events of the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.

Moving to New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, becoming the first First Lady elected to public office and the first woman elected Senator from New York. She was re-elected by a wide margin in 2006. She is a candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election and has consistently been the front-runner in polls for the Democratic nomination. …
…Born in Chicago, Illinois, Edgewater Hospital and raised in a Methodist family. … As a child, Hillary Rodham was involved in many activities at church and at her public school in Park Ridge. She participated in a variety of sports and earned awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout. She attended Maine East High School, where she had participated in student council, the debating team and the National Honor Society. For her senior year she was redistricted to Maine South High School, where she was a National Merit Finalist. Raised in a politically conservative family, she volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the United States presidential election of 1964. Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice. After graduating from high school in 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College where she majored in political science. She became active in politics and served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year. However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she subsequently stepped down from that position. In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., whom she had met in person in 1962, and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy. In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government. She attended the “Wellesley in Washington” summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, for whom she would write a senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky (that, years later while she was First Lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of mystery). In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. … She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement. That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a dubious fish processing factory in Valdez.
Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. During her second year, she volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development. She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and worked at the city legal services to provide free advice for the poor. In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at the Children’s Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, who was also a law student at Yale. That summer, she traveled to Washington to wok on Senator Walter Mondale’s subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education. The following summer, Rodham campaigned in the western states for 1972 Democratic candidate George McGovern and interned on child custody cases at the Oakland law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973. She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. Her first scholarly paper, “Children Under the Law”, was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973 and became frequently cited in the field.
During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal, which culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974. … In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas and became one of two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, where Bill Clinton also taught.
In the summer of 1975, the couple bought a house in Fayetteville, and on October 11, 1975, Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton were married in a Methodist ceremony in its living room. She kept her name as Hillary Rodham. Bill Clinton had lost the Congressional race in 1974, but in November 1976 was elected Attorney General of Arkansas. This required the couple to move to the state capital of Little Rock. Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm in late 1976, specializing in intellectual property while working pro bono in child advocacy. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation.
In January 1979, following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas, her title for a total of 12 years (1979-1981, 1983-1992). In 1979, she became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm. Her profits from cattle future contracts in 1979 would later be examined without any official finding of wrongdoing.
On February 27, 1980, Rodham gave birth to a daughter, Chelsea, her only child.
In November 1980, Bill Clinton was defeated in his bid for re-election, but returned to office two years later by winning the election of 1982. During her husband’s campaign in 1982, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Rodham Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she successfully sought to improve testing standards of new teachers. She also chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee starting in 1979 and introduced Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was First Lady of Arkansas. She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991. Clinton had co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services (1988-1992) and the Children’s Defense Fund (as chair, 1986-1992). In addition to her positions with non-profit organizations, she also held positions on the corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985-1992), Wal-Mart Stores (1986-1992) and Lafarge (1990-1992).
… When Bill Clinton took office as president in January 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton became the First Lady of the United States. …She was the first First Lady to take up office in the West Wing of the White House, First Ladies usually staying in the East Wing. She is regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history, save for Eleanor Roosevelt.
In 1993, the president appointed his wife to head and be the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. The recommendation of the task force became known as the Clinton health care plan, a complex proposal that would mandate employers to provide health coverage to their employees through individual health maintenance organizations. The plan was quickly derided as “Hillarycare” by its opponents, and did not receive enough support for a floor vote in either the House or the Senate, although both chambers were controlled by Democrats. The proposal was abandoned in September of 1994.
… Some critics called it inappropriate for the First Lady to play a central role in matters of public policy. Supporters pointed out that Clinton’s role in policy was no different from that of other White House advisors and that voters were well aware that she would play an active role in her husband’s Presidency. …
Clinton became the first First Lady to be subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury, when she was called in January 1996 to explain the sudden reemergence of documents regarding her work at the Rose Law firm. This was in connection with her role in the Whitewater affair, for which she never faced criminal charges. During her time as First Lady, Clinton was also subject of official investigations regarding firings in the White House travel office, the circumstances of White House counsel Victor Foster’s death, and questionable use of FBI background files. In none of these cases was Clinton ever officially charged with any wrongdoing.
IN 1998, the Clinton’s relationship became the subject of much speculation and gossip as a result of the Lewinsky scandal, when it was revealed the President had an extramarital affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. … Later saying she had been misled by her husband’s initial claims that no affair had taken place, Hillary Clinton stated at the time that the allegations against her husband were the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” After the evidence of President Clinton’s encounters with Lewinsky became incontrovertible, she remained resolute that their marriage was solid. … Hillary Clinton faced both support and criticism for remaining in the marriage.
… The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.
… She helped to create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
… When she decided to run, [for Senator of New York] Clinton and her husband purchased a home in Chappaqua, New York, north of New York City in September 1999. … Throughout the campaign and during debates, Clinton was accused of carpetbagging by her opponents, as she had never resided in New York nor directly participated in the state’s politics prior to this race, but exit polls revealed that more than two-thirds of voters regarded these criticisms as unimportant. Much like Robert F. Kennedy, who in his 1964 campaign was similarly accused of carpetbagging, Clinton began her campaign by visiting every county in the state, in a “listening tour” of small-group settings. … Clinton won the election on November 7, 2000, with 55 percent of the vote to Lazio’s 43 percent. She was sworn in as United States Senator on January 3, 2001.
When Clinton entered the United States Senate, she maintained a low public profile as she built relationships with senators from both parties, to avoid the polarizing celebrity she experienced as First Lady. …
In the Senate, Clinton sits on five committees with nine subcommittee assignments in all: the Committee on Armed Services (since 2003, replacing an earlier assignment from 2001 on the Committee on Budget), with three subcommittee assignments on Airland, on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and on Readiness and Management Support; the Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), with three subcommittee assignments on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety, on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, and on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001), with two subcommittees on Aging and on Children and Families; and the Special Committee on Aging.
… As a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Clinton strongly supported military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government. Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. Clinton later said that she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate that was delivered 10 days before the vote to all members of Congress, but that she was briefed on the report.
After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there, such as the 10^th Mountain Division based in Fort Drum, New York. On a visit to Iraq in February 2005, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well. Noting that war deployments are draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain. In late 2005, Clinton said that while immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, Bush’s pledge to stay “until the job is done” is also misguided, as it gives Iraqis “an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves.” She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but added that it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq. This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic Party who favor immediate withdrawal. Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.
Senator Clinton voted against the tax cuts introduced by President Bush, including the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit. … At a fundraiser in 2004, she told a crowd of financial donors that “Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you” but that “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
In Clinton’s first term as senator, New York’s jobless rate rose by 0.7 percent after a nationwide recession. The manufacturing sector was especially beleaguered, losing about 170,000 jobs. In 2005, Clinton and Senator Lindsey Graham cosponsored the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, which provides incentives and rewards for completely domestic American manufacturing companies. In 2003, Clinton convinced the information technology firm Tata Consultancy Services to open an office in Buffalo, New York, but some criticized the plan because Tata is also involved in the business of outsourcing. …
Senator Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities. She cosponsored the 21^st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology. …
In 2005, Clinton was joined by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who once led the Republican opposition to her husband’s administration, in support of a proposal for incremental universal health care. She also worked with Bill Frist, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, in support of modernizing medical records with computer technology to reduce human errors, such as misreading prescriptions.
During the 2005 debate over the use of filibusters by Senate Democrats, which prevented some of President Bush’s judicial nominations from being confirmed, Clinton was not part of the “Gang of 14″, a bipartisan group of senators who would support cloture but oppose the Republican threat to abolish the filibuster. However, she did vote in favor of cloture along with that group, thereby allowing the nominations to come to a vote. She subsequently voted against three of the nominees, but all were confirmed by the Senate. Clinton voted against the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States, saying “I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specifically for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf,” but then said she hoped her concerns would prove to be unfounded. Roberts was confirmed by a solid majority, with half the Senate’s Democrats voting for him and half against. …
Clinton sought to establish an independent, bipartisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate the response to Hurricane Katrina by the federal, state and local governments, but could not obtain the two-thirds majority needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.
In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. … Similar bills have been filed in some states such as Michigan and Illinois, but were ruled to be unconstitutional.
In July 2004 and June 2006, Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage. … On June 27, 2006, Clinton voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment, which failed to pass by one vote. Earlier, she attempted to reach a compromise by proposing a legislative ban on flag burning that would not require a constitutional amendment, but it was also voted down.
… In her second term, Clinton opposed the Iraq troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. …
In March 2007, in response to the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Clinton called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, and launched an Internet campaign to gain petition signatures towards this end.
In May and June 2007, regarding the high-profile, hotly debated comprehensive immigration reform bill known as the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Clinton twice voted against amendments that would have derailed the bill, thus moving forward the bill’s chance of passage. Subsequently she voted in favor of a cloture motion to bring the bill to a vote, which failed.
… In terms of public perception of her views, in a Gallup poll conducted during May 2005, 54% of respondents considered Senator Clinton a liberal, 30% considered her a moderate, and 9% considered her a conservative.
… Hillary Clinton received an “A” on the Drum Major Institute’s 2005 Congressional Scorecard on middle-class issues.

