Posts
Nothing To See Here! The Clintons Are Making It Impossible To Vet Their Records
By Daniel Koffler / March 7, 2008
Hillary Clinton is a thoroughly vetted candidate, about whom there is nothing left to learn. That's probably why the Clintons are shutting down the release of confidential papers from the Bill Clinton presidential library. As Hillary Clinton would be delighted to explain, there is nothing new under the sun about her record; therefore there is no reason anyone should get to look at, say, the chain of events that led from Denise Rich's $450,000 donation to the Clinton foundation to the pardon of Rich's ex-husband, the continent-galloping racketeer and fugitive Marc Rich. What sort of paranoid freak could possibly be interested in Hillary Clinton's records as first lady, who she met with, and what, if anything, she actually did?
Likewise, because the Clintons are so well vetted, they refuse to release their tax
returns. The skeptical might point out that Hillary Clinton publicly demanded that her 2000 senate challenger Rick Lazio release his tax returns. But that's missing the point: Lazio was unvetted, and so he had an obligation to release the returns; Hillary Clinton is vetted, thus she has no such obligation. And besides, everything that there is to know about the Clintons has been known for years. Her 2007 tax returns couldn't possibly yield any fresh information about, say, Bill Clinton's $700,000 windfall profit off of a transaction on a non-public security backed by the People's Republic of China, with an anonymous buyer who paid far more than market value. Why, that's just old hat from the witch-hunts of the 90s. Bo-ring! The source of the savings that allowed Hillary Clinton to loan her campaign $5 million of her own money? Obviously the product of a lifetime of coupon clipping during all the years the Clintons lived on a government salary.
Similarly, what traction do opponents of Hillary Clinton's campaign hope to achieve by prying into Bill Clinton's relationship with his BFF, the Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustria? In 2005, Clinton lobbied for the brutal Kazakh dictatorship of Nursultan Nazarbayev to assume leadership of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, thereby paving the way for Giustra to gain a foothold in the lucrative Kazakh uranium trade. Clinton went so far as to inform Nazarbayev that "recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life." Shortly after the deal was completed, Giustra helped raise $21 million for the William J. Clinton Foundation. It's called a coincidence, people; and in any case, all of this was detailed in the Starr Report.
So the Clintons are perfectly justified in refusing to release the names of donors to the Clinton library since 2004. Prior to 2004, unreasonable, Kenneth Starr-like critics will observe, the list of donors included the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the State of Kuwait, Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation, professional war-with- Iran-monger Haim Saban, and many other similarly upstanding persons and institutions. Conspiracy-minded nutcases, of course, will suggest that Clinton library donors were hoping to curry favor with Senator Clinton or a potential future Clinton presidency. But that's preposterous; the far more parsimonious explanation is that every single donor was expressing his or her own gratitude for the 22 million jobs created in the 90s, particularly the Saudi royals.
Yes, it's high time that the press stopped giving a free pass to Senators Obama and McCain.
POST A COMMENT
Sorry KB, I was in England when Ferraro made her Kinsleyan slip, and only now checked this for another post. But yes, Ferraro is an angry white peasant.
"angry white peasant resentment" is the proper quote.
Where's the denunciation of Geraldine Ferraro expressing, how did you put it…ah yes, "white male resentment"?
Never thought I'd see the day that Daniel and Eli both got ass kicked in a debate
here. But if any who have read the exchanges with David above come to a
different conclusion, I'd like to read your deconstruction. Here's mine, in
summary.
There were countless ad-homs by all, but who first initiated them? Now add the
direct questions never answered, appeals to authority, off topic responses, and
circular arguments. Having done this, it appears to me David comes out on top using less than
a fourth the number of words. I can't take the time to post all the quotes now,
but if challenged I will. The irony is I actually agree with Daniel on the
central issue raised, which got lost in the shuffle until David brought it
back. "The more salient question is whether you have a problem with
the Clintons
actively blocking such vetting"
I'm a long time Hillary fan David. If I had to pick between her and Obama
for president, I would have to give the matter substantially more thought than
I do which democrat I'd choose to run for the office in November. Hillary is
about the only thing I can see on the horizon that could possibly unite the
Republicans right now. Also, Senator Obama has an insurmountable lead in
delegates. If they do a mail ballot in Florida
and Michigan, I'll bet he wins both states handily. If Hillary is able to manipulate the process instead,
or to make back room deals with super delegates and win despite Obama’s clear
majority in the popular vote, it will be a disaster.
