Posted on 03/17/2008 1:13:57 AM PDT by tlb
Hillary Clinton often seems to operate by the maxim that silence is golden. When asked whether she would release a list of her earmarks, her spokesman dodged the question, while declaring that she is "proud of the investments in New York that she has secured." But for now, at least, not proud enough to let voters know what they are.
This exercise in secrecy is part of a Clinton pattern that grows more worrisome all the time. The former first lady often says that she, unlike Obama, has been thoroughly vetted, rendering her impervious to Republican attacks. In fact, there are some important things unknown about her -- and her conduct suggests she wants to keep it that way. Which raises a question for voters: What is she hiding, and why?
There is, for example, the matter of the Clinton tax returns. Obama has released his, but she has stalled on following suit. (John McCain also has balked.) When asked about them in a February debate, she insisted she would make the returns public. But when asked if she would do so before the March 4 primaries, she replied, unconvincingly, "Well, I can't get it together by then, but I will certainly work to get it together. I'm a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep."
Disclosure might shed light on Bill Clinton's dealings with the likes of Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. Giustra ..made a secret $31 million donation to Clinton's charitable foundation.
Bill Clinton has declined to disclose the donors to either his foundation or his presidential library, which makes it hard to know if wealthy individuals may be trying to curry favor with the woman who may be president -- and if so, who they are.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Who would have thought that we would now be watching such a fun and festive RAT food fight... More popcorn please.
And it's just the beginning too. Going to be a very interesting Spring/Summer.
Lots of Democrats reading NewsMax? ;)
At first I thougth you wrote "Springer Summer".
At first I thougth you wrote "Springer Summer".
Eventually, both are going to start blaming Rove.
Let’s just hope he can do a better job of it than the Republicans did.
Secrecy, lies, misdirection, vicious slanderous counterattacks... these are all weapons the Clintons have used with the greatest effect time and time again.
Who fired the White House travel office staff?
How did those Rose Law firm billing records just magically appear on a table in the White House?
Cattle futures? FBI files? Whitewater?
Who hired Craig Livingstone?
Did we EVER get an answer to any one of those questions?
Wasn’t Bill Clinton the ONLY President in living memory who refused to release his medical records? And why was that?
It’s so totally obvious that there are so many things that the Clintons want to hide. And will continue to hide. They just always seem to get away with it.
I am sure that he has had a lot of people tell him the same thing in recent days, but Barrack damn well better be prepared to play total hardball here, because that’s the only way the Clintons ever play the game.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/03/cov_03feature2.html
We believe you, Juanita (we think)
Susan Faludi, Susan Brownmiller, Katie Roiphe, Gloria Allred and others respond to Juanita Broaddrick's explosive charges.
BY CAMILLE PERI, FIONA MORGAN AND DAWN MacKEEN |
"I just couldn't hold it in any longer," Juanita Broaddrick told Lisa Myers in an interview that aired on "Dateline NBC" last week, explaining why she came forward after 21 years to allege that then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton had raped her. "I didn't want granddaughters and nieces when they're 21 years old to turn to me and say, "Why didn't you tell what this man did to you?"
-snip-
It was a touching moment and, according to a Fox News survey, a convincing one -- a remarkable 54 percent of the "scandal-weary" American public who watched the interview believed Broaddrick was telling the truth.
-snip-
Susan Brownmiller (author of "Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape"):
I think Juanita Broaddrick's story is credible. You judge a witness when you see them. I watched her on television and she struck me as telling an honest story.
-snip-
Susan Faludi (journalist and author of "Backlash: The Undeclared War against American Women"):
Juanita Broaddrick's story sounded credible to me, but I'm just somebody watching somebody speak on television. It's not a story that I've personally investigated, so to say that she's credible is just a gut reaction on my part. That said, I have no reason to disbelieve her.
-snip-
Gloria Allred (attorney -- filed a friend of the court brief in Jones' sexual harassment suit against Clinton):
I think Juanita Broaddrick appeared very credible on the interview on NBC.
I don't find it a problem that it occurred 20 years ago and it was in a hotel room -- just because it was in a hotel room doesn't mean that she couldn't have been a victim of sexual assault. Because she didn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
-snip-
What is Hildabeast hiding??? You have got to be kidding! Everything. These democrats are just too stupid to run 2 candidates with so much baggage.
The title of the article pretty much says it all. What is Clinton hiding? Everything!
The Trib has always been an Obama backer, probably one of his most effective backers. Its big coup was getting a California judge to unseal his original Republican opponent’s “sealed and confidential” divorce records, thereby driving that Republican out of the race for the U.S. Senate.
Maybe not a lot, but definitely the Clintonoids who count and can get the MSM to repeat what Newsmax has reported.
Hmmm...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.