Hillary Clinton is the author of It Takes A Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, as well as Living History, released in 2003, which took in a record advance of $8 million.

Her education and her involvement in social programs concerning children is an achievement to be proud of. However, there are controversies throughout her life and chosen career – beginning with her senior thesis [Wikipedia]:

In 1969 Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College entitled “There Is Only The Fight…”: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky. Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis.^[1] The work then went unnoticed until Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the White House as First Lady. Clinton researchers and political opponents sought out the thesis, thinking it contained evidence that Rodham had held strong radical or socialist views.

In early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley not release the thesis to anyone.^[1] Wellesley complied, instituting a new rule that closed access to the thesis of any sitting U.S. president or First Lady, a rule that in practice applied only to Rodham.^[2] Clinton critics and several biographers seized upon this action as a sure sign that the thesis held politically explosive contents. In her memoirs, Clinton mentioned the thesis only briefly, saying she had agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas, but hadn’t agreed with his belief that it was impossible to “change the system” from inside.^[3]

Well after the Clintons left the White House, the mystery thesis held its allure; for example, in 2005 Clinton critic Peggy Noonan wrote that it was “the Rosetta Stone of Hillary studies … [which] Wellesley College obligingly continues to suppress on her request.”^[4] In fact, however, the thesis had been unlocked after the Clintons left the White House in 2001 and is available – only at the Wellesley college archives.^[5] This was discovered in 2007 by MSNBC.com investigative reporter Bill Dedman, who read it. He found that the thesis did not discuss Rodham’s own views much, other than describing Alinsky’s appealing personality. The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King Jr. and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that “[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts” and that Alinsky’s model had not expanded nationally due to “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.”^[1] Rodham’s former professor and thesis adviser Alan Schechter told MSNBC.com that “There Is Only The Fight…” was a good thesis, and that its suppression by the Clinton White House “was a stupid political decision, obviously, at the time.”^[2]

But also, Senator Hillary Clinton was involved in urban legend myth/hoaxes passed around in email [see Myth Blaster] and other unjustified claims against Senator Clinton. Two examples of this hoax gossip is the alleged incident where Hillary was part of getting a Black Panther member off in the New Haven Black Panther trials of 1970 and the other her alleged anti-Semitic comments. While it is certainly almost clear that Hillary Clinton was involved in certain scandals, yet while others surrounding her were put on trial and some convicted and sentenced – she remained unscathed.

