You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Penn Leaves Clinton Campaign
Follow RFO:
You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Penn Leaves Clinton Campaign
© 2011, Republicans for Obama - About - TOS and Privacy Policy - 
RepublicansforObama.org is not affiliated with the Obama Presidential Campaign
And another one gone, and another one gone...
To be fair, the article says the guy will stay on, but not in the same capacity. I wonder if the campaign is still having trouble keeping up with all the staff paychecks.
Not sure about pay, but Penn i not liked AT ALL by the campaign; actually he's despised, so I'm sure they were just looking for an excuse to throw him under the bus, or maybe he did this out of spite; he's supposedly a brilliant guy and it just makes no SENSE that he'd do something this stupid.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
"actually he's despised, so I'm sure they were just looking for an excuse to throw him under the bus"
Considering his conflict of interest re Colombia, 'throwing him under the bus' is quite the jaded assessment.
No, considering the loyalty of the Clinton's, Williams NEEDED something to push him under the bus and this just happened to be the "thing." Why is this view jaded, you make the statement, so tell me what's jaded about it? You do an awful lot of projecting and should check some of your pontifications.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
I don't think you were jaded. It's a common term to say someone was thrown under the bus, and Hillary didn't have to "throw him under the bus" either. She could have defended him for whatever reason, or no reason, because she doesn't have much credibility anyway to protect.
Yes.... * *
U
or no. I never do quite get what you are saying.....being on drugs (me) and all.
"he's supposedly a brilliant guy and it just makes no SENSE that he'd do something this stupid."
Yet, he did. The only responsible action to take by the campaign was to remove him from that position of authority, given his conflict of interest. Of course, that means "throwing him under the bus" in certain circles.
I just so want to believe that he is different. That he will lead us in a new way of getting things done....teaching the old dogs in congress some new tricks. Show them that the art of compromise, and working for the common good, is a better way than the old partisan politics. Tell them that his election shows that the voting public demands a change. A mandate, so to speak.
You'll have to bear with me here. I'm tired, and my emotions are close to the surface. I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to the dirty side of politics. I have always known it exists, but have gotten more involved in this election than I have been since Bobby Kennedy. Even more so now, as I am older and see beyond the idealism of youth. I must say that I am getting an education that blows my mind at times. I have a hard time just accepting "that's the way it's done", and the many fingers that reach out, and in, to control the powers that control our nation. It seems so very hard to defeat those powers, and move past them to a better way.
How can you compare $109 Million to 1 or 2 Million. He has been transparent. As you have all commented, the Clintons are never transparent. Aside from the tax return, there are still large questions about their dealings with Yucaipa, the Library donor lists and so much more.
The most compelling concern on their veracity is this whole nonsense over Penn and the Columbia deal. I may just be paranoid, but doesn't anyone else but me find it curious that Bush is pushing a 'Fast Track' letter to the Congress to pass the very thing that Penn was counsulting on and do we really believe that his business dealings would not be an influence over President Clinton if in fact she is elected? Again, please do we not believe that there is already some backroom deal that the Clinton group is already involved?
I see the Obama campaign as the last real chance to get our country back. As a Democrat, I see my party at a crucial crossroads regarding their credibility as well. They are now removing postings to the www.democrats.org blog that in any way criticize their methods or in some instances, candidates. Censorship is alive and well in this country. Dissent and free speech is the last layer of freedom removed and we need to be watchful. It reminds me of the remarks by Ann Coulter and others who said that anyone that criticizes a fellow Republican will be marginalized or shut out, something to that effect. From my perspective, the Dems must be taking some pointers from the GOP.
As you can see, I am still dealing with my own existential challenges with my party. He who has hope has everything.
MaggieCat
"The most compelling concern on their veracity is this whole nonsense over Penn and the Columbia deal. I may just be paranoid, but doesn't anyone else but me find it curious that Bush is pushing a 'Fast Track' letter to the Congress to pass the very thing that Penn was counsulting on and do we really believe that his business dealings would not be an influence over President Clinton if in fact she is elected? Again, please do we not believe that there is already some backroom deal that the Clinton group is already involved?"
Maggie, Clinton has been on-record as being clearly against the very deal that both Penn was individually and privately negotiating for and that Bush is fast-tracking. Outside of purely theoretical speculation, there is no question about this. This is the very reason he is no longer chief campaign strategist.
Leatherneck,
Normally I love your rational views on most things, and you may very well be correct. However, is her stance on Columbia the same as her stances on NAFTA? She's for NAFTA. No, she's against NAFTA. For NAFTA. Against NAFTA.......
I have no trust for that woman and very little for anyone that supports her. As a Dem, I would love your advice as to what I do come November if she is our Nominee. Given the way the media gives her a pass on so much and her countercharges that she is being persecuted unfairly by the media, I expect the electorate sheep will take her bad acting over the facts. Leatherneck, I am having a bad Monday. How about a good pep talk?
He who has hope has everything.
MaggieCat
Regardless of what Republicans had to say about Kerry in 04, one can be both for and against a bill or a measure of a bill, especially one as profound and far-reaching as NAFTA. In principle, removing trade barriers within our own hemisphere is a great positive, yet there will be economic results, mostly positive, but some which may undermine either local jobs or industries. Depending on how broad your outlook is and how dependent on your local economy you are for income or goods and services will determine which shade of gray represents your opinion on NAFTA. You're a fair-minded person who understands politics as well as measures that have both positive and negative effects. Being that NAFTA is still a very young agreement, what is wrong with differing with some of its negative results and proposing solutions to amend it as both Democratic candidates have?
