Thursday, March 27, 2008

Hmmm about Hillary

Since I'm a political news junkie, I've still been following the presidential race even though my man Mitt is out of it. It's not nearly as exciting anymore for me, but it's still important. I continue to not really like any of the top three candidates, so I'm leaning toward writing Mitt's name in when I vote as a symbolic gesture. Surprisingly, I've softened the slightest bit toward McCain, but I still don't like him much at all. So we'll see what happens. There are months left until it all really gets underway.

I've thought all along that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination. Even though it looked for awhile like Obama would get it, and it still kind of does look that way, I'm going to stand by my original prediction that she'll pull it out in the end, and that she'll choose Obama as her running mate.

I recently was sent this link to a very interesting investigative piece about the Clintons. I recommend watching it when you have about 15 minutes of free time. The interesting thing about it is that it's a big-time Democratic Hollywood guy who in the past was friends with the Clintons and raised a lot of money for them, but is now taking them to court. If the case that is made in this video really is true and their character really is that malignant, then having Hillary as Prez and Bill Clinton as de facto Vice Prez would truly be a nightmare.


Alyson said...

I'll have to watch that when I get a chance. I disagree, though, I think Obama will get it. At least I hope!

peter said...

This video seems primarily to be done by a guy (Paul) whose company (Stan Lee Media) seemed to be doing well at the height of the tech bubble ("market cap of $300 million") but failed when it did not get the $5 million of financing it needed. He blames his inability to land the $5 million in financing on the Clinton's.

While I'm not a fan of Clinton politics, I feel that this argument is probably flawed in a few ways. First, it seems to me that the company had a signficant amount of other problems. If it truly were worth $300 million (based on earnings, not bubble market valuation), it should have had little trouble borrowing the $5 million it needed, let alone needing an VC to come in and provide it.

It seems like he played the political game (donations for Hillary Clinton's campaign in return for Bill Clinton's endorsing of his products) and everything was fine and dandy until reports of Paul's past indiscretions came to light. Then the Clinton's did what almost every politician would do, dropped him like a hot potato instead of being publicly linked to a man with a troublesome past. Before the allegations came to light, the Clinton's and their advisors had extensive access to Paul and his people. After the Clinton's severed ties, one of Clinton's senior advisors meets separately with the investor who was considering investing in Stan Lee Media, and lured him to another opportunity. He believes that the Clinton's set their advisor on the investor, which while unprovable either way, seems to be a bit of a stretch. Most investors think with their wallets. If Paul had a tremendous opportunity that was better than the one the investor eventually invested in, it stretches belief that he would not have invested.

One curious argument on the Clinton's "conspiracy" seemed to be autographed paraphanelia and additional donation solicitation that came 2 days after the allegations came out and a few weeks after the last fundraiser Paul sponsored. This is curious since it seems more logical given the timeframes involved that the communications were simply crossed. Meaning, Clinton's people had likely already sent the paraphanelia and fundraising letter at the time the allegations became public.

That Clinton dropped Paul so quickly, though deplorable in a friend, is hardly surprising in a politician who was simply using him to raise money. Paul is hardly innocent here, however, as he was raising money for the SOLE purpose of hiring Bill Clinton to endorse his products. In other words, he was using the Clinton's just as he was being used himself.

The only really interesting thing is the allegations that Clinton broke the law (see the phone conversation at the end of the video). I'm not sure on the precise law, but it seems rather interesting that a candidate is not allowed to call a Major Fundraiser and thank them for their efforts. I'm not sure that proves conclusively that they were involved in the planning, which seems to be the crux of his argument.

At the end of the day, I can't say I'd be surprised if there was some truth to the allegations of Clinton's involvment and they should be investigated. That said, I think it unlikely that this will have that big an effect based on what was presented there.

Katie said...

Peter, I really appreciate your viewpoint on this. I saw this video a while ago, and it definitely didn't add to my opinion of the Clintons. While I am sure that hillary/bill have some fault in this, I also know that Peter Paul is in no way innocent.

Donna, I personally think its reasonable to say that when someone has been implicated in so many scandals, that it is virtually impossible for them to be completely clean. I have seen some interesting videos on Hillary and read some interesting reports. Obviously, there are some things that the media comes up with that need to be taken with a grain of salt. But, I think that it is hard to have been 100% innocent when you are implicated in more scandals than years you are old.

Donna said...

Thanks for the insightful comments you guys. Peter and Katie, you bring up good points about the Clintons and the Paul case. I value your opinions on these matters!