How the NYT's Clinton/Mining Deal Story relates to ELECTIONS:

[mod mom]

-snip

"Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent."

"Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy."

-snip
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html


OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

[disndat]

1. This BIG dog will hunt

This is huge and could sink H.C.'s candidacy. Her spinners are trying to say she has nothing to do with Bill's shady deals doesn't do it for me since he is jumping into her campaign in a big way.

[mod mom]

3. Her campaign has been stressing you get a 2 for 1 deal with them.

I say NO THANKS!

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Hillary already blasted Nazarbayev in the Senate

The anti-Clintonians here have been spinning this same article all morning.

Read the article again, WITHOUT concentrating on digging up dirt.

--p!

[mod mom]

6. I did read it, thank you and again, if the campaign is going to tout Bill, then they must

face the consequences.

As Lakoff said today:

"First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html



WHO WON'T SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT THE GUY? ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!

[Dogmudgeon]

17. Same thing for Teddy? And, Lakoff sells the Obama brand.

I see a double standard emerging here -- to say the least. If we're going to hang Bill as an albatross around Hillary's neck, then Obama should have to bear the weight of Teddy's mistakes.

Thanks for the link to the Lakoff article. I have been a fan of his for years. Sadly, I found the article was not up to Lakoff's usual level. It was quite amateurish. I have nothing against anyone supporting Barack Obama, but his reasoning is nonsense, seeming to have been lifted whole from one of those new-age magazines they give away free in vitamin stores.

Lakoff is doing the same thing he claims to oppose:

There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision.

In other words: "Obama wisely draws support from across the political spectrum, but Clinton shamelessly triangulates." So he thinks we'll fall for an old, simple reframing trick.

The article was a long-winded version of "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" but for a political candidate instead of a computer. "Vote for Barack Obama because he's hip, and Hillary is an uncool wonk!"

"WHO WON'T SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT THE GUY? ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!"

Believing malicious gossip in the form of popular opinion is not progressive political action. The fact that so many of us have bought into it is a bad sign.

And the truth doesn't have to shout.

--p!

[mod mom]

19. Sen Kennedy endorsed Obama. Hillary has been touting her husband as a "buy one get one free"

commodity. How many years in the senate has she served? and yet she touts 35 years of service in which she also includes her role as Bill's wife and first lady. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

"Believing malicious gossip in the form of popular opinion is not progressive political action" What are you referring to as malicious gossip? The NYT's piece?


"And the truth doesn't have to shout. " Oh yeah, then why the silence over stolen elections? Why the silence over inaccurate, unreliable and hackable electronic voting machines? Over disenfranchisement of Af Am voters? (I could go on forever)

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. best short para I've read in a while:

In other words: "Obama wisely draws support from across the political spectrum, but Clinton shamelessly triangulates." So he thinks we'll fall for an old, simple reframing trick.

Actually, I think Lakoff fell for the reframing trick. Regardless, you brought my discontent with the piece (which I didn't read closely) into focus.

Truth is, I think it's way too soon to predict how Obama's leadership style might compare to Bill Clinton's. (For a fair test, we would also need a Republican Revolution in 2010 -- not that there could be a Republican Revolution parallel to the one of 1994.)

That said, I don't buy that H. Clinton : B. Clinton :: Obama : Kennedy.

[madrchsod]

12. yes she has

but she`d better make it clear she had -no knowledge-of what he did. the perception that is smearing michelle obama because she was on the board of bay valley foods until may of 2007.

even though i detest hillary i am not happy about this. it`s not a good situation for her and our party. two "scandals" in this election is bad for the party and our chances of taking the presidency.just as important, if not more,electing every democratic senator and house member than is running. no matter who the candidate is they will need a super majority to pass anything

[Clintonite]

11. So once again Bill Clinton has been found guilty? What the fuck is wrong with you people?!?

quit hoping for a miracle and just pray that Obama can beat Hillary on the issues!Obama needs to prove he can win this and not count on some kind of unproven scandle to seal the nomination for him.

[mod mom]

14. "What the fuck" is wrong with us is that we here on this forum WANT ELECTION INTEGRITY!

You don't get that when you have a dictator who suppresses opposition monitor elections!

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Hillary? No, Bill.

Bill also got $100M+ for his charity for simply kissing Nazarbayev's ass once. A pretty good deal, all in all.

