Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 For the longest time, the media was touting Obama as the Second Coming of Christ whereas Hillary was the devil to them. Now, it looks like the hit job is out on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Its okay to throw daggers at Obama without substantial proof, but when all signs point to Hil Shady's wrongdoings and lies, its not right to point it out. Don't you know that Roman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 My bad, Shawn. I'll remember that in the future......after Hillary cons the public into appointing her Queen of the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 She was in first place because of name recognition and the fact that the media damn near crowned her the Democratic Presidential nominee. One year ago, the media pretty much christened Hillary and Rudy the nominees and that everyone else was just well....running a losing race. It doesn't matter if she was in first place, she isn't now. Whoever is closest to the correct number of delegates needed should get the nomination. Screw back alley deals and coaxing superdelegates to vote for you. They should give it to the person closest to the number needed. If Hillary was ahead and Barrack was trying to pull this [!@#$%^&*], she would blast him and so would people in the party. It's an obvious double standard and IF Hillary manages to steal this election because of the superdelegates "bullied" into voting for her, then the democratic party will collapse. You can't expect people to unite under one party if she steals this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Hillary has had many daggers thrown at her over the years that far supercede ones thrown at Obama with about 95% of them being nonsense. It was just until a couple of weeks ago that Obama got a free pass from the media and was touted as the son of God while she was gum on the bottom of someone's shoe. I also sincerely hope that, if Obama is president, he does not launch a war with Pakistan. He did mention operations there but, if it is a short lived mission rather than a couple years' war, I will support his decision. Let's just make sure to spend as little as we can on military action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT Filed Under: Politics By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions." In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations. "This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down." Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said. Allegations: Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said. The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.” Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records. Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004. In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions. Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said. However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show. Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations. Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms. Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment. "The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked." Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC. The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit. Clinton Campaign Response: Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show. IPA Reaction: For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment." Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals." She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said. The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Southofnowhere Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 It's pretty sad when all the Clintons can come up with to bash Mr.Obama with is his middle name and the fact that he had a idiot for a preacher. The Clintons should have won this thing easy , given the way they run this race there's noway they can win the White House. If they steal this thing eought Obama supporters will stay Home for McCain to win , if that happens we will have another 4000 brave young men coming home in bodybags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Smart man. I'll have to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Only because she cried foul and acted as if the media was doing her wrong. But that was ok as long as they continued to call her the frontrunner and obvious Democratic Presidential Nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 No she was in first because the people want her to be the nominee and she had the most experience, best laid out ideas, and plans for the country. Sure the media crowned her the nominee but then things changed and they created this God like stature for Obama as if he is a Saint. He is not Gandhi. I think the next time we have an election where we are either selecting a new nominee for president (hopefully 2016 after eight years of a Democrat president) or trying to unseat an incumbent Republican POTUS (heaven help us!), we should discuss eliminating superdelegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Why should they not call her the frontrunner if she was ahead in national polls? The media has done her wrong much longer than Obama and trashed her way more than him....90% of the time it is based on bogus sh1t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Oh yes. The media has done her way wrong than Obama. Ok.... You wanna buy a bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Yeah, Hillary was a frontrunner until her arrogant ass deemed many states "not important" enough to campaign in. And surprise surprise, things didn't go her way. Who woulda thunk it? Didn't those states know that she is the obvious choice, even though she cared NOT about stepping foot into their borders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Oh yes they have. I think the first time they started doing a hit job on Obama was a couple of weeks ago. Compare that to, maybe, 15 years of Hillary Clinton bashing. I would rather buy a Hillary for President shirt button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 She is not the only arrogant ass in this race....Obama has said many arrogant things about her, such as at a debate when he brought up how he fought Reagan's ideas in the 80s while she was a corporate lawyer for Wal Mart. What did that have to do with anything? Is he naive enough to think that he is the only lawyer without skeletons in his closet? Now, yes she should have campaigned in every state she could and not pull the "unimportant" card but hey she is winning the states that matter the most. She has been the obvious choice since Kerry/Edwards lost in 2004. The show Commander in Chief was set up to be geared towards her presidency, not Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.