Wikipedia writes of the cattle futures scandal:

In 1979, Clinton’s trades in cattle futures contracts generated criticism regarding conflict of interest and allegations of disguised bribery.^[23] Her initial $1,000 investment generated $100,000 when she stopped trading ten months later. Furthermore, in his book Devil Take The Hindmost : A History Of Financial Speculation, Edward Chancellor noted that Clinton made her money by betting “on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled.” Marshall Magazine, a publication of the Marshall School of Business, found that “Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable.” According to the Washington Post, “[w]hile Clinton’s account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period.” However, the Post’s comparison was of absolute profits, not necessarily percentage rate of return.^[24]

Chicago Mercantile Exchange records indicated that $40,000 of her profits came from larger trades initiated by Clinton’s lawyer and friend, James Blair, an experienced futures trader and outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas’ largest employer. According to exchange records, Robert L. “Red” Bone, the commodities broker that facilitated the trades on behalf of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), reportedly because Blair was a good client, allowed Clinton to maintain her positions even though she did not have enough money in her account to cover her activity. For example, she was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time.^[24] Refco was fined for violating Chicago Mercantile Exchange rules governing margin trading. Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview that Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions.^[24]

The Whitewater scandal …

The Whitewater controversy was a series of events and actions that had its origins in 1978. While in Arkansas, the Clintons were partners with Jim and Susan McDougal in a real estate venture known as the Whitewater Development Corporation. According to reports, the Clintons lost their financial investment in the Whitewater business projects. At the time the McDougals operated a savings and loan that retained Hillary Clinton’s legal services at Rose Law Firm. When the McDougals’ savings and loan failed in 1994, federal investigators subpoenaed Clinton’s legal billing records for auditing purposes. Hillary Clinton claimed to be unable to produce these records. After an extensive, two-year search, the records were found in the first lady’s book room in the White House and delivered to investigators in 1996. The delayed appearance of the billing records sparked intense interest and another investigation about how they surfaced and where they had been; Clinton attributed the problem to disorganization that resulted from her move from the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion to the White House as well as the effects of a White House renovation.^[34] After the discovery of the records, on January 26, 1996, Clinton made history by becoming the first First Lady to testify before a grand jury.^[35]

The Whitewater investigation was initiated by Independent Counsel Robert Fiske appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno. The case was later taken over by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, and concluded by Independent Counsel Robert Ray. Several other allegations were also investigated under the Whitewater umbrella. The investigations, which took place during Bill Clinton’s presidency and cost an estimated $40 million, resulted in the McDougals being jailed and Webster Hubbell pleading guilty to felony charges of lying to federal investigators about Clinton’s role in both Whitewater and the savings and loan failure. No criminal charges were brought against the Clintons themselves, as Robert Ray’s final report on September 20, 2000 stated that there was insufficient evidence that either of them had engaged in criminal wrongdoing.^[36]

Travel Office Firings:

On May 19, 1993, several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office were fired for alleged incompetence or illegal activities. Accusations were made that Hillary Clinton was involved in the firings and that they were unjustified and were done in order to give the business to friends of the Clintons; she denied any role in the firings. Supporters said that the employees in question were officially political appointees (although they had served under Presidents of both parties) who served “at the President’s pleasure” and could be fired or reassigned at any time. The affair became known as “Travelgate“. On June 23, 2000, Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated in a final report that while there was substantial evidence that she was involved in the firings, it could not be proved that she had deliberately lied about the matter, and so no charges would be brought.^[37]

The Vince Foster “Suicide“:

On July 20, 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster died by suicide. The general Whitewater investigation included an examination of Foster’s death and the circumstances around it. Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation, as well as investigations by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S. Park Police, all concluded that Foster’s death was indeed a suicide.

In 1996 Hillary Clinton was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files (related to Whitewater or other matters) from Foster’s office on the night of his death. ^[38] Independent Counsel Starr investigated this, and by 1999 Starr was reported to still be holding the investigation open, despite his staff having told him there was no case.^[39] When Starr’s successor Robert Ray issued his final Whitewater reports in 2000, no claims were made against Hillary Clinton in this regard.

Other critics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster’s death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death ^[40] or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one.^[41] Other conspiracy theories claimed that she had killed Foster herself ^[42] or had him killed.^[43] No credible evidence or charges were ever brought forward in connection with any of these allegations.

Improper actions regarding FBI files:

In June 1996, White House security head Craig Livingstone improperly asked for and received several hundred FBI background files, including ones on White House personnel from former Republican administrations. Accusations were made that Hillary Clinton had requested these files and that she had recommended hiring the supposedly unqualified Livingstone; she denied these charges. The affair became known as “Filegate“. [1] [2] On July 28, 2000, Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated in a final report that there was no substantial or credible evidence that Hillary Clinton had any role or showed any misconduct in the matter. [3]

The controversy concerning her book It Takes a Village, where Hillary fails to give credit to the ghostwriter, Barbara Feinman, although she was paid for her work at the tune of $120,000, Feinman publicly complained.

Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to the ghostwriters she uses to write her various published works.

For example, the 1996 book It Takes a Village, was largely written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman [11]. Originally the publisher and the White House had indicated that Feinman would be assisting Clinton in preparing the manuscript, perhaps using audiotapes dictated by Clinton. Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work [12]. However, Feinman was not mentioned anywhere in the book. Clinton’s acknowledgment section began: “It takes a village to bring a book into the world, as everyone who has written one knows. Many people have helped me to complete this one, sometimes without even knowing it. They are so numerous that I will not even attempt to acknowledge them individually, for fear that I might leave one out.” [It Takes a Village, p. 319]

This led Feinman to complain at the time to Capitol Style magazine over the lack of acknowledgement. [13] In 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that “New York literary circles are buzzing with vitriol over Sen. Clinton’s refusal, so far, to share credit with any writer who helps on her book.” [14] Later, in a 2002 article for The Writer’s Chronicle [15], Barbara Feinman Todd (now using her married name) related that the project with Clinton had gone smoothly, producing drafts in a round-robin style. Feinman denies that Clinton was uninvolved with the project, but also states that, “Like any first lady, Mrs. Clinton had an extremely hectic schedule and writing a book without assistance would have been logistically impossible.” Feinman reiterates that her only objection to the whole process was the lack of any acknowledgement. As of 2005, a web page for Feinman states that It Takes a Village was one of “several high-profile books” that she has “assisted, as editor, writer and researcher.” [16]

Clinton also reportedly used three ghostwriters for her 2003 Living History memoirs, veteran ghostwriter Maryanne Vollers, speechwriter Alison Muscatine, and researcher Ruby Shamir. [17]. This time, Clinton’s acknowledgment section stated: “This book may not have taken a village to write, but it certainly took a superb team … The smartest decision I made was to ask Lissa Muscatine, Maryanne Vollers and Ruby Shamir to spend two years of their lives working with me. Lissa [was] responsible for many of the words in my speeches as First Lady and in this book … Maryanne [has] the rare gift of understanding how to help another’s voice emerge … Ruby [had the job of] amassing, reviewing and synthesizing millions of words written about me.”^[58] However, the three women did not receive co-writing credit on the book’s cover, unlike for example, the co-writing credit fellow Senator John Edwards gave to ghostwriter John Auchard on his book Four Trials [18] and fellow Senator John McCain gave to administrative assistant Mark Salter on his books Faith of My Fathers, Worth the Fighting For, Why Courage Matters, and Character is Destiny.

