Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP: (S.C.) (Hillary) Clinton Defends Consulting Contract

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 05:35 PM
Original message
AP: (S.C.) (Hillary) Clinton Defends Consulting Contract
Clinton Defends Consulting Contract
In South Carolina, Hillary Rodham Clinton Defends Hiring Politician
Who Endorsed Her


By JIM DAVENPORT

FLORENCE, S.C. Feb 19, 2007 (AP) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham
Clinton on Monday denied that her campaign traded money for an endorsement from
one of South Carolina's most influential black politicians.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton responded to questions about the
consulting contract her campaign negotiated with state Sen. Darrell Jackson, who last
week endorsed her candidacy rather than of top rivals John Edwards or Sen. Barack
Obama, D-Ill.

"Senator Jackson was someone who was involved in my husband's campaigns. He was
someone we turned to for political advice and counsel and I'm proud to have him on
my team," Clinton told the AP.

Soon after the endorsement, Jackson acknowledged that his media consulting firm had
negotiated a $10,000 per month contract with Clinton's campaign. Jackson has said he
turned down more lucrative contracts from other candidates.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2887828
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. I question the voracity of one who is a State Senator, A Pastor of a mega church AND
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 05:56 PM by FrenchieCat
is a consultant in a marketing firm that he himself is the principal owner.

Sounds like a conglomerate to me. To many fingers in too many pots. Conflict of interest is all over the place in this story.

Hillary can defend if she wants to, but it doesn't look better for it.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. no evidence the Pastor is lying or has ever lied - AP says he turned down better offers from
5 other candidates - he endorsed Hillary because he liked her and thought she would be a good president.

The media slime machine is out in full force trying to turn whatever Hillary does into "evil" - or at least "something that might look evil because you know a Clinton has no ethics" - I really am tired of the media slime machine tearing down Democratic Party members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. So you don't see any potential conflict of interest at all......
regardless of who is being endorsed? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. the key word is "potential" - and that potential over last 25(?)years has not happened. To note
the potential without noting the history and that the other candidate's offers that were rejected is to set up a thread that does not discuss the total situation - in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. Even if legal, buying endorsements is a corrupt practice that must be condemned
FrenchieCat had an earlier thread about this apparently widespread practice, and it is not just confined to Team Hillary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It does look bad if the media wants to make it look bad and not note that the
highest dollar offer on the table was not chosen by Jackson.

Amazing how right wing media slime is repeated on DU if it is not against your candidate (not a run at you IG - I agree with you it "looks bad" - but I do believe noting that 5 offers were on the table, 5 asking for an endorsement, as well as past history of his jobs and endorsements and candidates that in the past that knocked on his door, are a must include factoids for this news story).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. That's not what look bad.....what looks bad is that the endorsement
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 07:16 PM by FrenchieCat
always comes hand in hand with the money contract. that's what looks bad.

His consulting firm worked for Clinton in 1996....and he endorsed Clinton in 1996.

His consulting firm "worked" for Edwards in 2004...and he endorsed Edwards in 2004.

His consulting firm accepted the money contract from Hillary in 2007...and he endorsed Hillary in 2007.

Meaning the money and the endorsement come together.

It would be different if there was an endorsement and no contract...or a contract and no endorsement. So yeah...it looks bad, and it really isn't good for our democracy.

Anyone endorsing that this is good for politics, and want to say that us (who have just found out that this practices is in a lot of our politics) who are calling attention to this are "helping" Right Wing politics is not thinking it through. The Right Wingers do it too, I'm sure...and I would frown on it just as much...if not more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. But if is not highest amount on the table, it only meams he likes to work for those he supports n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The fact that he went with his old friend the Clintons may, No. 1, may have been
an abhoration....and so, yes...this time he didn't go with the highest bidder. Maybe it's loyalty to the Clintons who he did the same thing for in 1996.

However, his statement that some other candidate (by process of elimination who must have been Edwards) offered twice as much is just that......his statement.

Further...the fact remains that he is accepting dollars for his endorsement....even if not directly.

I find this practice offensive, and I am surprised that you would defend it as Business as usual....no harm done.

The practice, regardless of the specific case you are looking at should not be part of the the democratic election process period. To say otherwise, is going along with believing that money and politics make for a better democracy. I literally don't buy that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Earlier today I asked the same question about an Obama endorsement
Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And if the Democrats are doing it, we can bet the GOP is doing it on a wider scale. This practice brings into question every endorsement ever made. As voters we must demand that a public acknowledgment be made of any deals arrived in the endorsement process. We have the right to know if a public official's endorsement of a presidential candidate is due to conviction, or political payola.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Its a good question - but I'm happy since he didn't go for the highest value contract offerred n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC