Comments on: Clinton Loaned Campaign $5M

Democratic Candidate Loaned Money Late Last Month

[samthetvcat]

"My philosophy is don''t loan if I don''t have money.
I don''t understand why Presidency is so important to her ? She could help people some other way, because she''s senator."
Posted by vivaviva80

Yes, I believe this too - that''s the cardinal rule of fiscal responsibility: if you can''t afford it, don''t spend the money. Having less money should have been an opportunity for her campaign to get creative about getting free advertising. Besides, the Huckabee/Romney results from SuperTuesday show that money will never trump message.

And yeah, I feel like if you''re really about helping people then a title shouldn''t matter, especially when they''ve got the Clinton name to open so many doors for them.

But then again, she''s only ''loaned'' the money to her campaign - I guess she''s not really planning on spending her own money, she''s expecting voters to foot the bill (?) I''m not sure what the plan is for her because there''s always another battle around the corner that''s going to need $. So when does she make back the $? I guess she considers it an ''investment'' in the sense that even if she loses, she''ll be able to get book deals and speaking engagements which''ll make the money back (?)

[katg21]

when Clinton was in office we had a SURPLUS, NO WAR AND WERE RESPECTED WORLD WIDE. The rest of the world was shocked that the effects of the Lewinsky affair ever went as far as it did. It did because of Repubs and gossips like all of you. Sickening and pathetic!Posted by CitizenUSA

What do you think Clinton would have done if 9/11 happened on his watch? I don''t believe he would have done one thing different. Hell, his wife even voted for going into Iraq. Why is it that you Clinton LOvers are so quick to give him a pass on all of the *** he did? He LIED UNDER OATH! That is breaking the law need I remind you. If you had done the same you''d be in jail. Why do you believe him to be above the law?

[katg21]

Can''t we just scratch these candidates and start all over? They all suck. I really think that there has been way too much election coverage, the media has ruined it for us. I''m at the point now where I really don''t care who wins anymore.

[citizenusa-2009]

Wow, you "Clinton Bashers" must really be "out there". Has it even occurred to you that your Republicans are counting their profits from the Iraq war contracts and obscene oil prices and LAUGHING AT YOU! Oh, ye of short memory, when Clinton was in office we had a SURPLUS, NO WAR AND WERE RESPECTED WORLD WIDE. The rest of the world was shocked that the effects of the Lewinsky affair ever went as far as it did. It did because of Repubs and gossips like all of you. Sickening and pathetic!

[citizenusa-2009]

I just read that this little known Senator from Illinois (Obama)raised 32 million dollars to Hillary''''s 12 million. How do you supposed that happened? Who might have that kind of money to contribute? Perhaps, the Conservative Repubs? Hedge their bets and back Obama because he won''''t have the experience to be immediately dangerous to the Republican Party. Hillary, on the other hand knows what needs to be done and has the means to do it.

The Neocons know it will take Obama a good three years to figure out how to navigate the system to actually get something accomplished!

[samthetvcat]

$5million in debt due to a live-for-today, confidence in tomorrow''s success attitude - I honestly can''t understand how people can look at her and think she''s a candidate capable of bringing fiscal responsibility back to government. A normal human being would feel like a phony asserting that they''re capable of balancing a checkbook when they they''re spending more than they''re bringing in. Then there''s the Clintons . . . unbelievable that half the nation''s Democrats actually buy her schtick . .

[user168-2009]

So who is your choice, an experienced (although not real presidential experience such as 2-term Bush experience) candidate who lies for you and may someday lie against you, or a so-called not-so-experienced candidate who has shown honest and sound judgment over the Iraq War? (Senator Obama''s insightful speech on Oct. 26, 2002 opposing the use of force over Iraq: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.phpaz=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4327360&mesg_id=4327360)

"... But we ought not %u2014 we will not %u2014 travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."
------------

"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death."

"The enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution."

"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it."

"How could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men, women, and children?"

Oh where, oh where were my Hillary tears when I needed thou?

Voting on Iraq War is like eating jellybeans, "you can tell a lot about a fella''s character..."

[katg21]

Because, she is smart, steadfast, devoted to politics and the American peoplePosted by RowdyTexan2

Who of the candidates isn''t? That doesn''t make her the most qualified.

[approvedcbs]

LOL

Barack used Super Tuesday to narrow the delegate gap, and bankrupt Hillary.

Not so stupid for negro.

LOL

[ioweign]

She must have used $5M from the $20M that Bubba made lobbying for the Dubai purchase of US ports.

Interesting she has not been able to adequately manage the finances of her campaign. She neither can raise adequate revenue nor balance the budget.

Posted by donbl1 at 05:53 PM : Feb 06, 2008

Beats having to get life insurance like McCain had to when he got a loan for his campaign...

[Krazcarl]

I''ll be honest I find it troubling all this talk about politicail fund raising the wealtyh throw in there casch the rest is back slapping for favor these folks dunping in vast sums of cash aren''t doing it to be nice future policy is agreed on. I know this is old news but its becoming blatantly obvious the highest post in the land is bought not elected, Mcain outspent 10 to 1 him and Huck are the only ones I remotely trust and I''m a liberal demacrat that is looking hard at the republicain tick tired of fast talkers. This is troubling the office of president shouldn''t be for sale but apparently it is. I''ve never voted republicain in my life {50} this may be the first time the dems are offering no solid plan just talk of change we''ve all heard that before.

[hypnotoad72]

Ruh-roh.

[hawksprings]

Wonder if her and Bill ever paid back the poor saps who donated to their Legal Defense of BJ''s Fund?

[shutupnvote]

73 percent more Dem voted yesterday then did Republicans, LOL hahahaha

[fstop100]

who is going to pay her back if they (clinton''s) lose?

[forthepeopl1]

THE ONE I POSTED JUST BEFORE YOURS ON THE MILITARY ACT WAS PROTACTING ALL SERVENT OF WASHINGTON NOT TO BE ABLE TO BE PROSECUTED FOR ANY WAR CRIMES AND SHE MADE IT BACK DATE IT WHILE HUBBY WAS IN OFFICE.

SHE IS A PIG.....................................

[forthepeopl1]

HEY ROWDY-TAXEN--GET A LIFE, SHE/HE IS THE DEVEL..

SHOW ME ONE THING IN THE LEG/ THAT SHE STARTED AND GOT PASS INTO LAW..JUST ONE THAT HELPS AMERICA/AMERICANS...

PLEASE SHOW US????????????????????????????

[forthepeopl1]

CLINTON, HELP THIS GET PASS LATE IN THE NIGHT AND BUSH SIGN IT BEHIND CLOSE DOORS...


First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is "that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:

The MCA%u2019s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the "war on terror" from prosecution.[33]

[rowdytexan2]

How many poor or "middle class" National/Federal based politicians do you know.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by republic1776 at 05:50 PM : Feb 06, 2008

None. Most politicians are very power and wealthy people. Haven''t you noticed?

[forthepeopl1]

[edit] Criminal and Civil Prosecutions
Two provisions of the MCA

First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is "that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:

The MCA%u2019s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the "war on terror" from prosecution.[33]