Hillary, more so even than her husband, is part of the elite that is a “new brand of Democrats” who describe themselves as progressive, a term used by Hillary Clinton herself; yet she also sometimes votes and speaks like a moderate or even a liberal-conservative. This makes voters nervous, especially when the incumbent President has failed to not only try to keep his promises, but ignores the constituents that put him in office.

All in all, Hillary Rodham-Clinton is as unconventional as her surname. Of all the Democrat candidates for 2008, thus far, Hillary stands out among them. There is no question as to her priorities in some issues, despite the changing views we see from time to time. This is, after all, not all bad news. Hillary was once a Republican and then turned Democrat. This again bears no substance when deciding if she is going to be President of the United States. Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat who turned Republican. The key issue here is could Hillary be trusted as Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States in upholding the Constitution and adhere, promote and maintain US policy, both domestic and abroad that would make her a viable choice in the presidential campaign. If she were the only candidate of choice among the other Democrat candidates, I would have to choose her – it would be like the situation of choice of GW Bush in 2000. But looking at this on an individual basis, I am against her stance on taxation, the war on terrorism, certain foreign policies and the issue concerning illegal immigration. Hillary’s views concerning other issues puts her in the category for consideration, but her past performance remains questionable at this point of time. And if she changes those viewpoints, than could she be trusted to remain as she says she has and/or will? As a candidate for the American presidency, she is no more reliable than George W. Bush for keeping promise of “reform” or doing any better concerning the war against terrorism and national security (especially for her past performance and her distaste for those who serve in the military).

QUOTES:

June 4^th 2007, CNN Sojourners Presidential Forum – An uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die, than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The same with energy. You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”[I]

June 20^th 2007, a rally for the union-friendly Employee Free Choice Act in the Upper Senate Park on Capitol Hill – Is labor in the house? Well, that’s good because we work better when you work for us and I am so grateful to all of you![II]

June 19^th 2007, AFSCME National Leadership Conference in Washington, DC – If you want to organize and somebody signs a card that should be sufficient as an indication of their desire to be part of a union. If you go just with the elections, then you’re going to have a continuing opportunity for employers not only to delay and postpone but to harass and intimidate. And we’ve seen this all over the country. And, you know, I’m all for secret ballots. I’m for all elections. But then you’re going to have to have a lot more enforcement and supervision over what happens during an organizing drive than the current administration has been willing to provide.[III]

June 19^th 2007, AFSCME National Leadership Conference in Washington, DC – We need to end any kind of benefit in our tax code that goes to any company that out sources jobs. If they want to outsource them, they shouldn’t do that on taxpayers’ money. Let them bear the cost of it and not get some kind of tax benefit for moving our jobs overseas.” [IV]

June 28^th, PBS All-American Presidential Forum – Well, I really believe that it takes a village to raise a child, and the American village has failed our children.[V]

July 3^rd 2007, campaign stop in Iowa – We’re going to make it very clear to everyone that works for the government that they can’t go out and make a profit on their government work. They have to serve the people.[VI]

---

[I] “Something has to be taken away from some people” – income distribution the prime ideology of socialism/communism. Hillary is in full force behind the global warming theory that has been proven to be bunk, and soon those that support this expensive farce will be crying that an ice age is approaching – and it is all because of the “evil” people who cause it for just living on this planet. Is the Earth so fragile that it cannot survive the element of humanity and animal life itself? Earth’s history proves different. Every time a volcano explodes, and in Earth’s ancient history large meteoroids and asteroids have hit our planet so hard it moved it off its axis – yet here it remains as our planet affectionately called the “Blue Globe”.[II] “you work for us“, expressing the left elite’s egotism. Isn’t it “Government By the People and For the People?

[III] Here Hillary Clinton is referring to the Employee Free Choice Act, which the Senate recently voted down and that would have eliminated the secret ballot process required to organize a workplace and opt for a public petition system called “card check”. Hillary’s record shows that she is in favor of secret activity instead of public view actions in her efforts in the White House to promote national health care.

[IV] This does not apply to members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry’s interest in through investment and marriage of the Heinz business interest has moved jobs overseas.

[V] Hillary refers to her 1996 child-rearing book, It Takes a Village, which she constantly quotes. Members of the media present at the time groaned when she mentioned her book.

[VI] Is that why she and other members of Congress recently received a pay raise with perks and benefits? Since Hillary left the White House, both she and her husband (in name only) have published books about their lives and that ‘government work’ earned the couple millions of dollars. Her husband, although out of elected office positions, has been paid millions of dollars for his speeches given around the world.

__________________

Donald Lambro, Townhall, June 4^th 2007:

Sen. Hillary Clinton outlined an economic agenda for the country last week that was filled with the old 1930s-style, trickle-down, anti-capitalism rhetoric that is at the center of her party’s leftist orthodoxy. It’s impossible to see how her prescriptions could foster new venture capital, increased investment, broader global markets and wealth creation that the building blocks for a strong economy. The bad guys in Clinton’s world view are big corporations seeking to expand their market share and manufacturing base in a global economy, and the Bush administration’s proposals and polities that seek to expand an ownership society.

Indeed, her views were forthright in her book, It Takes A Village, in which textbook Marxism was implied. She stated recently in a speech:

There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets.

But this is a 180-degree turnaround concerning her anti-capitalism she writes in the aforementioned book. She also stated:

Markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers … Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.