Now to the key issue at hand: you may not have a problem with Hillary
avoiding the release of her taxes and other papers, and ‘actively blocking
vetting,’ but for me this was my first big red flag about her campaign. Whatever
her reasons for not revealing everything now, that information is part of the
Hillary ‘package,’ and she’ll have to run on it in the general election. I can
think of no rational defense for her position.
To say its just politics won’t cut it David. I was leaning toward her before
this issue emerged. If it looks very problematic to a supporter, imagine what
those on the fence must think? I assume her campaign did polls, and that I’m
not alone in my reaction. This suggests some of what is hidden in the details might
be pretty damaging. If so, McCain’s camp will have a field day in the fall.
If not, one can but seriously wonder about Hillary and her team’s judgment. You haven’t
made a case on this that I find convincing, David, yet in reading your blogs I
almost always agree with you. Back to my lurk default.
P S-great job on the formatting problem Craig!!!
"The more salient question is whether you have a problem with the Clintons actively blocking such vetting"
This is our issue, here. I think I have been crystal clear. No, I have no problem with that, for the reasons that I stated. Â
"I have no problem with anyone vetting the Clintons. My issue is expecting them to aid said vetting."
 The more salient question is whether you have a problem with the Clintons actively blocking such vetting.
I have no problem with anyone vetting the Clintons. My issue is expecting them to aid said vetting. That is an absurd demand. Even if they were squeaky clean, it would be a bad choice, as information can be manipulated to reflect badly. And to be clear, I am not claiming the Clintons are squeaky clean.
Eli,
No one is questioning the issue of money and its influence. Not foreign corporations, not oil companies. What we are asking, or at least, should be asking, is how anyone can outline an elaborate policy on energy and not put anything in about mass transit, but only in the foreign policy department (wtf?).
Koffler is hardly a mass transit advocate, Eli, libertarians never are.
 Koffler, why don't you suggest to Obama's team that you can help them classify things both properly and exhaustively.Â
"What next, David? A defense of Exxon's record profits?"
 95% of Exxon Mobile are owned by private share holders such as Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Al Gore.
Kelsey, what's amazing — and, to be honest, somewhat worrisome, and, if people were actually listening here, tragic — about your monomaniacal obsession with mass transit is your perplexing inability to connect the dots. I'm gonna write this as clearly as I can, so clearly that even an overeager hipster with his nose stuck in his "Common Yiddish Phrases" Dictionary (bought used, of course, at The Strand, for 59 cents, after a long ride on the 1 Train from the Upper West Side) can understand:
1. Yes, we are addicted to oil.
2. Yes, we need nationwide mass transit of a level and quality far superior to that which exists today.
3. The influence of money in politics is what keeps us from ever getting to #2.
4. That money comes from oil corporations and from foreign governments.
Now why have you so consistently refused to admit that these things are related? Why, in post after post, have you justifiably condemned our addiction to oil in this country, while at the same time — sometimes, mystifyingly, in the very same sentence! — insisting that the influence of money in politics has nothing to do with this? Why can you not see that your dream of universal mass transit will never be a reality as long as we are governed by oil gluttons and their tyrannical enablers abroad? Why, to use this very post as an example, have you not looked into Obama's filings to determine to what degree foreign oil monarchies have propped up his campaign, to compare it with the degree to which foreign oil monarchies have propped up the Clintons? I am going to take a leap here by presuming you will agree, at least in private, that the candidate who receives more money from oil companies and oil oligarchies is LESS likely to implement a mass transit system in our country. (Can you at least agree on that, Kelsey? Don't do it in public, I know it'll hurt. Shoot me an email. Use a fake name if it helps.)
I can think of two explanations for your refusal to connect the dots.
1. You have that problem involving the frontal lobes, where it's difficult for you to work out simple cognition skills. I don't know the medical term for this, but in plain English it's called a lobotomy. These were popular in the 50s, but I'm pretty sure they're relatively rare today. If this is indeed the reason for the way your brain functions (I'm using that term loosely), I strongly recommend you blog about it. It'll be a great complement to your posts about some ultra-Orthodox guy's music tastes and how the blacks are coming to get us.
2. You are working for the Saudi Royal Family. This is actually a more logical explanation than #1, as I don't think you're dumb, just sometimes an imbecile, and that's okay, it's part of what gives you your "charm," the same way, for instance, that a small child, after wetting his or her pants, will have that reddish flush on their face betraying confusion, embarrassment, and a barely discernible trace of rage. That's you, and that's why you blog, and again, that's okay.
I'm just saying there has to be some logical explanation for why, over and over again, you exhort us to public transit while lashing out at people — myself in the past, Koffler here — for mentioning that the influence of money in our politics is one of the reasons we're so screwed up. And it's why there will never be the kind of mass transit in this country you keep getting your throat so sore over.
