103 women over a course of years?  That's absolutely disgusting.  I can't believe Hillary would want their money and support.

Don't give it back Hillary.

SAY NO TO FARRAKHAN

SAY NO TO OBAMA

There goes her Rezco firepower...lol

This sounds a lot like the same old politics to me.  She's all for women's rights, YEAH RIGHT!  She's all for herself.

Um...yeah right. And perhaps the other reason they aren't giving it back is cause they can't afford to...They already spent it.

So much for her being a "champion of women everywhere".

Her hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Hillary, I'm not backing you up on this one.  I understand that our legal system provides that parties are innocent until proven guilty, but keeping the money?

Give the money back.  You've been an advocate for women's rights too long to take this.  Send the money back with a note that you'll be glad to accept donations from them if they are exonerated.  You'll find another $170,000.

maybe this will finally convince everyone giving the hillster a vote based on some sort of "you go girl" mentality to finally vote with their brain instead of their uterus

She should return the money.

Ethics are important.

Obama returned a bunch that Hillary was complaining about.

And she is perfectly okay with this while portraying herself as a champion of women.
I wonder how her supporters can excuse this.

I am going to stay above politics as usual and not denigrate Senator Clinton based on the above story although I am a strong supporter of Senator Obama.

Instead, I am going to ask First Read if they can speak to Chris Matthews about the chip he seems to have on his shoulder at the idea that as individuals we can in fact help make America a better place.  It is crazy to try and divide Senator Obama's message by only taking one aspect and leaving out everything else.  Senator Obama has always called on all of us to do better, to be better; he does this while he offers us the chance to once more participate in the political process to make governmental changes for the better.

However, without individual involvement, without individual change, what can one man do -- even if that man has the oratorical and negotiating skills belonging to Senator Obama?  If we are to see transformative change, we also have to act as individuals.  It is ridiculous to suggest that this is somehow a conservative, or a non-progressive response.  How do you think the progressive movement achieved so much?  Did it achieve it because one man said change?  No, it achieved so much because many people CHANGED the way they acted, the way they behaved and demanded that government do the same.  

The problem with Senator Clinton's remark that it took President Johnson to achieve the voting rights act is that she discounted the countless numbers of individuals who heard Martin Luther King Jr.'s call to act.  These individuals also changed the way they acted in fundamental ways.  They refused to shop at segregated stores.  They refused to ride on segregated buses.  Each action by a single individual combined to create a movement of millions which resulted in REAL transformative change.  

Yes we can!  Obama '08.

Hillary what happened to 'reject' and 'denounce', oh... only Barack has to do that.

Come on, Hillary, for all women everywhere, REJECT this discrimination.

What a hypocrit. She was worried about words reject v denounce, but the word of all those women & eeoc is not good enough?

After women have supported her so whole heartedly?!

Shame Clinton Shame!

This is just wrong!

What is it with the Clintons and issues of sex harassment? They can never seem to get away from it.

What will be the spin on this one? Even Mark Penn may have trouble here, huh?

I think Hillary realizes that she must be careful about what she says concering Barrack because she knows--Hillary knows deep down in her heart--that she is probably talking to the next President of the United States for the next eight years.

So, Hillary supporters, you will soon--very soon--have get past your prejudice and hang-ups.  It's not about sex, or race, or simple rhetoric. It's about the future direciton we, Americans, want to go.  There's the republican direction; there's the democratic direction; and there's the American Direction.  We are all in this together--which way do you really want to go.  Don't even begin to think that the republicans can win--after Bush's war? Please--it's not going to happen. Not with democrats turning out in record numbers? I was an independent conservative, but once I read Barrack's ideas on Education and Economy I said, "Son of a Gun! I haven't heard a politician make this kind of good common sense since--well --ever. And who has gotten the democrates so excited--The barrack/clinton race.  In the end, I believe Barrack can bring our country together, but only if we--the people--stand together behind him after he wins the nomination, and the Presidency.  Hillary, who is a good person, just has too much of a past (and not all of it good), and too much fight in her persona to bring any two sides together.  But there's a simple rule to follow, and it's not to vote for McCain out of spite because Hillary lost, and it's not to stay home and pout during election day.  The simple rule is to vote for what you feel will be best for America. I no longer wish to see the country I've fought for, the country some of my friends have died for, the country I love, be divided against itself any longer.

It's time for special interests to end; it's time for corruption to end; and its time for a new beginning.  Now, I don't think Barrack is perfect, but if we (the people) all stand behind him,then maybe some perfect things can happen in our goverment that have never had a chance of happening before. Let's give Barrack a chance to make things happen.  Let's give hime a chance to beat back the special interest, defeat the terrorist,give taxe breaks to the common working man, create new jobs with clean energy, put more students in college, get rid of the "gangs" in our streets, etc...etc... Maybe, just maybe, with we the people standing beside him,Barrack Obama could even restore the honor, pride, and strength of America for democrats, for republicans, for independents: but most of all-- for AMERICANS!

