The Clintons do NOT have to go through any "vetting."

[Whoa20]

On these boards, I see a ton of people posting about "vetting" the Clintons. hello, where have you been the last 16 years? they've BEEN vetted, and everytime they've been, nothing real has turned up. Nothing but chasing wild geese is the best way to describe the "vetting" of the Clintons. Like with the Kazahkstan thing, the press investigated, and nothing turned up. Whitewater, nothing turned up. Travel, file, Trooper "gate," NOTHING. The Clintons have been there for us for 16 years. Bill was elected twice, the first Dem to do so since Franklin Roosevelt. To me, this is a matter of honour. Even after a tough primary fight, they still campaigned for the Barack, in spite of the defeat.

NO, the Clintons do NOT EVER have to be "vetted." They've been so. You crazies just can't stand that not everyone who gets nominated or an offer or in power has gone along with you 100% of the time. Oddly enough, the same peeps bashing Hillary for SOS by citing her Iraq vote want John Kerry, who ALSO voted for it, and couldn't even explain his vote better than Clinton. Hillary is receiving bipartisan praise for the offer of SOS. When the witch hunters can't even complain about the Clintons evil finances as reason to block a nomination, it says something.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Bill has been out of the spotlight since 2000. YES, he must be vetted. eom

[sniffa]

2. I see you didn't mention Vince Foster.

Obviously some vetting needs to be done as your omission shows.

[camera obscura]

10. woah... I think you just crossed the DU and Freeper wires.

It's like the meeting point of a mobius strip.

[joshcryer]

56. LOL. They'll try anything.

[sniffa]

65. I'm shocked the Clinton haters don't bring it up more

[quickesst]

87. Hillary fever....

...at it's worst. Still no cure in sight. Sad. Thanks.
quickesst

[springhill]

130. Wow..........

And just how many times do you think that needs investigating? They had NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with that. My God, that is really low.

[Jennicut]

3. I actually like Hillary as SoS but the Clintons need to be vetted

BC's foundation has not been "vetted". Its not a witch hunt, its looking at potential conflict of interest issues.

[ProSense]

4. Wow! Does this special exemption

extend to confirmation too?

[Captain Hilts]

5. Yeah!

FDR: A splendid fellow!
ER: It's just dreadful the way Democrats treat other Democrats these days!

[KittyWampus]

21. Plumbing the depths of immaturity are we?

[dkf]

6. He made like $100 million in speaking fees.

And his foundation has taken in a ton of cash. Anytime you are talking huge sums of $, there needs to be scrutiny.

[Captain Hilts]

9. I agree and I don't think it will be aproblem. nt

[dkf]

15. I hope there aren't any problems.

That would be pretty ugly.

[KittyWampus]

23. then you haven't paid much attention to who Clinton has pimped himself out to

since leaving office.

[Evergreen Emerald]

112. It is not about "pimping himself out" It is about a charity

organization that helps millions around the world. It is bi-partisan and bi-cultural. Donations come from a variety of sources...even sources who would be politically attacked for supporting anything "Clinton" and who have the right to privacy.

The issue is not that Clinton is taking money for personal use by bad guys. It is that his charity organization that (did I mention) helps millions of people around the world, is taking money from ANYONE and EVERYONE. After all, it is a charity organization.

[roguevalley]

19. there are questions about donors to the library, some of them oddballs from

creapy countries. I want to have a vetting to end any rumor mongering and gossip that can overtake the momentum toward the future that we all want.

[Whoa20]

22. money is so evil, you know,

Karl Marx would agree. Just because someone is making money, it does not automatically mean corruption. He got it making speeches and selling books for God's sake. I just bought his autobiography from Borders. I guess I contributed to evil.

[NYCGirl]

Two words: Ron Burkle. NT

[Whoa20]

70. what about him?

he's rich? he's a capitalist? WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT HIM?

[SwampG8r]

7. "the barack"?