Lambro writes:

Does Clinton mean higher protectionist tariffs on imported goods that will raise the prices of everything we buy at Wal-Mart? She doesn’t say. But she does say she would take away pro-growth tax incentives for corporations and that she will go after U.S. companies that manufacture some of their goods abroad to increase global market share and pass the savings on to their U.S. customers. Exactly how raising business costs, as well as the price of blue jeans, shoes and sneakers, will strengthen our economy isn’t clear. “It’s not as if America has been successful these last six years, but the measure of success does not relate to what’s happening in households across the country,” she said. “It’s trickle-down economics …” The middle class, in her view, is struggling and disappearing, and the answer to this “problem” is to go after the rich, successful corporations and the wealthiest among us.

And thus, Hillary Clinton will be after the very element that maintains and produces employment. Lambro continues:

The disappearing middle class has been one of the Democrat’s biggest myths. Remember those stories of the vanishing middle class in the 1980s. It turned out they didn’t vanish at all, but large numbers of them climbed the economic ladder, and out of the middle class, which is how free-market capitalism is supposed to work.

The term “trickle down” is nothing new either. And in an income tax system, certain portions of society pay no taxes while the middle class and the wealthy pay the rest of the bill. In the proposed consumption tax flat-tax system, taxes would be collected on what is purchased – not what is earned. In addition, if the economy is not fairing well – the government will receive less taxes. The government would suffer right along with the American citizens, instead of adding to the public’s woes with high taxes, the people will merely cut back on spending (those that must tighten their budget) and those that are the wealthiest will still be paying more than others because they have the means to purchase more. In the John Linder (Rep. of Georgia) proposal, taxes will also be imposed on services as well as consumption.

Contrary to Clinton’s anti-wealth-creating proposals, the challenge ahead is to offer a broader range of incentives for businesses to grow, and for workers to save and invest more of their economic security. And that means the opposite of what she is proposing – cutting income taxes further, automatic IRAs for all workers and encouraging them to put aside a small amount of their payroll taxes into a diversified fund of blue-chip stocks and bonds for a more comfortable retirement. That’s not an “on-your-own society,” it’s a wealth-creating society that is dependent only upon its people for its economic well-being.

People need more of their money to buffer the required capital needed to add to the beleaguered Social Security system. Those with just Social Security “benefits” for retirement have and will find themselves with not enough to live on. To correct that situation as well as “fix” SSI, a volunteer investment program must be offered as to what the American worker puts away for retirement. Investment programs are no longer just for the rich. More middle-class citizens are investing for their future expenses – college funding for their children and retirement years. The “poor” remain poor, for the most part, because they make social and economic decisions that keep them below the middle class category, while rarely a certain amount of them are at that economic level because of unfortunate circumstances. Socialist systems are not of the making of economic wellness, as was demonstrated with the Soviet Union. China’s economic well being is based upon the ability to sell/trade products produced by cheap/slave labor with a price that sells by the volume. Their economic power is based upon the WTO decision to allow Communist China to become a major world trade partner without the stipulation that they change their anti-human rights policy. And, by so doing, it will take longer for that nation to follow the footsteps to the political graveyard of the Soviet Union. And Hillary Clinton wants to emulate those very economic and political principles that caused the Soviet Union to collapse. Senator Clinton is merely echoing the tired rhetoric of the Democratic myths, and who promotes wealth distribution forced by government and calls it a “fair” practice. Fair to whom? What makes it more perplexing is that the Democratic Party elite are the wealthiest sitting in Congress, yet speaks out against those who seek wealth and economic stability, which in turn provides employment and opportunities for others, because that political entity cannot get away from the mentality that democratic socialism is better than the system drafted and implemented by the founders and succeeding leadership that made America stand out as it grew. Business ethics must be adhered to, and the small businesses in America must be allowed to flourish in a free trade atmosphere – but this cannot happen with sociocrat policies, it must be maintained by a form of Reagonomics.

Cybercast News Service, June 29^th, 2007 by Fred Lucas:

The legal and political implications of a Hollywood mogul’s lawsuit against Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton are not yet clear, but legal experts are not holding their breath. In some ways, it’s old news with a new twist. The alleged corruption in high places occurred in 2000, when the then-first lady was seeking her first term as a U.S. senator from New York. That’s when Hollywood mainstay Peter Paul produced a fundraising event that he says amounted to a nearly $2 million in-kind campaign contribution. … What is new is the potentially incriminating videotape of Hillary Clinton speaking with Paul, Lee and director Aaron Tonkin in the summer of 2000 about the forthcoming fundraiser, which featured such celebrities as Cher, Diana Ross and Brad Pitt. The star-studded August 2000 event was later deemed to be a violation of federal campaign finance laws: The Clinton campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Elections Committee. Clinton’s campaign finance director David Rosen was accused of lying to the FEC, indicted, but eventually acquitted. … If Clinton helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to her Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee, “New York Senate 2000.” If that is the case, the donation from Paul would be more than a thousand times the legal limit for an individual donation. Knowingly soliciting a contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. If a California appeals court allows the video as evidence in the case, it may have some consequences for next year’s campaign. … The case presents the classic question of what Clinton knew and when she knew it, said election lawyer John Armor. He said the tape shows that Clinton allegedly committed at least four felonies pertaining to illegal campaign fundraising and obstructing subsequent federal investigations into the matter. … At no point on the tape did Clinton suggest that the event and the Paul donation were not going directly to her campaign, and the other three in the conversation referenced it repeatedly. At one point, Tonkin said the celebrities are “coming out in full force knowing this is for your Senate race, it’s unbelievable.” Clinton replied, “I’m just thrilled. I’ll check in with you from time to time because I know that putting something together is challenging even when people are enthusiastic and looking forward to doing it.” Clinton also says on the tape that Paul and her chief campaign aide “talk all the time, so she’ll be the person to convey whatever I need.” … “No presidential candidate was ever caught on videotape engaged in felony,” Paul told Cybercast News Service. “No candidate [has ever been] engaged in major civil fraud suit [that] she was forced to testify in.” …
In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said only that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser. “I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton,” Clinton wrote. “I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred,” she added. The Clinton attorneys in recent brief point out that Paul is a convicted felon. He pleaded guilty to manipulating his company’s stock price in 2001 and pleaded guilty to a previous felony of defrauding the Cuban government in 1979. Paul accuses the Clinton camp of bringing up his history in a bid to divert attention away from the facts of the case. “I was held accountable for what I did,” he said. “When are they going to be held accountable?”