As for Nov, think of this nation's progress on 3 line graphs ending in 2012 or 2016. One which represents the road the US will take under McCain. The others represent the road the US will take under either Clinton or Obama. No one but you can make the judgment on which road the US should travel.
You are correct on the nuances of grey colors in a fairly new trade agreement; as in Texas and New Mexico border areas, the population is largely in support of NAFTA and places like Ohio and Michigan and other industrial states have really suffered some of the negative ramifications. I get it.
What I am leary of is the cocaine traffic and will it be helped by the proposed agreement? The premise for my concern is the fact that on the Asian trade history, it is pretty well understood that the US ports are greatly understaffed and if I am not mistaken, only 3-5% of shipments from Asia are ever inspected.
There must be a guarantee of enforcement and funding to ensure those things being done. From immigration to ports, our nation has provided mostly a free trade to the outside. Fair is certainly the word of the season.
MaggieCat
I've followed Sen.Obama closely now for a couple of years and he is the real deal. Coming out of Chicago politics squeaky clean is a feat in itself. I knew about the rezko deal and he has laid everything on the table for the chicago tribune who endorsed him (conservative newspaper).
But, he'll inevitably make enemies if he should become president. Idealism is good, but you need to be comfortable using power - I think that is what leatherneck is pointing too, and you'll make enemies along the way. A lot of good people stay out of politics because it can destroy you personally.
I think Sen.Obama is different and special. The question is wether the american people are too cynical and easily distracted (swiftboated) too notice.
"But, he'll inevitably make enemies if he should become president. Idealism is good, but you need to be comfortable using power - I think that is what leatherneck is pointing too, and you'll make enemies along the way. A lot of good people stay out of politics because it can destroy you personally."
Exactly. What concerns me is that because Obama's record is to the left of Clinton, even to the left of Kucinich, which one of the billionaires is going to ponyup millions to bring him down after he's elected. The only thing different about politics these days is that they've traded in their scope and ammo for Rove-like campaigns of destruction funded with millions.
Bingo. There's a common misconception around Obama that he's a moderate. His politics are not even close. I like to call them crazy-a$$ liberal, but I suppose that's not very diplomatic. I have no doubt his record will be used against him - in widely publicized fashion - by any number of "independent" citizen interest groups.
It's like a baby with a pacifier...you remove it, but not totally. :)
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
"No doubt Hillary has spoken against the trade deal, but she's not enough against it to refuse their money....or to fire Bill"
Refuse whose money? Colombia's?
When was Bill hired? What's his title (outside of spouse)?
The money was from Colombia-based Gold Service International , a "consulting" group that is strongly in favor of the trade agreement.
The sarcasm about Bills DOH and title aren't necessary. He is the former President of the United States, and married to a potential POTUS. I call that a pretty close tie...it speaks for itself. Aren't you the one that made references to McCain's wife's money as it relates to his campaign?
It seems that not only Republicans have no compunction about mixing money in their bank accounts with policy issues. In this case, to the tune of $800,000
Income that Bill obtained is somehow tainted, although he is on-record as being in favor of the trade agreement? Are you seriously trying to suggest that Hillary's campaign is funded or influenced by work Bill did 3 Years ago? Been hitting the bottle again?
It was you who spoke of Hillary "firing" Bill, therefore you set the conversation in motion. What position is it that he would be fired from?
I previously referenced McCain's wife's ties to Anheuser-Busch as being where he obtained his primary funding when he first sought elected office (which you're quite aware).
This sad class-warfare act from Republicans is so laughable. You could sell tickets!
McCains money for his political start if I'm not mistaken came from corporate donors through her connections from her family's distributorship of AB libations and those businesses put up the money to fund all his campaigns.
Also, Cindy's fortune is shielded from McCain by prenuptial agreement because her corporate and business ties are vast and he doesn't know or benefit from it politically. If she was bankrolling him, he certainly wouldn't have the money problems he has/had. He does benefit from such things as her personal jet that he's used for state campaigning.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
Well as long as you've covered it we're all set.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
Hate to tell you this buddy, but on this point you're wrong, the prenup was set up for that expressed purpose. But believe, parse and dance around as you see fit. Do a FOIA request for his Senate filings and get back to me after you have the documents in hand.
And Cindy doesn't just distribute for AB products, although it is probably her largest customer.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
Yeah, not sure what's false because it's a blanket statement and because LN says it's so it must make it so.
But the prenup goes directly to the fact that money she makes does not go to back her husband politically, which I think goes directly to the relationship you were drawing about the Clintons. Her business associates might cough up the dough for him, but she doesn't.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
Exactly....let's have a hypothetical situation...
If my husband had received a large sum of money from the KKK for speaking engagements, (or any kind of business dealings) and I didn't refute that, or at least refuse to have anything to do with the money, wouldn't you have cause to doubt my sincerity when speaking out against the KKK? The same principle applies.
(My poor husband is probably spinning in his grave being used in the same breath as the KKK ...Sorry hon ;-)
Alright guys, let's leave well enough alone RE: leatherneck.
I missed what has happened last night, so if this was resolved, I did not know. You guys seem to be able to stay up later than I am (being on drugs!) and so this all was new to me.
If you emailed me, I missed it (but when someone hurts my sister Suzi, I cannot help but defend) and I didn't think I was that mean anyway....just being honest.
I will leave well enough alone, I just didn't know.
Later, it's all good!!!