So here's a question for you to answer, hopefully with greater alacrity than the Clintons disclosing what oil-drenched hands have been dropping millions into their bank accounts:
Are you working for the Saudi Royal Family?
Because I know you can't be making enough at your own "Jewish" "hipster" magazine.
So just tell us — in round terms, I'm not looking for a full IRS filing here — how much are they paying you for these constant defenses? $350,000 a quarter? Is it just the Saudis, or the UAE too? Dubai? And do they pay you extra for the posts where you stand on your tricycle shouting about mass transit, knowing full well it's a red herring given our addiction to oil reinforced by their infusion of cash throughout our political system?
Do they buy you bagels and rugelach too? They're nothing if not shrewd, and I know they'd want you to continue feeling like an LES Jewish hipster even while shilling for Big Oil.
Look inside your heart and give us the honest figure, Kelsey. I'll give you till tomorrow night to sort through your stubs, invoices, receipts and knishes.
For returning this to some semblance of relevance to the post. Looking back over the thread, it's almost touching how David launches an attack on Obama, watches it explode in his face, and changes the subject because there's always something else he feels compelled to bitch about. Somehow we got to mass transit. Whatever. But if we refer back several posts David, you'll notice that your bullshit complaint about Obama not addressing mass transit turned out to be bullshit. If you have nothing to add, I suggest we drop it here.
….okay, adding, Clinton has set records for accepting lobbyist money, and not by small margins. Just learn to use Google.
Eli, why don't you attack Clinton for taking money from lobbyists? That's a uniquely nefarious characteristic of the NY senator not shared by others that you can rail against. Use it — I'm giving you free ammo.
Eli,
Some of us are all too aware of your history of feigning shock and outrage that whatever president/presidential candidate you don't like has a relationship with the Saudis. Eli, I have explained this to you before, and will do so again, because I am a patient person. All presidents will have an unfortunately all-too-close relationship with the Saudis. They will have such a relationship because we are addicted to oil. It doesn't matter who they are, it doesn't matter what they believe. As long as we are addicted to oil, right or left, democrat or republican, they will all suck Saudi cock. Because that is what we have to do as oil junkies to get our ever-increasing fix.
But instead of trying to find ways to diminish oil consumption, you keep using this bullshit non-issue as a way to attack whichever candidate/president you don't like, even though all of them will suck Saudi cock once in office. Each and every one.
I'm waiting for a post on your blog defending Exxon's refusal to finish paying for the largest oil spill in U.S. waters. Then segue, without even blinking, into a rant on how we need mass transit in this country.
It'll be so cute!
"There is a lot of info in those papers. No need to give that kind of wealth of ammo to your opponents."
So if Clinton's on the payroll of the Saudi Royal family, voters shouldn't know this because … because what exactly? Because David Kelsey doesn't like Obama? Seriously, explain why Clinton should not be vetted. "It's not a good time" is not an argument, it's a Second Grader's response to "What happened to the cookies?" Obviously it's not a good time if the financial records reveal that the Clintons are not the pristine public servants portrayed by Mark Penn.
What's really a joke is that you then twist the convo into a mass transit rant. Because I'm sure a Clinton-House of Saud presidency would be the first to implement a serious mass transit system. What next, David? A defense of Exxon's record profits?
 "There is a vast literature on private mass transportation."
But not any actual history of it's success without government backing. How strange. That damned red tape thing again, I presume?
Some subsidies may be required to get things going
Oh, you think so?Â
And the difficulty in terms of monetizing benefits to those who don't use it without relying on taxes and subsidies…I guess that's a research issue that you don't have the time and patience to address, not an obvious reason why their should be consistent subsidies for a mass transit system, right?
There is a vast literature on private mass transportation. Every private enterprise is subject to certain standards of governmental oversight. Some subsidies may be required to get things going, which is why I explicitly endorsed the possibility of a public-private partnership. The upshot of the Kelo ruling, pernicious as it was in many ways, was to legitimate private eminent domain for public uses (a condo developer in the original case), as in, for example, the construction of a light rail system.
I'm still not your research department.
"There is demand; there is supply"
Not that simple at all, no, which would be why it NEVER FUCKING HAPPENS LIKE THAT.
Part of the problem is this, young Koffler:
The population that is being served by a mass transit system is not only those who use it, but also the people who do not use it. That is to say ,everyone in the vicinity. There is less traffic, less pressure on resources, and less pollution for everyone. And that benefit (to everyone not using it) can't be monetized by your beloved market forces. So subsidies — most critically in the exorbitant building of the fixed infrastructure, are in order. Through these things we call taxes.