[Bicoastal]

8. Everyone must receive the same scrutiny. No favoritism.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

11. "Nothing turned up" for Clinton the same way Nancy Pelosi thinks nothing turned up for Bush.

[springhill]

131. Jesus...........

You must really hate Bill Clinton, because he was disected for eight solid years, spent million of dollars investigating every aspect of his life, not just his public life. They came up with nothing, absolutely nothing, except sex. How much do you think they have spent investigating the crimes of Bush? Where is the special investigator who does nothing but turn over every stone to find anything? Did you know that Clinton authorized the special prosecutor that would be looking into Whitewater (and everything else)? Why do you think he might have done that? Maybe because he knew he had done nothing wrong.

Fools for Scandal - Joe Conason (try reading it)

[Just-plain-Kathy]

138. God.....

You gave me yet another reason to hate Bill Clinton. They didn't spend a dime or even push for any investigations towards Poppy Bush, W and Cheney. Why? Why?

It's almost as if the Clintons and the Bushes made a deal...

Poppy Bush: Bill my son, I'll make a deal with you, ...you don't investigate my crimes and I'll only impeach you for lying about your affair. You agree to let us drag your name through the mud. Let me turn the '00 democratic ticket into poison. ...I need a reason for how Americans could believe my dimwitted son could be elected president. ...You do this for me, and I'll do what I can to get Hillary on the '08 ticket.

(It was reported on election night that NOT ONE person in 80 NY districts voted for Obama, not even in Harlem. There was something fishy going on there. ...I want honesty in our government)

[Clio the Leo]

12. Yeah, that Starr report didn't come up with a thing.

Sorry .... I LOVE BILL and I want Hillary to become the SOS if she wants it but I am NOT gonna pass up a chance for THAT good of a joke.

[Whoa20]

17. I sense Markos

and his allies here are gonna bring back Starr, from what I can see

[sniffa]

18. ...

:rofl:

[HooptieWagon]

106. Yes the Starr report ended in 2000.

Certainly the Clinton's dealings since then need to be vetted if she's being considered for a Cabinet post. If they don't wish the scrutiny, then she should remove her name from consideration for an Obama Adminstration appointment.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Clinton library donors?

Money for pardons?

Marc fucking Rich?

Consultancies for Dubai? For Central American free-trade groups? Kazakhstan?

Ron Burkle?

There's a lot more 'there' there in the web of Bill Clinton's activities and associations that's of potential political damage and conflict of interest than you seem to want to admit.

[Captain Hilts]

20. The ousted PM of Israel - who was ousted because he came closest to peace...

in the Middle East in a generation, asked Bubba to pardon Rich because of his charitable contributions to Israel.

[Spider Jerusalem]

As did Denise Rich after donating hundreds of thousands to Clinton's library fund

and thousands to Hillary's Senate campaign fund. Which were probably more of a factor than whatever Rich may have donated to Israeli charities.

[Evergreen Emerald]

114. "activities?" He is bringing in money for a charity that helps

millions around the world. Your attempt to make his charitable organization nefarious should be reserved for enemies who want to twist anything and everything (did I mention it was a charity organization?) to demean and attack.

[Genevieve]

14. Lol - This post is so crazy!

And you call us "You crazies".

[FrenchieCat]

16. Clinton Activities since the year 2000 have not been vetted.....

and since the position of SOS requires that the named go through a confirmation process, the Clintons will have to be vetted prior to Hillary accepting the position....less some GOP senator pulls some out information during the confirmation process that would not only make Hillary look bad, but also make Obama look bad. The GOP is dying to make the new administration have a scandal, and because they thought long ago that Hillary might be the nominee, I'm sure they have got a couple of tricks up their sleeves. I wouldn't at all be surprised.

What I do believe, is that Hillary Clinton is aware of whatever that might be, and it will be up to her to decide whether this is something that she can get through without embarassing herself or the new administration. That is what she may be pondering on right now.