And check out this statement:

Even if Clinton is forced to testify under oath in 2008, and if Paul’s assertions are prove true, some experts do not foresee significant political and legal ramifications. From a political perspective, the public stopped caring about alleged misdeeds by either of the Clintons, said Gary Rose, political science professor at Sacred Heart University.

July 24^th 2007 - The place is Buenos Aires, Argentina, the dramatis personae are: Cristina Fernadez de Kirchner who has begun her presidential campaign with a video clip that shows images of her with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The story is told by Leandro Prada in his CNSNews article, Argentina’s Presidential Hopeful Likened to Hillary Clinton:

… With presidential elections scheduled for October, President Nestor Kirchner announced he was not running for a second term, and instead his wife – a senator and his close political advisor – has stepped up to the plate. She enjoys a strong lead in the polls.
… The brief image with Chavez was taken from one of the many international forums that de Kirchner has attended in past months, while the footage with Clinton came from a second meeting between the two women – both senators – during a 2004 National Democratic Institute lunch hosted by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
… Both lawyers, married to powerful men with political ambitions of their own, the two women are frequently compared in the media here. Should both win their respective presidential elections, analysts here expect warmer bilateral relations than those seen between Kirchner and the Bush administration. …
Argentina’s ties to Chavez have not pleased Washington. The Kirchner administration has frequently rebutted U.S. or European criticism of the populist Venezuelan leader.
… Nestor Kirchner was elected in 2003 following a transitional government which took the reins after President Fernando de la Rua resigned in December 2001 and fled rioting in the capital. During the crisis, several presidents briefly held office, including one who announced that Argentina would default on its debt to the IMF. The Kirchner administration took a different approach towards foreign debt …

This incident is so much like several other incidents – everyone around the Clintons (Bill and Hillary), associated friends and political allies, have been indicted and convicted of various felonies, while those two walk around free. And, if the political “experts” are right about certain elements/individuals in America who would still vote for her anyway – then the problem with America is not primarily political leadership, but the American society itself. Since when do the Democrats get away with felonies, based upon most laws they initiated, while holding the Republican political entity under the fire of volleys of allegations that are strictly used as political weapons to get more votes?

July 28^th, 2007, Hillary’s War with the Pentagon by Roger Aronoff, FSM …

Hillary has decided that, in order to look presidential, she needs to pick a fight. Her spat with Senator Barack Obama over meeting with foreign leaders is the latest example. Before that, she falsely claimed that the Pentagon had accused her of being unpatriotic. This phony controversy, fanned and inflamed by the media, says more about Hillary than it does about the Pentagon. …
During the CNN/YouTube debate, Mrs. Clinton claimed that “…I asked the Pentagon a simple question: have you prepared for withdrawing our troops? In response, I got a letter accusing me of being unpatriotic that I shouldn’t be asking questions.”
This is an exaggeration that tells us a lot about Hillary’s approach. She wants the public to believe that she is being picked on.
In fact, Under Secretary of Defense Eric S. Edelman had told Senator Clinton in a letter that the Pentagon is always “evaluating and planning for possible contingencies” but that “long-standing departmental policy” is that “operational plans, including contingency plans are not released outside of the Department.” He also told her that “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraq Constitution, and other contentious issues.”
Today Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a letter he wrote to Sen. Clinton in an attempt to ratchet down the controversy, stating that Congressional oversight is both “appropriate and essential,” and does not “embolden our enemies.” At the same time, he did not repudiate Edelman and insisted that Edelman had not impugned her motives or her patriotism.[i]
Many questions about the war should be asked. For example, why isn’t the Bush Administration holding Iran accountable for killing our troops in Iraq? Why is the Bush Administration not confronting China about sending weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan through Iran? … The Hillary approach is to assume that we will lost it and that we should get out in a public way that signals to the rest of the world our demise as a superpower.
Hillary’s May 22 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates had asked that the he provide Congress with briefings “on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.” On the other hand, she said, if no such plan exists, “please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.” And rather than merely having asked, as she said on CNN, “a simple question” about withdrawing our troops, she declared that “it is imperative that the Department of Defense prepare plans for the phase redeployment of U.S. forces.”
Two days later, she was one of just 14 Senators who voted against a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the bill didn’t include a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
The Edelman July 16^th response letter became a hot topic in the news and the blogosphere. For her part, Hillary sent a follow-up letter complaining to Secretary Gates about Edelman and wondering whether Gates share his view. Associated Press called the Edelman’s letter “a stinging rebuke” from the Department of Defense. The article said that the DOD told her “that her questions about the United States eventually plans to withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.”
But this was misleading. The Pentagon’s point was that public discussions about operational details of withdrawal are destabilizing and demoralizing to our allies.
…if you read the actual letter, instead of the one paragraph that keeps getting quoted, it is not a stinging rebuke at all, but rather a statement of the administration’s policy and judgment. Kaplan’s piece in Slate actually linked back to a 2006 article of his own for the Atlantic magazine which documented that in fact contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq already existed at that time. Contingency plans are just that. There are lots of contingency plans that are made, but not acted upon unless certain developments occur.
The unstable Keith Olbermann of MSNBC ranted on in defense of Sen. Clinton, with full quivering lips and trembling outrage … “Those terms are entirely appropriate and may, in fact, understate the risk the Edelman letter poses to our way of life and all that our fighting men and women are risking, have risked, and have lost, in Iraq.”
A threat to our way of life? Olbermann is obviously over the edge, an embarrassment to MSNBC and parent company GE.
Strangely, however, with his nightly dispensing of red meat to the Bush haters and the far left, and his unwillingness to bring on guests with opposing points of view, his show has become MSNBC’s highest rated prime time show, even though he gets only about a fourth of the viewers on average of his archenemy Bill O’Reilly. This is the market Hillary played to with her phony charge that the Pentagon was accusing her of being unpatriotic.
… One who cut through the fog was Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, a Fox News consultant and former senate staffer, as well as a true military hero. He was on the O’Reilly Factor on July 20, and said, “The letter she [Hillary] got from Secretary Edelman was about as vanilla a letter as can be written in this town. There was nothing whatsoever directed at her personally. It was a typical almost standard, form letter … Nothing at all in there to imply that he was impugning her motives, her intentions, or anything.”
… If Hillary were serious about this, and not trying to grandstand, she would approach the Pentagon privately and through the appropriate channels. … It says to Iraqi that if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the U.S. is out of Iraq, no matter what the consequences. …
This controversy comes at a time when Hillary has calculated that she needs to make her move to the left, pandering to the MoveOn and DailyKos far-left wing of the Democratic Party. In doing so, as a New York Newsday article points out, she is fudging the truth about when she made the shift from supporting the war to opposing it.
It appears that Senator Clinton wants the U.S. to lose, while the Bush Administration continues to hold out the hope of winning in some fashion. Columnist Charles Krauthammer proposes The 20 Percent Solution, a plan to work with and arm the Sunnis so they can fight and defeat al Qaeda and the foreign Jihadists, and then be in position to co-exist with the Shi’ite majority. Even the New York Times has acknowledged “astonishing success” in the predominantly Sunni Anbar province.
Journalist and historian Victor Davis Hanson explained the implications of a precipitous withdrawal. “It is not easy securing Iraq, but if we decide to quit and ‘redeploy,’ Americans should at least accept that the effort to stabilize Iraq was a crushing military defeat, that our generation established a precedent of withdrawing an entire army group from combat operations on the battlefield, and that the consequences will be better known even to our enemies than they are to us.”
… AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid points to evidence of a no-win strategy in which Iraq is turned over to the U.N. And the aforementioned Lt. Col. Bill Cowan points out that a loss in Iraq would be a victory not only for al Qaeda, but even worse, it would mean “an Iranian victory in Iraq.”
Meanwhile, a CBS-New York Times poll found that 62% agree that it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Slightly over half of those think we should have left shortly after completing that mission. But half now want to give the surge a chance to succeed before deciding what step to take next.
The mischaracterization of this Edelman-Clinton exchange has been stunning in the pattern of consistency in which it has been reported. It is an example of the support of Clinton has in the media, and the willingness to distort a story to make the Bush administration look bad and for Clinton to be both a victim and a foe of the administration on the war. … Hillary Clinton is premature in her assertion that the war cannot be won and that all that’s left to decide is how we pull out.