Additionally, there are issues of eminent domain. Now, I know that's a dirty concept for you libertarian types, but it is the only way to make sure that point A gets all the way to point B. The libertarian answer: Who needs mass transit.
Again, give me one example of a substantial mass transit system (subway or rail, please, not some fucking five boat ferry system, Koffler) that arose without government oversight and aid.
Oh, let me guess what your answer will be: none, because government prevented such a system through unbearable red tape.
Bullshit, Koffler.
Mass transit needs government backing, or it doesn't happen. It can't. Market forces only = more fucking cars.
David, there is a massive literature on the prospects for private mass transportation. Again, I'm not your research department.
"On the other hand, anyone who suggests that the market is an impediment to effective mass transit definitely doesn't get it."
Are you kidding me? You're just fucking with me right? What substantial mass transit system was ever built without government oversight and regulation? Do you think the NYC subway just popped up one day through the invisible hand of market forces? You clearly have not heard of the dual system. Or how about the DC metro? Or the rail link to Kennedy airport? What are you talking about Koffler? Mass transit needs a government's backing. I am dropping all snark…I just can't believe you said that. What are you talking about? What the fuck are you talking about?
Anyone who doesn't agree with the privatization and free trade and deregulation maniacs "doesn't get it."
No, not at all. You can get it and be wrong. On the other hand, anyone who suggests that it is a priori that the market couldn't meet a demand for mass transit, or that a preference for economic liberalism is an impediment to mass transit, definitely doesn't get it.
I just noticed that Obama's Energy fact sheet doesn't mention the demise of the honeybee population.  Just when I thought he was the right candidate to lead our country, he let the honeybees down!Â
Now Koffler, don't panic, I trust your Yalie friends will understand that even a cutting edge hipster Jew site will still attract a couple of low-class provincial types and it won't embarrass you too, too much.
"Look, I get that you don't understand free market economics"
That's right, Koffler. Anyone who doesn't agree with the privatization and free trade and deregulation maniacs "doesn't get it."
Obama has a comprehensive approach to energy policy headlined by an ambitious cap and trade program, and because he happens not to address your particular obsessions on his campaign website he's lacking in substance. Oddly enough, he mentions investment in mass transit as a key component of his domestic policy in his Foreign Affairs essay. Whoops, shit the bed there, huh? I'm not your research department. Try, try, try to make productive use of this new-fangled Google thing before you embarrass yourself again.
Look, I get that you don't understand free market economics. That's fine. Vote for somebody else. Or, maybe consider the question of whether, if the regulations preventing the construction of an expanded mass transit system were lifted, there might then be an incentive for companies to get into the business, or join public/private partnerships, or however else it's structured. How foolish of me to think that the market is capable of delivering supply where there is demand. Mea culpa, I'm responsible for inadequacies in public transportation. It's the 25-going-on-75 fact-free hectoring that's grating.
Speaking of premature fogeyism, have we not already discussed the fact that you embarrass all of us when you insist on talking like a caricature? Knock it off.
Such as disaster…look at your candidate's position on energy…nothing for mass transit…nothing about deforestation. His energy fact sheet is 11 pages long…nothing about mass transit…what a joke. Of course, Clinton doesn't address mass transit either (though to be fair, she doesn't have an 11 page energy sheet with mass transit missing). But you know why that is, Koffler? Because people like you who should know better believe in "the market" to solve these issues when they cannot. It's people like you who are the most at fault.
Is that why you focused on his Darfur stuff, Koffler? Better than his domestic agenda, huh? Liked your spirited (if unconvincing) defense of Obama's the past versus the future (oh, shut up, already) blathering in your essay? That was a clever way to explain it into…something. Not effective, but a creative attempt, to be sure.
"Substance, not style" — the Guardian, Jan. 9.
"Freezer burn" — the Guardian, Feb. 14.
Do your own goddamned research. You're unfamiliar with Obama's platform because you choose ignorance? Not my problem, I'll write about whatever the fuck I please, thanks.
"Obama's policy proposals are more extensive and substantive than Clinton's, and also better on their merits."
Great. Why don't you write about them more instead of why Clinton is a witch? Cause you are only preaching to the converted, and I can't believe that's what the Obama campaign is paying you for.Â
If a candidate refuses to disclose information that other candidates have freely disclosed, then I, as a voter, reserve the right to assume the worst. In fact, as a conscientious American voter, I feel it my duty to assume the worst. If certain old farts want to selfishly bury their heads in the sand, ignoring their obligation to the generations they leave behind, I'm certainly not going to help them do it.