[Captain Hilts]

24. Assume the worst!

[Whoa20]

25. Whitewater proved the Clintons

are always up to no good. Even when a 7 year investigation shows no wrongdoing. Oh yea, firing a Travel Office guy who does nothing but waste taxpayer money and give perks to the press is also evil too.

[JI7]

29. it's not assuming the worst but just being prepared

just like Obama was during the campaign when they brought out attacks against him.

[joshcryer]

61. Of course it's assuming the worst.

The assumption is that by picking Hillary she would not survive any process to demean and degrade her politically.

She would.

[FrenchieCat]

68. Call it that if you will. I call it doing due diligence as opposed to being naive.

I'm sure since she ran for President, she believes that she can pass mustard....So I don't think she will have a problem about getting vetted...or so it would seem.

[Metric System]

39. I don't always agree with your posts (and I take issue with your 1st paragraph) but your 2nd

paragraph makes sense to me. Hillary's not stupid. That's why I don't understand the haters here who claim that "Clintonites" are behind the leak and she's trying to force herself into the SOS position. The same haters who claim that Clintonites are behind the leaks are the same ones who claim that she couldn't pass vetting. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me. Why would she actively seek a position that requires vetting IF she couldn't pass the vetting process?

[liberalmuse]

26. Yes, the Clintons will be vetted.

Why the animosity? Are you one of these PUMA's I've been reading about?

[Metric System]

27. Well, I disagree re: vetting. If vetting is required for all SOS candidates, then the same rule

should apply to Hillary and I'm sure she'd have no problem with that. If you remember the VP story, Hillary told Obama that she only wanted to be vetted IF he was seriously considering her. I assume it would be the same in this case. What I don't understand is the haters who claim that "Clintonites" are behind the leak but who then question whether she'd pass vetting. Um, if she didn't think she'd pass vetting, why would she go after the position of SOS?

[Cosmic Charlie]

28. she don't get vetted, she don't get picked

easy as that.

[vanderBeth]

30. This post

I hope it's a joke.

Every SoS candidate should be vetted and I'm sure the Clintons understand that.

[Whoa20]

31. actually the Clintons ARE above that,

and will always be.

[vanderBeth]

41. I'm going to assume you are kidding.

Because your posts read crazy.

[sniffa]

43. BWA!

:rofl:

[crispini]

96. hahahahahahahahahaha. Loopy.

FYI. We're part of the 'reality based' community over here.

[Erin Elizabeth]

108. Do I work with you?

Are you the woman four cubicles down who is a Hillary stalker? If so, you're driving everyone else batshit.

[Genevieve]

38. Not a joke, the OP has been posting (yelling) this same argument in every thread

in GDP that mentions Hillary/SoS.

[bluestateguy]

32. If the Obama team doesn't vet the Clinton Foundation donor list, the media will do it instead

and they have their ways of getting their hands on that information.

I agree that the Clintons have been more vetted than just about any politicians, but no chances can be taken.

HRC would be a fine Secretary of State if she got the pick.

[Whoa20]

34. if she didn't think

she would pass, she wouldn't bother being speculated on like this. Bill wouldn't be promoting her like this. The media can do it all they want, but everytime they do, nothing turns up. Hence Whitewater, Travel, File, Trooper "gate"s

[ErinBerin84]

40. If she thinks she will pass, then

what is the problem with the vetting? If she does, great...she'll provide whatever the Obama teams asks of her as a candidate I'm sure, but no cabinet candidate is above vetting.

[Whoa20]

46. because I'm sick of Clinton bashers

whining about her and Bill like a bunch of Rush Limbaughs. Show some fucking respect. I'm sick of Clinton bashers PERIOD. And yes, she is above vetting. 18 million primary voters vetted her, along with the media for 16 years.

[sniffa]

50. ...

:rofl:

[ErinBerin84]

53. well, I think there is a difference between this and run of the mill "Clinton bashing"

And this is up to the Obama team to decide whether or not it is appropriate, not the public, and it seems like they have vetting standards for everyone. If she will pass, then she won't have a problem going through the process and I'm sure the Obama team will try to keep it private.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

62. Do you even understand what "vetting" is?

Hint: It has nothing to do with how many votes you receive.

