From The Road
April 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Despite Differing Views on Trade, Hillary Vows Not To Muzzle Bill

(CBS)
From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:

ALQUIPPA, PA. -- During a press conference today, Hillary Clinton said that despite the fact that she and her husband have different views on trade issue, she respects his decision to speak out about it.

“This is a great debate,” Clinton said, “There are two sides to this debate, you know, it is not a hundred to nothing.” Clinton echoed a statement put out by her campaign yesterday where she points out that its common for married couples to disagree on issues.

“I have a long record of being on a different attitude on trade than my husband does. I don’t think any married couple I know agrees on everything and we disagree on this,” Clinton said at the press conference.

News reports began showing up on the Internet yesterday stating that former President Bill Clinton had accepted money on behalf of the Colombian government in order to promote a free trade deal. His wife has been an outspoken critic of the deal, primarily because union workers, a strong base of support for the Democratic party, claim the deal will make it easier for corporations to ship jobs outside the U.S.

“You know very credible people who care very deeply for this country who have a commitment to improving the economy for working people, have a different view, so that’s what debates are about and we’re going to have a chance to step up and vote on it and I intend to step up and vote on it as I have said I would,” said Clinton.

Clinton was also asked about the recent sacking of Mark Penn as chief strategist, someone who has worked with the Clintons for years, but was a source of controversy for the campaign in many ways.

Most recently, Penn who works for Burson-Marsteller, set up meetings with Colombian officials to discuss the pending free trade agreement, a move that angered Clinton and her staff. But despite Penn’s blunder, he remains an adviser to Clinton who was asked to explain Penn’s role in her campaign.

“His firm continues to provide polling and advice, but he is no longer chief strategist,” she answered.

Clinton added, “there wasn’t any connection between my campaign and with what he did with his independent business capacity.”
Tags:
Clinton
Topics:
Hillary Clinton
Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
by popstom1 April 9, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
At least he''s not lock in the
closet
Reply to this comment
by kate1149 April 9, 2008 7:17 PM EDT
Hillary Clinton''s biggest negative has always been her marriage to Bill Clinton. How can anyone think that these two should be back in the White House? The couple earned millions of dollars together over the last 8 years from Bill Clinton''s influence peddling on issues which Hillary Clinton claims in public not to support. It is a huge conflict of interest to say you are against something in public so you can get elected, and then take money from the group that supports the issues you are claiming not to support. It is not about Bill being able to voice his opinions, it is about taking money from groups that you claim to be working against. Quite a racket the Clinton''s have going.
Reply to this comment
by blackspirit3 April 9, 2008 7:19 PM EDT
You muzzle a dog, but this is the same dog that leap yards and go hump other B-----. Hillar you wnat my vote, or my respect, dump that trash and be a queen.
Reply to this comment
by mrtutto April 9, 2008 7:49 PM EDT
There they go again..... to make her look tough,Bill lets her wag his tail. Reminds me of the cheating husband who gets caught and if the wife doesn''t leave him, he is forever in the dog house. Obviously if she disagrees with him now....surely she disagreed with him when he passed NAFTA. That is total bull. I have seen at least 3 videos where she is supporting NAFTA. Now she is losing because Obama is outspending her. He has the money. Regular people have given to his campaign. Look at Hillary..... she has to get money from Elton John. By the way foreign nationals are forbidden to give money to a campaign either directly or indirectly..... So Hillary is breaking the law... Does she care ? probably not.
Reply to this comment
by shutupnvote April 9, 2008 8:14 PM EDT
More than 45,000 blacks signed up to vote in the first three months of 2008, compared with just over 11,000 in the first three months of 2004. White voter registration more than doubled with 106,000 new registrations between Jan. 1 and March 31, compared with 47,000 four years ago.

Blacks have historically accounted for about one-third of voters in North Carolina''s Democratic primary. Obama has won a string of Southern primaries and caucuses in states with a large share of black voters.


...
Reply to this comment
by stn_sage April 9, 2008 8:15 PM EDT
There was a time when as much as I didn''t personally like the Clintons, I thought they were reasonable as political leaders in America---but their behavior following the end of his presidency through today has been despicable!

Her word is as dependable as a $3 dollar bill is spendable! That is, NOT REALLY!
Reply to this comment
by stirg April 9, 2008 10:04 PM EDT
Honestly, do any one of you actually know anything about the trade bill pending? Truthfully you know more about making paper airplanes, so lets just go with where hillary stands on the columbian trade bill-against-no one else in this story is running for your president
Reply to this comment
by thisandthat1 April 9, 2008 10:05 PM EDT
She''s not going to muzzle him, but she didn''t say anything about not fitting him for a chastity belt!
Reply to this comment
by sgtrds April 9, 2008 10:41 PM EDT
Why should she? He has a complete right to free speech just like anyone else.
Reply to this comment
by hp32970c April 9, 2008 11:27 PM EDT
So he accepted money from the Colombian government to promote the free trade bill? And where exactly would he be doing that promoting?? Could it be to his wife the president?? It''s such blatant conflict of interest. Why couldn''t he turn down that money since his wife is running for pres? It''s not like they haven''t enough of it.
Reply to this comment
by sueb451 April 9, 2008 11:30 PM EDT
When you market yourself as ''two-for-one'' (which the Clintons have always done), how can you blame people for wondering who''ll be making the decisions. Take the Colombia trade deal. Bill was paid $800,000 to promote the trade deal which (since they file joint tax returns) presumably benefits them both. Hillary is against the deal and she says how disappointed she is that Bush has submitted the trade deal for a vote now. Is this because now she has to vote on it before the nomination is decided? The problem with the Clintons is you never know what''s true.
Reply to this comment
by randynason April 10, 2008 12:53 AM EDT
That''s right, Hillary. Keep stirring that rancorous pot of hot verbiage stew you''re so famous for serving. Hillary is actually a Republican wearing Democratic pants-suits.
Reply to this comment
by anappleadae April 10, 2008 1:09 AM EDT
I am always amazed at diversionary tactics used as stories. I''m not discounting the Penn story; Or Hillary''s position on the issue; or even Bill Clinton''s position. The real life, death and security issues always seem take back seat to monica, or superfluous Candidate embelishments, while right beneath our noses serious National Security issues are all but ignored.