She is not demanding a shift to policy discussions (she gave up on that weeks ago when it turned out health care mandates weren't the gamechanger she expected them to be), and that's probably wise, because she would lose a contest on policy. Instead, she is whining about superdelegates and press bias and Florida and Michigan and her fitness as commander in chief in virtue of having slept in a bedroom with a commander in chief, while her surrogates wink at attacks on Obama's loyalty to the country and claim, breathlessly, that Hillary Clinton should not be subject to the minimal disclosure requirements expected of all candidates and simultaneously that Obama is unvetted.
I guess we're heading into pretty deep conservation-of-virtues territory, the notion that a candidate who gives good speeches and excites new voters about the process can't have a command of policy, but really, that's a silly enough theory that to repeat it is to refute it. Obama's policy proposals are more extensive and substantive than Clinton's, and also better on their merits. Indeed, Hillary Clinton's mortgage rate freeze is the worst proposal of any major party presidential candidate in decades, and if the press had the slightest modicum of economic literacy she would have been cowed into a humiliating silence months and months ago.
The idea that Obama is short on specifics is just shameless cocooning bullshit at this point.
To be pressing the media on shifting the focus to policies instead of how charming and pretty Obama is. Because they sure haven't been challenging the specifics like they should.
So I agree with you that it's the media's fault for not pressing and challenging Obama on policy. It's not necessarily Obama's responsibility, and it sure is more fun to just talk about hope, change, and how we all are more similar than we are different (awwwww). It is the media's responsibility to get him to talk turkey.Â
But then we should also agree that Clinton is right in her demand they do so more seriously, and not like some pop star. This isn't American Idol, right?
You're joking. Hillary Clinton has been making the case for 18 months that she is an open book, the Republicans have attempted every conceivable attack on her already, there's nothing new, etc., and has recently been pushing every scurrilous whisper campaign against Obama as soon as it comes to her attention, all of it, mind you, in the spirit of "the Republicans will use this so I might as well legitimize it." There isn't one infinitesimal element of her case that isn't subject to a resounding tu quoque.
She does claim, falsely, that she has a more substantive set of proposals and a more comprehensive grasp of policy, but that's an internal Democratic party debate that isn't the least bit germane to her "vetting" gambit.
Nice touch with the teeny-bopper remark. Those naive 20-49 year olds backing Obama sure are too young to know anything, huh?
You know it was policy Clinton was talking about. Obama is not clear about policies…all those vague pretty ideas that his teenybopper fans sing along to…that's what she is talking about, and you know it. And I give you credit, Koffler. I trust you are being intentionally obtuse.
I was obviously not just criticizing the ethics of the stalling tactics. I wasn't even particularly interested in them. The point is that the Clintons' claims to be well-vetted and to be victims of media bias are absurd, and the free ride they're getting on the extensive records of their financial promiscuity demonstrates that fact. Ye gods.
"Also, my criticism was purely of the ethics of the stalling tactics themselves."
No, your pretense of the issue being ethics was your tactic for attacking the NY senator. There is a lot of info in those papers. No need to give that kind of wealth of ammo to your opponents. They did the smart thing. They can and will release those papers later at a less sensitive time. They don't need to now, it's a bad time for that. And if you were fair, you would acknowledge that.
Yes David, I failed to grasp that stalling on the release of the information is a self-interested move by the Clintons. Also, my criticism was purely of the ethics of the stalling tactics themselves, and not their manifest hypocrisy, let alone the preposterousness of the Clintons' arguments about vetting.
So this is willful obtuseness then?
And beating Obama may be harder than beating McCain. I wouldn't have to explain this to you if you would think out of your partisan lens, which you never show any interest in doing on your own.
Are you actually on Obama's payroll or are you just a volunteer?
This is just willful obtuseness, right? Because you can't actually believe that the Republicans won't use FOIA requests to gather most of this material and innuendo to fill in the gaps, can you?
May I ask, combining thoughts from several other threads, that if you're determined to speak like a 75-year-old lower east side caricature, that you not set off Yiddish loan words in italics? Because what we're going for is not distinctly English or Yiddish grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, but some horrific bastard offspring of the two.Â
"That's probably why the Clintons are shutting down the release of confidential papers from the Bill Clinton presidential library."
I would do so as well if I were in their shoes. Now is not a good time for releasing confidential papers, during the middle of her campaign for president.
 What a silly excuse for feigned outrage. Â
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!