[Debi]

123. It's because she's a woman isn't it?

damn. x(

[Starbucks Anarchist]

133. Where's my pot roast?

:P

[Debi]

134. What are we going to do when all this settles down???

:hug: :loveya:

[gal]

120. Respect goes both ways

Just because your name is Clinton does not mean that standards should be thrown out the window. Do you really feel that Hillary Clinton would stand on a stage saying she does not expect to be vetted? If you do not think she would say it in front of millions of people maybe you should not be saying it for her.

No one... no matter what their position is above vetting. She may be going to work for my government and unlike you i'm not willing to hand over blind trust to anyone. If you want the job you earn it just like everyone else does, vetting is a part of that process. I've heard enough of the 18 million votes...respect goes both ways.

[endarkenment]

143. ok which of our disgruntled ones are you?

[Metric System]

51. I don't agree with the OP that she doesn't need vetting. If that's what the position requires of all

candidates, then she should be held to the same standard. And I'm sure she knows this. That's why I don't understand the haters who claim the "Clintonites" leaked the story and who also claim that she can't pass the vetting process? Why would she put herself through the embarrassment (assuming the worst of her, as the haters do)?

[namahage]

129. "TrooperGate"?

When did the Clintons have a problem with a LEO?
Wasn't that Sarah Palin's problem?

[zulchzulu]

33. Oh, I get it now. Everyone else has to get vetted EXCEPT for the Clintons...

:crazy:

[Whoa20]

37. YES, YOU'RE RIGHT

they are not run of the mill candidates. Most Americans don't care about the stories about them time and again. Its just the media who loves to blab. She and Bill shall be honoured.

[Genevieve]

47. Crazy.

[zulchzulu]

48. So my question is WHAT ARE YOU SCARED OF?

If vetting the Clintons will bring up nothing, then there should be no need to worry, right?

They didn't do anything wrong, right?

So the vetting process (which has to be done for any position in a new administration unless your name is John McCain) has to be done.

So the Clintons get vetted like everybody else... and like you said, they have done nothing wrong. Right?

The only reason I would suspect that someone not be vetted and not want to be vetted is that they ARE hiding something or could be seen as hiding something. Period.

[JVS]

35. You know, your argument reminds me of a ride on the commuter train into NYC once.

A woman refused to show her ticket arguing that of course she had a ticket because she had hundreds of dollars and there is no reason for someone with hundreds of dollars to try to avoid paying fare. She was removed from the train before we reached Grand Central.

[zuul9]

36. She has to if she plans to join th O Team

This isn't the primaries any more. If she wants to be SOS, she'll have to do whatever her boss Obama wants her to do.

[desktop]

42. It's just the same DU's who hate Hillary worse than the rightwing

It's pretty sad and makes you wonder whether these people are on the same Democratic side. Maybe, if you're a male sexist who masquerades as an enlightened liberal.

[sniffa]

45. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[vanderBeth]

49. Clinton likers and dislikers are disagreeing with this post.

Being in favor of vetting someone isn't crazy.

[Skittles]

44. it's just more Clinton bashing

it never fucking stops

[Whoa20]

52. this party needs to learn loyalty

like the GOP did for Reagan and W. That is why the generally win elections. Watch the left wing fall out on Obama soon, and help cost him 2012, and then blame the DLC wing for it. They showed no loyalty during Clinton, which stopped us from national health care.

[ProSense]

55. Are you kidding? Hillary hired Mark Penn as her campaign's chief strategist.

There are legitimate questions.

Gupta removed as InfoGROUP chairman amid SEC investigation, shareholder lawsuit

Judge approves settlement in InfoGroup lawsuit

[joshcryer]

58. Sure they are. But rational people tend to overlook the innuendo and lies.

Such as the, yaknow, Vince Foster thing.

Watergate was nothing, most liberals and moderates knew that, but who went after the Clintons over it? Yep, the very people many on DU are happy to emulate.