---

[i] He merely answer her question.

July 29^th, 2007 – Hillary, Unpreconceived by Salena Zito [Townhall]:

Preconceptions are a powerful thing. And no candidate is surrounded by more preconceptions than Hillary Clinton.
Purdue University political science professor Bert Rockman says that lined up next to the other Democrat candidates Hillary has done an effective job carving out the center for her party. In comparison, she is “a remarkable moderate figure with highly polarized perspectives about her … that have become much more important than her actual behavior.”
The first serious female candidate for president since Shirley Chisholm in 1972, Hillary gained strength in last week’s CNN-YouTube debate. …
Some of the preconceptions about Hillary are that she cannot capture the female vote, that her unfavorables are too high and that the “netroots” of the blogosphere will not throw their energy behind her. But some political experts disagree. …
The importance of progressive bloggers has increased geometrically. And despite the preconception that they will not support her, it turns out they are.
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, found of Daily Kos, the must-read political blog for progressives, dispelled the no-way notion: “I would not have a problem getting behind Hillary and I don’t think that many people would.”
Hillary Clinton said in last week’s debate that she is “excited … that I may be able, finally, to break that hardest of all glass ceilings.”
To that end, Purdue’s Rockman says he doesn’t “see a winner at the moment among the Republican candidates. Yes, someone is going to come out of the nomination a winner but whether they are going to be able to do it in the general election, that is another story.”

August 31st, 2007 – Read Mick Gregory’s expose’ on the closeted gay issue brought about by the Larry Craig scandal, as well as Senator H. Clinton’s recent comments concerning the event. I mean really, playing “foostie” with an undercover cop in a public airport restroom? Or how about the former NY Times writer, Edward Klein’s information in his book: The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President – who says the rumors of her lesbianism is true. As Klein states:

The culture of lesbianism has influenced Hillary’s political goals and personal life since she was a student at Wellesley, an elite college near Boston she ‘embraced’ revolutionary lesbianism when she was young and tolerated her husband’s philandering because their marriage was a largely sexless political convenience. Many of Hillary’s closest friends and aides were lesbians.

One particular one comes to mind – Janet Reno. Check out Mick’s article. The point here is that the DNC elites are hypocrites with a capital “H”. (As well as some GOP members).

September 7^th 2007 [Beth Fouhy, AP] –

In a year votes say they crave fundamental political change, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton is taking a gamble: arguing that her years of experience working within the political system make her the best candidate to change the system.
But does her career – eight years as White House first lady, seven as senator from New York, and 12 as Arkansas first lady – offer evidence to support that claim? …
“If she’s already declaring her intent to compromise, it’s exactly the concern progressives and party activists have always had about her. …”, said Robert Borosage, president of Campaign for America’s Future, a liberal think tank. …
It’s a tricky pivot for the Democratic front-runner and the darling of the party establishment. …
“I’ve learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution. You can’t pretend the system doesn’t exist,” the New York senator said in New Hampshire, her husband at her side. Predictably, Obama and Edwards have harshly criticized that argument. …
As first lady, Clinton’s signature policy initiative – reforming the nation’s health care system – fell apart, largely due to both Clintons’ refusal to seek compromise with health care industry skeptics and lawmakers. …
After the failure of her health care initiative in 1994, Clinton’s visibility as an adviser to her husband was considerably diminished for the remainder of his two terms. …
In 1997, she authored the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a multi-billion dollar initiative to provide insurance to children whose families are ineligible for Medicaid but are unable to afford private insurance. …
In the Senate, Clinton has won praise for working across party lines on several issues. Among other things, she co-authored legislation with former Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to promote computerization of medical records. …
But critics argue her best known Senate vote – to authorize the U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2002 – is evidence of a tendency to follow conventional wisdom rather than stand for principle.