Yep, she's who I want standing up for women in the workplace.

I believe the Obama campaign has had about enough of the BS they can take for Penn and company.

All I can say is I hope they take it a little easier on the old man.

She's not returning it because she needs the money to compete with Obama.  She doesn't care about principles in this matter, just the money.  

They are strapped for cash and would take anything from the devil. This is a sad moment for the Clintons. She will not release her taxes because she has something to hide. See though this woman and her husband.

The champion of women's rights takes contributions from a Company alledged to have sexually harrased women.  Though this is only an allegation( suit is filed, President who is disbarred and a convicted criminal) the mere impropriety should have caused Ms. Clinton to not only return the contribution but to both reject and denounce this Company and its President.  Situational ethics in Hillary world.

WoW  As some comentator said re Obama( Limbaugh)  welcome to the bigs   I expect that this like the tax return refusals are rooted in the HRC view of the inevitability of her nomination.   This is slipping away   I still want to know where the 5 mil for the loan came from  Remember these people needed to rely on their friends to assist with the mortgage on the NY house when they left Washington   I know they were paid huge sums for books and are well paid speakers BUT  to have that much cash to "lend" in only 6.5 years   I want her to invest my money for me...   I am continually curious as to the media ignoring this issue  

Aww, give her a break.  She really, really needs the money.  Really.

No way.Mrs Clinton commands about 90% of the female votes..yet could not protect women from harassements.Taking money for those that are oppressing women.What a shame

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Way to go HRC!  Nothing like a good dirty money scandal to hit right before March 4!

Well, well, well...this should remind all Americans of the Clinton years...filled with scandals and secrecy. You can take the lion out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the lion. Way 2 go Hillary...

If Obama had taken this money, Hillary would have been all over him for the next 3 days.  But I guess that since it went into her coffers, she's willing to let it slide.  Heaven forbid she actually took the moral high road on something during the campaign.

Sadly, before all this began, I had a lot of respect for her.  Not so much, now.  I respect what she's trying to do for the country, but just not how she's going about it.

Wow.

Considering their claims of raking in $35 million this month, one would think they'd return this money if only, for nothing else, the appearance of acting in accordance with their stated values.


But I guess they see it differently than this particular voter does.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Shame... Shame... Shame on you Hillary Clinton!!!

" ...accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show."
--Her only hope now is the women's vote.  How will this information impact that?  I am surprised.


[" ...the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.]
--Meaning, polls didn't show that money was worth losing.

I'd like to see the response of the legion of Hillary supporters who claim no other candidate has so tirelessly worked for the betterment of the welfare of children and women in this country.

Surely such a stalwart defender of women's rights like Senator Clinton wouldn't accept the endorsment of such a brazen band of mysoginists... would she?

Of course being strapped for campaign cash in recent months and desperately needing the big fundraising month she apparently had in February could legitamately excuse a lapse in scruples and principles ... right?

Maybe when the court case is concluded and the wealth of evidence is effectively vindicated then we can expect Senator Clinton to "both reject and denounce" such support... right?

So why isn't mainstream media reporting about this? Are they waiting to announce it AFTER the primaries on tuesday???!!!!!

And she complains that the media is too harsh on her. When you have so many scandals in your history, it's hard for the media NOT to be harsh.

The phone just rang again.   Wrong answer.

doubled standards

At first I thought "no big deal", they can't know everything.

But apparently Hillary's campaign knew about this firm's problems and still took the money?

Can you imagine what her campaign would be saying about Barack on this one....?

That is the Clintons for you! It is sordid!!!!

Well, well, so much for your promoting yourself as a champion of women's rights Hillary! Guess you don't want to put your money where your mouth is.

This from the legalese parsers; travel-gate (not enough evidence to prosecute the first First Lady having to testify); filegate, oops there they are!,
tax returns? Where? When?, Schedule as First Lady, where?-hey maybe she really didn't run the country instead of Bill!
There they go again!

This should boost her women base.

Since Obama, his supporters and the media want to take up the issue of TRANSPARENCY in government, and in so doing paint a picture of Hillary Clinton as someone who dishonest versus Obama as someone who is honest, lets talk about Mr. Obama’s honesty since his supporters and the media refuse to do.
While it has become TRADITION since the Watergate era for Presidential Nominees to release personal income tax returns, there is no requirement for a Presidential candidate to do so.
Senator Clinton has said that she will release her personal income tax returns when she becomes the Democratic nominee.  If Obama wants to release ONE tax return from 2006, which hardly paints a true picture of where his money has come from over the past 20 years, then good for him.  Although if Obama is trying to convince everyone that he’s holier than thou, he should release his personal tax returns for the past 20 years since that’s how long he claims he’s been saving the world.
If Obama, his supporters and the media are going to talk about Transparency and insist that Obama is The Saint of all Saints, then Obama needs to walk-the-walk, not just talk-the-talk when it benefits him.
Under Obama’s Fiscal Plan he claims he will
• Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.