[Skittles]

66. CORRECT

[mkultra]

128. yeah, but reasonable people know that vetting is neccesary

every administration must do its own homework.

[vanderBeth]

59. Loyalty=/=Blind Faith

Your posts are absurd, starting with the fact you're invoking Ray-gun and Shrub. :crazy:

[hughee99]

69. Yes, and the GOP's loyalty to W

has now left their party decimated, a significant minority in both houses, and for the first time I can remember, their candidate was at a MAJOR disadvantage when it comes to campaign money. They lost Virgina and North Carolina! Sometimes loyalty destroys a party rather than strengthening it.

[vanderBeth]

71. I don't think you should try using reason

The post you are replying to said we need to be more like the GOP, god bless them. :crazy:

[Whoa20]

75. they were loyal to Nixon(before Wgate) and Reagan,

which is why for the last 40 years, they have controlled at least either the exec, legislative, or both for 32 years. Power always ends, but they at least got to have it for a long time. If Dems had been loyal to Clinton on health care, Gingrich would have been just another minority whip for the ages.

[tekisui]

98. We are not lockstep repukes following criminals.

Jeezus what a ridiculous argument for "loyalty".

[immoderate]

140. Loyalty itself doesn't account for Republican success.

They terrorized the working class, f'gosh sakes!

--IMM

[Skittles]

76. there is a difference between loyalty and blind worship

learn what the fuck it is

[hughee99]

132. Loyalty is when people I like

support someone even when they disagree. Blind worship is when people I don't like support someone even when they disagree.

[Citizen_Penn]

136. Loyalty is for losers.

And absolutely no required by winners.

Sounds like the symphony of whiners is tuning up.

Hillary can stay home, for all I care. If she requires my LOYALTY, she doesn't deserve it.

[hughee99]

147. I agree...

No one is above vetting. I don't know who came up with this "Clintons don't need to be vetted" horse shit.

[yourguide]

94. I'm sorry

is president elect Obama now bashing the clintons because he's vetting her?

and apparently she's soooooooooooooooo offended by it that she and bill are cooperating?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/us/politics/17memo.html?em

Clinton Vetting Includes Look at Mr. Clinton

Article Tools Sponsored By
By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
Published: November 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers have begun reviewing former President Bill Clinton’s finances and activities to see whether they would preclude the appointment of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, Democrats close to the situation said Sunday.



:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Doityourself]

54. Sorry, yes they do! n/t

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

64. More like obvious childish flamebait...

The only reason why someone would not want the Clintons to go through the USUAL vetting process that everyone else who is applying for a position with the Obama administration is because they are actually scared of what might be found out.

Otherwise, vetting is like getting a credit check before getting a loan. If you tell the banker you want the loan without a credit check, guess what happens.

The same goes with vetting. You get checked and if you don't want to or think you need to be vetted, guess what happens.

Thinking the Clintons are above getting vetted is delusional. Making it seem like we should all agree is FLAMEBAIT.

[AtomicKitten]

83. yahtzee

Thinking the Clintons are above getting vetted is delusional.

Making it seem like we should all agree is FLAMEBAIT.

:thumbsup:

[sniffa]

86. You need to update your sig

365. :D

[Aviation Pro]

60. Whoa, Whoa.....

....that loyalty thingy didn't do us much good for the past eight years.

[vanderBeth]

63. See post #55

But, but the GOP were loyal and we got Regan and Bush! :crazy:

[AZBlue]

67. Yes, they do. Everyone up for a cabinet position has to go through it. EVERYONE.

[1Hippiechick]

72. I thought they already had a 'vette. n/t

[quakerboy]

73. What makes us any different?

I would hope at least a part of it is that we do not go down the crony route. And we follow all the laws and cut no corners.

[AtomicKitten]

74. You're adorable.

[KakistocracyHater]

77. Make her head of Dept of Health & Human Services

it was her PASSION during her husband's term, it makes sense & hopefully plays to her strengths. DHHS

[cali]

81. no way would Obama offer a second tier cabinet post to her. no way

would she accept.