September 7^th, 2007 – Richard H. Collins – Clinton Campaign: Waiting for the Next Hsu to Drop …

Those familiar with the Clinton response to scandal know the process by heart. It inevitably goes something like this: first, deny any wrongdoing; then explain it as a misunderstanding or bureaucratic mistake; when it is clear there is actual wrongdoing begin to stonewall and obfuscate; then move on to simultaneously attacking anyone who brings up the scandal and dismissing the issue as old news.
If that rings a bell it is because we are well on our way down this path with the Norman Hsu fundraising scandal. When the Wall Street Journal first raised the issue of whether there was anything fishy about Hsu – a top Hillary fundraiser or “HillRaiser” – bundling millions of dollars of campaign contributions from donors of seemingly modest means the Clinton campaign initially insisted nothing was wrong.
When it was revealed that Hsu was in fact a fugitive from justice having defrauded millions of dollars from investors and then failed to show up for his court appearance Hillary expressed shock and described it as a breakdown in the donor vetting process. …
But, as with so many other Clinton scandals, things got more complicated. Hsu once again decided to skip his court date, and run for it. He never returned his passport as promised, forfeited his $2 million cash bail, and is now in police custody.
Faced with the prospect that one of her top fundraiser is a con artist and a fugitive from justice the Clinton campaign has dug in. They continue to refuse to give the contributions bundled by Hsu to charity despite the fact that there are indications that he may have reimbursed these donors in violation of federal law. In addition they have refused to release any information about the donors that might offer clues as to Hsu’s connections and the degree of corruption in the process. Hillary Clinton has accepted nearly $175,000 from this suspect donor network and yet has pledged to return only less than $23,000 or 13%. All told Hsu is responsible for nearly #1.6 million in donations to Democrats since 2004.
Remarkably, the media seems almost bored with this whole story. …
The fact that the Clinton’s have a long history of campaign violations and irregularities hasn’t put a dent in Hillary’s frontrunner status. But there is an indication that the tide may be turning. …
Just like with her refusal to release important documents from her time as first lady, this provides Hillary with an opportunity to show she is a different candidate. She can release the information about the bundled donors and give the money to charity.
if the past is any indication, however, look for further stonewalling and attacks on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. After all being a Clinton means never having to say you are sorry.

September 15^th, 2007 – Micromanager Hillary by Robert D. Novak …

Democratic insiders blame Sen. Hillary Clinton’s micromanaging for her presidential campaign’s acceptance of nearly $900,000 in contributions donated or raised by Norman Hsu, convicted of fraud and a former fugitive. The Clinton campaign has insinuated that her financial aides dropped the ball in failing to vet Hsu before taking his money. But the senator is obsessive in running her own campaign, taking responsibility for details. … Sen. Hillary Clinton waited for five hours, behind three other Democratic presidential candidates, to hear testimony Tuesday from Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker because of a calculated political decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. … Reid ordered that Foreign Relations would go first because its Republican members were not nearly as strong for President Bush on Iraq as GOP members of Armed Services, headed by Sen. John McCain. … Clinton, as an Armed Services member, had to wait until late afternoon. Her principal rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, is a Foreign Relations member, as are presidential hopefuls Biden and Sen. Christopher Dodd.

September 15^th, 2007 – Hillary Weaves by Jonah Goldberg …

During her questioning of Gen. David Petraeus this week, Sen. Hillary Clinton said to the general, “You have been made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony … I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”
Petraeus’s supporters say Hillary was calling him a liar. When you read it, particularly if you focus on the second sentence, that’s how it seems. But if you actually heard her say it, it sounded like she was making a compliment and then sort of taking it back. NPR correspondent David Welna heard it the same way, too, describing it as a “careful weaving of praise and skepticism.” …let’s talk about that careful weaving instead.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t say anything by accident. This is the key difference between her and her husband. … She plans everything. Her notion of spontaneity is changing her brand of day planner without having a meeting about it first. … “She does her homework” has to be the most bipartisan accolade of our age.
But just because Hillary is about as impulsive as a pet rock, it doesn’t mean that she’s as different from her husband as it seems. … Indeed, Clintonite “triangulation” and Third Way” politics were always about having your cake and eating it too. For instance, Hillary has managed to be the leader of a rabidly anti-war party and the most hawkish Democrat in the field at the same time. … What Bill says with rakish bluster, Hillary pulls off with schoolmarmish fog.
For example, in a recent interview with Salon, Walter Shapiro, asked Hillary Clinton whether she took offense to commentators using only her first name. She said that she has an “open mind” about the practice but sympathizes with feminists who complain that it’s demeaning. … In one convoluted paragraph she manages to admit that she does something that is sexist for others to do, but claims to have an open mind about it.
During the YouTube-CNN Democratic debate, she was asked what a liberal is and whether she is one. In a brilliantly crafted non-answer, she explained that the word “originally meant that you were for freedom … that you will were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.” But, “in the last 30, 40 years it has been turned up on its head” as a word to describe “big government.”
Indeed, it actually sounded like the woman who wanted to nationalize one-seventh of the U.S. economy was never in favor of big government. But rather than admit she’s a liberal, she pulls up the rhetorical rip cord and parachutes to safety …
Clinton’s criticism of Petraeus was offensive on the merits, but it was interesting because Hillary failed to tell every constituency what it wanted to hear. I guess practice doesn’t always make perfect.

PERSONAL ANALYSIS:

Hillary Clinton is a prime example that members of Congress should no longer be immune to prosecution, and if convicted of a crime lose all congressional benefits afforded to honorable statesmen and stateswomen. The ball falls in the court of the American voter to do the right thing, and New York State needs to wake up and smell the roses on this one – she does not deserve the presidency or the seat she holds in the Senate. In many cases, the Democrat finger-pointing seems to boomerang back from whence such unethical and criminal actions are alleged.

Hillary Clinton needs to fade away in history, a history where the truth will eventually come out as shaded as her and her husband as been for too many years. Recent campaign finance scandal involving a Mr. Hsu reinforces the fact that Hillary hasn’t changed – despite the airs she puts on. Maybe this time decent members of the Democratic Party, if there are any left that haven’t seceded, will finally boo this dangerous woman off the stage of politics. There are those in her career who have gone to jail for her and even one who died for her (Foster) – it’s time for her to leave Washington, if not finally being convicted of anything she has ever done against the law. As a stateswoman, Hillary receives an “F”.

See Hillary’s campaign website, coined as “Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee“..