Yet, to date Obama refuses to release his 2005 and 2006 earmarks.  While he has released his 2007 earmarks, it’s obvious that he did it because that is when he decided to run for President.

February 15, 2008

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said
CAMPAIGN '08 | He preaches transparency, doesn't practice it, foes charge
I'm returning to transparency and Obama -- I've written columns on this topic since 2004 -- because Obama's reluctance to tell the whole story on earmarks and other matters is a habit with him. Now Obama has created an opening that his GOP opponents are using to hit him.
In the year Obama has been running for president, he has made government transparency a central campaign pledge. That was his strategic decision. But there are consequences when you campaign saying you would do one thing as president, but don't do it as a senator.
One might guess that Obama is a model of disclosure. He is not. He has been improving. But he has gaps, and Thursday's blasts from the Republicans showed they have no reluctance to exploit an Obama weakness. I have made my points over the years -- on how Obama is not as forthcoming as he could be with his schedules, fund-raising events, bundlers and earmarks. To the credit of Obama and his campaign, there has been some progress on these fronts.
Earmarks are spending measures tucked into legislation. Earmarks are controversial because some people call this pork; others see this as funding for projects important to a state or a community. McCain has made getting rid of earmarks a crusade and seeks none. A searchable database put together by Taxpayers for Common Sense just triggered a new round of earmark stories. Obama helped get $91 million for Illinois projects; Sen. Hillary Clinton assisted in securing $342 million for New York.
Thursday's Washington Post ran a front-page story about Clinton, Obama, McCain and their earmarks. The story noted that Obama "since last year" does disclose his earmark requests "but has not released those submitted to the [Appropriations] committee in 2005 and 2006."
In November, I wrote about how Obama's Senate office, after repeated requests since June, had yet to disclose earmarks Obama sought in 2006.

Today David Kirkpatrick and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times wrote
Early Obama Commitment on Money Becomes Target
Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.
Now his challenge to his rivals has boomeranged into a test of Mr. Obama’s own ability to balance principle and politics in a very different context. After taking in $100 million in donations, Mr. Obama is the one setting fund-raising records, presenting a powerful temptation to find a way out of his own proposal so that he might outspend his Republican opponent. And the all-but-certain Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, is short on cash and eager to take up the fund-raising truce.
Mr. Obama was notably noncommittal about his previous proposal in Tuesday’s Democratic debate, indicating that he would add new conditions, especially on spending by independent groups, to his previous pledges to accept the deal. If nominated, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair to both sides,” Mr. Obama said, alluding to the need to close “loopholes.”
Campaign finance experts said the issue was a major test of Mr. Obama’s commitment. It is also a first glimpse of what might come in a general election fight between two candidates who have championed public integrity, opening themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.
Obama is a fraud and a hypocrite.

HAHAHAHA....CALL HER AT 3 AM. SEE WHAT HER ANSWER IS!

i don't understand why women still support hillary. time after time she has failed to show the right judgment. this is another clear example. IMAGINE if hillary rodham (no clinton) had lost 11 straight primaries in a row by an average of 33 points. IMAGINE, what people would be telling her.

yet women are still voting with their uterus. it's just really sad. the presidency is not about "whose turn it is." it's about who is right for the time.

NRAers Don't forget that Open Hunting Season begins on August 29, 2008.

Happy Hunting!

Winning an election by any means possible even at the expense of fellow victims of sexual harassment, "Priceless". If this doesn't seal the deal for the staunch Clinton supporters nothing ever will.

Maybe be Hillary should be asked, "Do you REJECT and DENOUNCE the support and the MONEY?"

Clinton hypocracy at its finest... Monica is the only piece missing.

So much for all the women who wasted a vote on her.  She is a phony who cares only for power.  What a joke!!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_laws.html

Hmmm, With Hillary I see what is more important, MONEY over WOMEN'S RIGHTS !!!!

Rezko has not been convicted of anything either.  103 cases?  Anyone working in an office can relate to potential sexual harassment suits can easily occur due to a single bad employee.  But 103 cases? And Hillary can not give the money back if nothing else as a symbolic gesture to thousands of women who have undergone problems in the workplace?

Hmmm, With Hillary I see what is more important, MONEY over WOMEN'S RIGHTS !!!!

Was'nt Howard Wolfson saying earlier today How she stood up to the Chinese on Women's Right's? I guess women's right's in China are More Important than Women's right's in America.Was'nt this the Reason(her campaign said)America should want Hillary answering that 3 am phone call comes.

I guess this is the Kitchen Sink, they forgot to throw out.

I want to see all the Women supporter's of Hillary, Reject & Denounce this on here.

I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message:

I denounce & reject sexual harassment but $170,000 buys a lot of doughnuts!

And here we go!!!! Yet another scandal. Check out THIS CLINTONGATE!

Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):