[KakistocracyHater]

146. 2nd tier is an insult-it's her PASSION

so what if it's not FLASHY enough to you, UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE is what she FOUGHT FOR! Wtf is with this 2nd tier crap!!

[No Elephants]

78. Republicans, like Kissodeath, do not have to worry now about whether Bill's activities will be a

conflict of interest for Hillary, if she is SOS. They can cheer now and attack later. Obama does not have that luxury. He has to get it right from the jump. Chill.

[TexasObserver]

79. Vetting involves detailed disclosures by the person being vetted.

We all know what we've seen in media. That is a form of vetting, but it's not the kind of vetting done for Cabinet appointments. Those "vettings" are really extensive investigations into the personal and business connections of the person under consideration.

I want Hillary to get the job, but that doesn't change the need for the vetting which Obama clearly requires.

You would agree that it is Obama's call on vetting, not yours or anyone else's, correct?

[Sensitivity]

80. Clintons should be able to hide sources of the $350 mill foundation donations and Billions in CGI

Obama has to realize that Clinton activities are their private business.

[nod factor]

82. The Bush team was smart.

They picked Colin & Condi not only in a failed attempt at gaining ground among minorities but also because both were not particularly sharp and captivating that they would overshadow the dummy at the helm. Love her or hate her Hillary is an awesome force. A team of rivals is a sexy idea but in crafting one's own legacy I would tread softly.

[NYCGirl]

84. You're mistaken. Powell is 100x more popular than Bush, with both parties

and always has been.

[nod factor]

85. Of course he is.

But he is not the force that Hillary is.
Neither is Condi.
Why would Lebron want Kobe on his team, it would neuter his potential legacy as an NBA star.

[NYCGirl]

99. Powell is WAY more popular IN BOTH PARTIES than Hillary Clinton.

No contest.

[davidpdx]

88. Actually you are wrong

Any person for SOS would have to be throughly vetted. My guess is Hillary Clinton herself had only some security clearance in the WH and probably has a certain level for the US Senate. No one gets special treatment. That's something that has happened during the Bush Administration and we can see what a mistake that was.

Those who claim it's about hating Hillary Clinton are delusional.

Unfortunately both Hillary Clinton and her husband have to be vetted. Whether they want to be is a different story.

[4themind]

89. To not be vetted means

that we assume that everything that is to be known about the Clintons is already known. That is to say there ARE no unknown unknowns(or if they were they wouldn't be "significant"), and of course there is no way to KNOW that by definition, that's just simple logic (unless you categorically reject all new information about them as "insignifican't if/whenever it becomes known), That could apply whether they've been in the public spot light for 16 years or from just before the beginnings of the known universe. Obama is the one putting out this offer, he decides if we wants hillary to go through vetting to get the job, and they can decided whether they want to accept it or not. We do NOT know who is on that presidential donor list, and that may not be something that you care about, but it may matter to others, particularly obama, so that's one thing right off the bat that we(the public and perhaps obama's team) don't know about, and at least publicly, Hillary has suggested we WOULD not know about it unless she became president.

[sufrommich]

90. Has Hillary Clinton refused to be vetted? If not, than why the

debate?

[tekisui]

91. This post reeks of something.....

:think:

[bunnies]

102. cat shit.

:rofl:

[DeeDeeNY]

92. Did anyone think that John Edwards needed vetting?

He ran as the vice-presidential candidate in 2004, so logically wouldn't it seem he had already been vetted? But it would have been a disaster for Democrats if he had gotten the presidential nomination this year and then the details of his affair were uncovered.
This is why everyone needs to be vetted. If there's nothing there, then what's the problem?

[yourguide]

93. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha

Clinton Vetting Includes Look at Mr. Clinton

By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
Published: November 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers have begun reviewing former President Bill Clinton’s finances and activities to see whether they would preclude the appointment of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, Democrats close to the situation said Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/us/politics/17memo.html?em


Good luck with that, the Clintons are being vetted as you enjoy your cheese and whine...