Incidentally, the NYTimes article reports that Hillary blasted Nazarbayev. The article's authors, Becker and Van Natta, wrote an anti-Hillary book, too.

--p!

[mod mom]

4. The NYT endorsed her. Do you really think the editors would allow this story if it wasn't fact check

-ed?

[Dogmudgeon]

8. "They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true!"

There are actually several unsourced statements in the article; they are not too difficult to pick up. As I've noted, the pair that wrote the article have been active anti-Clinton polemicists for a couple of years.

What you have is a tycoon who paid over $100M for a photo op, some nice words, and a little good PR. And Hillary already criticized him, rather strongly IIRC.

I've donated a bunch of stuff to a Baptist charity that helps single mothers who chose to NOT have abortions. It doesn't mean that I oppose reproductive choice or the Baptists support it.

--p!

[mod mom]

10. If you dispute the veracity of the article, take it up with the Times. I quoted their article.

Should we assume it is false just because it is critical of Clinton? The Times did endorse Hillary. I believe the editors would go to great lengths to fact check.

[stillcool]

7. I'm having some problems..

with this one. First of all, it is a story that is referencing something that happened in 2005...and it surfaces now? Secondly it's the New York Times.

[mod mom]

9. NYT-who btw, endorsed Hillary. The Clinton's keep using "we're vetted" and

anyway what difference does it make if it's 2005? Did we have different criteria about who should monitor elections back then?

[stillcool]

16. I did not say "what difference does it make"

what I said was the timing is suspect. As in how long have they been sitting on this? I believe there is a lot more going on in this election than what is on the surface. Watching the sides line up is interesting. Seems to be a real battle to reign in the runaway power grab on the last several decades. Just surmising.

[lapfog_1]

13. Wait... didn't the Times just endorse Hillary?

So, like, what? The NYT endorses the candidate that they then torpedo with a false story.

Why am I having a hard time with this one.

There are few world figures who are worse than Bush. Nazarbayev is one of them.

From wikipedia:

Transparency International ranked Kazakhstan 124th in its list of countries by corruption in 2004 with a score of 2.2 (on a scale of 0-10 with 0 indicating a "highly corrupt" state).<17>. Nazarbayev himself has been called one of "ultimate oligarchs" of the post-Soviet central Asia states.<18> He is believed to have transferred at least $1 billion worth of oil revenues to his private bank accounts in other countries and his family controls many other key enterprises in Kazakhstan.<18> He is also said to have benefited financially from his "special relations" with Kazakh-Israeli billionaire Alexander Mashkevich, who, as of 2004, was believed to control as much as one-fourth of Kazakhstan's economy.

and

An April 1995 referendum extended his term until 2000. He was re-elected in January 1999 and again in December 2005. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticized the last presidential election as falling short of international democratic standards.<9> On May 18, 2007, the Parliament of Kazakhstan approved a constitutional amendment which would allow Nazarbayev to seek re-election as many times as he wishes. This amendment applies specifically and only to Nazarbayev: the original constitution's proscribed maximum of two presidential terms will still apply to all future presidents of Kazakhstan.<10>

all in all, not the kind of guy to be seen with.



Note that this was Bill Clinton in Sept, 2005, not a picture from Bill doing Presidential duties.

[stillcool]

15. There my be some there there....

but don't you think it's a little odd, that the story pops out now? As far as the endorsement goes...who knows? Maybe their hedging their bets? This whole election has me scratching my head. My choice is Obama, because of his record, and his history. He is much more informed about the world I happen to inhabit. But there seems to be a tug-of-war going on between the backers of these two candidates. The DLC vs. the DNC and I can't help but wonder what the battle is really about.

[mod mom]

18. He's a Bush buddy and definitely a scoundrel:

Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.

Nazarbayev's upcoming visit, according to analysts and officials, offers a case study in the competing priorities of the Bush administration at a time when the president has vowed to fight for democracy and against corruption around the globe. Nazarbayev has banned opposition parties, intimidated the press and profited from his post, according to the U.S. government. But he also sits atop massive oil reserves that have helped open doors in Washington.

-snip

Nazarbayev, 66, a blast-furnace operator-turned-Communist functionary, has led Kazakhstan since 1990, when it was part of the Soviet Union, and has since won a series of tainted elections. His government has banned or refused to register opposition parties, closed newspapers and harassed advocacy groups. Two opposition leaders were found dead of gunshots in disputed circumstances.

-snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801282_pf.html