I really wonder about the average level of integrity of a U.S.Citizen. Some gossip; some drama, or some ridicule about the integrity of a candidate when the critics themselves have no genuine understanding or concern for vital issues.

Is it because we are the decendants of a social environment brought about by the Constitution that we have become seriously ignorant and complacent about the declining value of our standard of living and social environment?
Are we little more than a credit card mentality,thinking "don''t worry be happy"?
Reply to this comment
by karela33 April 10, 2008 1:45 AM EDT
Hillary, in speaking of the trade deal and Bill''s opinion says, "This is a great debate. There are two sides to this debate." How nice. I think that''s the beginning of explaining to us that she changed her mind and now whatever jobs haven''t already gone to China or Mexico can go to Columbia. If you would trust the well being of anyone you love to this two-fer couple, you''re taking an awful chance. Ohio got fooled. Pennsylvania, are you listening? The Clintons brought you NAFTA. Hillary helped ram it through and Bill still thinks it was his greatest success. Now, here comes another one. The guts have been torn out of our manufacturing jobs and out of our standard of living and the Clintons had more to do with it then anybody else who is standing around to see. Do you really want to see if they do it again???
Reply to this comment
by leef531 April 10, 2008 1:59 AM EDT
ccfsdca:
Can''t stand it, huh? Driving you nuts, watching her lose it. You were pushing so hard, and she blew it, there is no hope now, and you know it. Like a itch that won''t go away in the middle of your back, and you can''t reach it to ease the discomfort. Obama itch. And its spreading. Soon, very very soon to consume your whole body mind and soul.
Relax. Accept Fate. It will be easier.
Obama 08
Reply to this comment
by b-easy63 April 10, 2008 2:40 AM EDT
Hillary and Bill--your 2 for 1 deal. Look out CAFTA here comes the team from NAFTA!!!! Bwah hahahsahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by oldtimer331 April 10, 2008 10:51 AM EDT
Isn''t it time that we begin looking at the morality of the Clinton campaign? Something is functionally wrong with the dysfunctional Clintons and their marriage, moral attitude, respect for others, as well as our Nation? Do we really want a dysfunctional couple, who lie and divert attention from an illicit afair with a young senseless girl, back in the Whitehouse? Who routinely through their lives became wealthy through shady financial deals (in the background)? Who have a history of partaking in demonstrations against the US on foreign soil and burning the US Flag? I look at the fiber in the person, what were there actions getting to this point in their lives? I compare these people and whether or not they are WORTHY of leading our country. I much prefer the person who has been down working ''where the rubber hits the road'' with the poor and underprivilidged. Specifically, Obama in Chicago. Who cares whether Hillary muzzles Bill? The two of them should be muzzled and shipped back to the chicken farms in Arkansas. Next Greyhound Bus.
Reply to this comment
by jockh April 10, 2008 11:47 AM EDT
The Clintons are tight fisted money grabbers. Despite lining their pockets with 109 MILLION, Hillary merely LOANS her campaign 5 MILLION. Why doesnt she GIVE it to her campaign instead of LOANING and put her money where her mouth is? After all, other candidates like Mitt Romney put millions of their own money into their own campaigns.

That way she would be showing that she has complete confidence in her campaign and this in turn would encourage other donations.

However, she loans instead of gives to her own campaign because she knows she is going to lose so she would rather waste donors money in her futile campaign and keep all her millions nice and safe; so she can sleep in a solid gold bed with a mattress stuffed with 100 dollar bills. And solid gold pant suits for herself and Chelsea !!
Reply to this comment
by jack3213 April 10, 2008 12:24 PM EDT
IF OBAMA WERE NOT BLACK WOULD HE STILL BE SO POPULAR? IF CLINTON WERE NOT A WOMAN WOULD SHE HAVE HALF AS MANY VOTES? ANSWERS: NO. WHY? NEITHER IS QUALIFIED AND IF THEY WEREN''T WHO THEY ARE THEY WOULD BE SERIOUSLLY MOCKED FOR BEING SO INEXPERIANCED.
Reply to this comment
by realpatriot1 April 10, 2008 1:14 PM EDT
jack3213,

The sme could be said for McCain, if h weren''t a former POW we would be focusing on his admitted lack of understanding of the economy and his unadmitted ignorance of Shiites, Sunnis, Al Quaeda, and Iran.

I for one am not voting for Obama because of race or possing Hillary because of gender. We all back the candidates who generally share our views on the issues most important to us and the polls show those to be the economy and the war for all people accross the spectrum.
Reply to this comment
by blackspirit3 April 10, 2008 1:19 PM EDT
JUANITA BROADDRICK-- The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick''''''''s accusation that Bill Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978 during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was that state''''''''s Attorney General. In the interview, she declared that Clinton suddenly "turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him ''''''''no.''''''''... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him ''''''''no.''''''''... He wouldn''''''''t listen to me." In an interview for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Broaddrick claimed that Clinton told her not to worry about pregnancy, because childhood mumps had left him sterile. WHY HILLARY MUZZLE BROADDRICK?
Reply to this comment
See all 21 Comments

About From The Road

Description for From the Road

  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented