Hillary Clinton finally released her taxes today, and summarizes her and her husband’s 2000-2007 income:
For a couple that made over $90 million from books and speeches, you’d think they would have more respect for “just words.”
“I know all about the subprime mortgage industry - my campaign manager helped run a subprime lender!”
Sometimes I get the feeling that Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes are tied to the idea that most Americans are incredibly stupid. Try and follow me here.
She is now explaining her account of the Bosnia incident on being “sleep deprived.” Seriously.
Clinton said she was “sleep-deprived” and “misspoke” when she said last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady.
But… she made this claim multiple times. Was she sleep deprived each time? Perhaps she’s been taking too many 3 A.M. phone calls?
It’s like her argument that she can’t release her tax forms because she has been too busy. Too busy to ask an aide to scratch out her personal information on her tax forms and fax them to the press? Are we to believe she does her tax return by hand every year and has them locked away in her personal file cabinet? The argument just doesn’t make sense (unless you’re an idiot of course).
Part of Hillary Clinton’s “experience” argument is based on the fact that she is more vetted than Obama. So why do scandals keep breaking?
Hillary Clinton is one of the most secretive politicians in Washington, outside of the current administration. She hasn’t released her tax returns since her husband left office, hasn’t released the donor list from her husband’s presidential library, and only recently released her white house schedules from when her husband was in office (conveniently, after the Ohio election) which revealed she was instrumental in getting NAFTA passed.
You’re not more vetted if you won’t grant the press access to anything!
The video has been circulating around the net for days - the mainstream media is finally doing it’s job.
Now if CBS would only do an investigation into why they are just getting around to investigating this now. After all, Hillary has been making her Bosnian heroism (heroinism?) claim since February.
With Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama to add to the prior endorsement of Chris Dodd, it begs the question: why are the most experienced former candidates rooting for the “inexperienced” one? Here’s my take:
First, they know he’s not as inexperienced as Hillary claims (and the media echoes). This is especially true of Dodd - he’s seen Barack in the Senate, seen the candidate’s ability to both work with others and stay true to his principles. They know all the details of how a successful senator operates and understand that Obama fits this mold.
Second, they recognize that an overwhelming amount of experience is not what America needs or wants now. They know this because they were the candidates that offered this option to the electorate at the beginning of the race. The know what America wants is hope and change - and only Obama can provide that.
Third, they all campaigned against Hillary and they know the character of the woman. She is opaque, unscrupulous, and phony. When Obama says “she will do anything to get elected,” they know exactly what he means because they have seen it first hand.
In short, as former competitors to both Hillary and Barack, they know who the better candidate is. And it is Barack Obama.
From the Associated Press:
Former Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, said Tuesday it would be easier for a black man to be elected to the White House than a woman.
…
“Some guy will say, ‘Well, I think that’s too big a job for a woman, I don’t think she can handle those terrorists,’” he said, adding that he seldom hears the same thing said about a black man.
Really? Wasn’t “the black man can’t handle the terrorists” the whole point of the red-phone-at-3-AM ad? And, not so coincidentally, isn’t that what all the Republicans have been saying about the “anti-American” Obama?
Maybe the reason she’s losing is because she’s running for the nomination of the wrong party.
Last weekend, SNL decided to be a little more objective in their political commentary.
I want to know what qualifies Hillary Clinton to be president? Is it because she was married to the president? If that were true, then Robin Givens would be heavyweight champion of the world.
As many commentators have observed, it is practically impossible for Hillary to steal the nomination at this point. She would have to either overwhelmingly sweep the remaining contests, or convince the Democratic superdelegates that she is more electable than Barack Obama (she isn’t) and they should overturn the will of the people (they won’t).
So why is she still in the race? And more importantly, why is she still going so negative?
It seems to me like Clinton wants Obama to win the nomination… and lose the general election. Her only hope in 2012 is to bloody Obama up so badly that McCain can easily defeat him in the general election. That way, she has a Republican to run against in 2012, instead of a successful Democratic incumbent.
Regardless of her intention, it’s working. Polls have consistently shown Hillary will lose to McCain, but thanks to her constant attacks, a Republican win in 2008 seems likely. Barack is now polling below McCain as well - not as low as Hillary, but still losing.
Old people trying to act hip have been a constant, cringeworthy feature of the Clinton campaign. Here is the most recent evidence:
Always question the judgement of anyone using the word “bling” while simultaneously collecting a social security check.