[Life Long Dem]

95. Either does Bill Richardson

No vetting for Gates for SOS as well.

[Marrah_G]

97. Every nominee needs to be vetted- even the Clintons.

[Skwmom]

100. Yes it does say something. The Neocons consider the Clintons one of them and the Republicans know

that this pick will help the Republicans rebuild their party. You don't think they won't be pushing the meme that the Obama Administration is nothing more than Clinton, part III?

There are MANY Americans that do not want the dishonest Clinton duo to be the face of American's foreign policy.

I thought we were turning a page.

[sufrommich]

101. Why would choosing Hillary Clinton as SOS be perceived as a

third Clinton term? And how would appointing her SOS constitute a "duo"? Do you imagine she would take orders from her husband as opposed to the President?

[mmonk]

103. I keep forgetting they are royalty. Sorry.

[bunnies]

104. Two weeks and you're alrady lecturing DU?!

:rofl: Interesting.

on edit... excuse me. 10 days. :spray:

[Alter Ego]

105. Yes they do.

Bill's a very influential figure and there's a lot of stuff probably buried in his financial records. 99% of it is probably nothing (i.e. bullshit conspiracy theory crap created by the RW) but the other 1% needs to be brought to PE Obama's attention.

And I think the "You can't have a SOS who voted for the war!" argument is crap. If you limit your search to those who opposed the war from the inception your list will be very short indeed. Joe Biden voted for it, but no one is questioning his foreign policy street cred.

[Erin Elizabeth]

107. I was just getting back to being able to like them again.

JUST getting back to that. And now with all this Secretary of State shit, with all this "they're above being vetted" shit, I'm getting that old gag reflex back when I just see the word "Clinton." And I hate that. I want to like them again, goddammit.

SO STOP IT.

#$%U&($*$(#P&*^P%#


Why does it feel like our mouths are being pried open and the Clintons are always being shoved down our collective fucking throats? A woman I work with has been actually demanding, every single day, that Obama "GIVE HILLARY A CABINET POST, OR ELSE." Or else what, she won't say. She's actually written letters, PLURAL, to Obama since November 4, telling him now he can "make up for the primaries and not picking her for VP" and I assume for global warming, too, or some such shit. Claims she's mailed them, but I wonder where to?

Can I just send Hillary a quart of my blood and be done with this? A pound of my flesh? Would that work?

[happychatter]

109. That's right. They've been vetted and they FAILED. I couldn't agree more. NT

[babylonsister]

110. Bwhahahahaha! nt

[Erin Elizabeth]

111. Here's something far more reasonable from me:

Why WOULDN'T the Clintons want to be vetted?

Think about it: let's say the Obama team fully vets Hillary to be SoS. She takes the job. Then later some shit comes up or something. She can honestly and with all veracity say "hey, I was fully vetted."

You would WANT THAT. I'm sure she KNOWS that. She's not stupid. Nor is she wanting to slip in a back door. Don't you have more respect for her than to try to sneak her in somehow?

No. She also, I'm sure, wouldn't want special treatment not afforded to others.

[Citizen_Penn]

113. Gee, a whole ten days and starting flamers

meh

boring.

[blm]

115. Newsflash: Kerry voted for IWR, then stood against invasion when weapon inspectors were proving

force was NOT NEEDED. Hillary sided with Bush's decision to invade, and Bill Clinton vigorously defended Bush on that decision throughout his summer2004 book tour even as Kerry was leading attacks on Bush's decision to invade.

Maybe if Hillary had sided with Kerry against the DECISION to invade before, during and after, she'd have been more credible during her own run.

[Hepburn]

116. Date the OP joined the DU: Nov 06th 2008

Thanks, but no thanks to your bridge to nowhere.

[rvablue]

127. Hepburn, I find it staggering that it took someone so long to recognize

this thread for what it is: troll bait.

And you get the blue ribbon for finally pointing it out.

I like Hillary, voted for her in the primary and have to say I will be happy and proud if she is SoS.

However, they are going to have to disclose those library and foundation contributions...even if it's just privately with Obama, but it needs to be done.

[kevinds13]

117. So

You don't think Obama needs to know who has donated to Bill's library or the Global Initiative? There could be distinct conflicts of interest with Hillary as SoS and some of the high profile donors and head's of state that meet with Bill.

[asdjrocky]

118. It's stuff like this that makes me wish the Clintons would just go away.

[City Lights]

119. So says you.

:eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

121. I guess somebody had better explain politics to Obama STAT!

:rofl:

[HeraldSquare212]

122. Nothing turned up on the Kazahkstan thing?

1) he went there, publicly lauded a virtual dictator as a democrat, 2) his supporter who accompanied him on the trip got a uranium mining deal days later and 3) the supporter later made a $31M donation to the Clinton Foundation.

I'd say we know all we need to know.

[Debi]

124. Poor Joe Biden...to think Sen. Obama FORCED a 35-year Senate veteran

to go through the vetting process in order to be considered for Vice-President of the United States. Really - after 35 years and two presidential races he'd already been vetted. But that damned Barack Obama so rudely made JOE BIDEN go through the humiliating vetting process :banghead: What's next with THAT MAN????

[redqueen]

125. Welcome to DU. (nt)

[Barack_America]

142. Or welcome back?

:shrug:

[Medusa]

126. Unless Bill hands over the donor list from his foundation

and the donors to his library and the foundation then she has not been vetted and unfortunately, Hillary's tied to Bill with the proverbial ball and chain.

[moondust]

135. The pitter-patter of little PUMA paws.

Clintons are GOD doncha know!!

[Phx_Dem]

137. Don't be ridiculous. Bill Clinton has been out of office

for 8 years during which time he has raised more than $100 million dollars for his Library and Foundation, much of which came from foreign countries.

Yes, Virginia. Bill Clinton DOES have to be vetted. Especially Bill Clinton.

[Az_lefty]

139. Bill's finances are a real problem. It's probably the reason Hillary didn't get chosen for VP

The vetting has to happen or it's likely to be one scandal after another for a new Obama admin. He can't afford to be distracted by this.

[endarkenment]

141. whoa there, of course they do

Every candidate under consideration is undergoing vetting. It is the process. There is a reason for the process. If you don't collect a complete dossier on your candidate you will be blindsided by some opposition party senator's staff who have done their homework, and your candidate, should he or she actually be selected as the nominee, will get hammered in the hearings.

[apocalypsehow]

144. Slow day over at that "haven for independent activists," huh?

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

145. Is it Pizza time yet?! Make a way, Lord! Make a way!

[Starry Messenger]

148. Aww...did your website go away? n/t

[tandem5]

149. it is ridiculous...

Vetting? Obama has been on the national stage for about four years. He's picking former Clinton personnel for his administration. Bill Clinton was our president for eight years. Hillary and Bill Clinton are not joined at the hip - they are two individuals. She is a senator representing the state of New York. She has gone through extensive vetting, the most recent of which was a long, drawn-out primary where she got nearly as many popular votes as Obama. Vetting? That's an insult.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

151. Say it with us: President Obama n/t

[tandem5]

152. I was attempting a little diplomacy

:-)

[Genevieve]

153. President Barack Obama.

[Sebastian Doyle]

155. yeah, that settles it.....

Poor little things just can't get over it. :cry:

[Starry Messenger]

156. Time for a little acceptance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jll5baCAaQU

[Motown_Johnny]

154. Bill needs to be vetted in real time.. He is in Kuwait, we need to look into

the money he got today!!!

16 year old vetting isn't good enough


talk about crazy

[wisteria]

157. Sorry, there is a need to vet them- this has not been done since Pres. Clinton was out of office.

As for clinton's support- it is all Republican. She is not qualified for this position, does not have the temperment and it should not be given to her simply because she is a Clinton.