CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Accounting 101: The Clintons

Where did Hillary Clinton get the money for her $5 million loan to her campaign?

By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK
Updated: 2:45  p.m. ET Feb 9, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Feb 18, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: enuphisenuph @ 07/30/2008 3:28:35 PM

    How does a US Senator find so much free time to write a book and do the peoples' business...Our elected political officials know how to make money...not for the American people but for their own personal gain. The corruption is so obvious..but yet the American public continues to accept this kind of behavior. We have ourselves to thank for the sad state of affairs. It is time to have your voices heard at the polls and at all town meetings from "Sea to shining Sea." Down with lobbist's interest and up with the interest of the American people, all the people.

  • Posted By: paulte @ 02/11/2008 3:00:17 PM

    Well, wherever she got the money from, having to lend money to her campaign is not a good sign of the campaign's financial health! I notice that Obama has no need to lend money to his campaign. Once the contributions start to wither, the Hillary campaign will have to shrink which makes her less likely to be nominated. And if she can't get nominated, she won't get elected! Any other good news?

    • Posted By: makulit @ 02/12/2008 1:38:42 PM

      Well, where do you think barackobama got his money do you think he just got it from the tree. and listen i have no idea why white males are voting for barackobama. do you know why,got an idea.

      • Posted By: goodgurl @ 02/12/2008 4:50:39 PM

        NEWS FLASH.....RACE has nothing to do with BARACK OBAMA's heart....vision.....and passion to lead AMERICA. WAKE -UP DUDE!

        • Posted By: cjm005 @ 02/17/2008 4:17:13 PM

          I agree if race has so much to do with it then why did a 97% white population of Iowa choose Obama. Also add states like South Dakota and Nebraska. Can you get any whiter then them. The only one who is making this a race issue is Bill Clinton and the Hillary campaign.

    • Posted By: vince.stewart @ 02/11/2008 4:03:52 PM

      If she can't handle the finances of a campaign, how can she handle that of our country? I'm sorry but being a president's wife doesn't give you anymore experience than the other guys.

  • Posted By: washington29 @ 02/11/2008 4:25:45 PM

    I am an Obama supporter and I bill back him and run with him even if I have to drag him to the finish line myself. However, I will vote for Hillary while holding down the urge to vomit. I will take anything and anyone in office except for McCain. He is another Bush and he loves WAR. He may even hold grudges and every country and Island will begin to stock pile weapons to defend themselves from American under the leadership of McCain. Anyhow, I hope and pray that Hillary got that money the right way. I hope that she has changed her ways! Obama has given me hope and w/ my hope I will give Hillary the benefit of the doubt this time.

    • Posted By: perci m @ 02/11/2008 4:33:43 PM

      Speak english. just say, "i am black & i am proud, just like obama, liers

      • Posted By: goodgurl @ 02/12/2008 4:49:08 PM

        O....KAY....and what would be wrong with that? You have the problem.

        • Posted By: cjm005 @ 02/17/2008 4:14:23 PM

          I am an Obama supporter and will not vote for Hillary. Oh and by the way I am a white female.

  • Posted By: nohawk @ 02/12/2008 9:53:11 AM

    I have a wonderful idea. If she wants to provide healthcare for all, let her put her $ where her mouth is
    pay for some who can't afford it. The money would be better spent instead of hearing alot of hot air
    from both the Dems and Rep without any action.

    • Posted By: makulit @ 02/12/2008 1:26:47 PM

      Hillary's speech has a substance, she cares for all the citizens of the United States including you. Do you know that. What about during the Bill clinton presidency, did you have a hard time during that time. The economy stupid was great. No foreclosures, no unemployment get it.

      • Posted By: cjm005 @ 02/17/2008 4:07:53 PM

        I don't know what fantasy world you are living in but there was unemployment, and as I recall she did not fix the health care situation then I still don't have insurance and have over $30,000 in medical bills to try to pay. We can't afford the medicine my husband needs and have to decide which of his medicines we can go with out each month. If she had not been so polarizing we might have universal health care now. Do you really think she is less polarizing now and will get more done this time?? We need change in the White House and Hillary is not it.

      • Posted By: vince.stewart @ 02/12/2008 2:12:36 PM

        You should fact check your own statement about foreclosures and unemployment under Clinton's reign...

      • Posted By: vince.stewart @ 02/12/2008 2:05:12 PM

        Hillary only cares for power and $...can't you SEE this!

    • Posted By: Iowa Democrat @ 02/12/2008 12:01:10 PM

      Dana he was still payin his student fees up until late last year. In his tax forms he filed with the senate which is also on his website it shows amount paid. NOW BEFORE YOU OPEN THAG GABBAGE MOUTH THAT WILLARY HAVE BEEN FEEDING, please research common knowlede

      • Posted By: goodgurl @ 02/12/2008 4:45:08 PM

        Good post IOWA Democrat

      • Posted By: vince.stewart @ 02/12/2008 12:11:41 PM

        Thanks Iowa Democrat, I was about to bring this up.

  • Posted By: rasgrand @ 02/12/2008 2:05:16 PM

    This is a quote from Dana Milbank, s opinion piece with a tidbit of some very good morsel of facts

    "Glenn Thrush of Newsday got the last question, and it was a rough one. "It's not just the string of losses that you've had, it's the magnitude," he said. "You got your doors blown off. . . . Does it surprise you that you've lost these states by as much as you have?"
    "No," the candidate answered. "These are caucus states. They are primarily dominated by activists. They don't represent the electorate." She also attributed her poor results in Louisiana to "a very strong and very proud African American electorate."

    Well the question that should be followed: Would HRC be obliged to summarily dismissed the delegates that came along with her percentage of those activists who stood their ground and caucused for her?

    Since her claim is that they don't represent the electorate, why should HRC bother reaching out to those caucused delegates who stand to represent her in the delegate count column.

    All HRC caucused voters and delegates are so blatantly taken for granted, as outlined by her dismissive comments against them. HRC's comment is so endemic of the Clinton's m.o:"do not accept blame for anything past the buck to someone else; and if you want to look good at someone's else expense triangulate, distort and lie outright if need be." This is the type of divisive politics the Clintons want to bring back to America.

    • Posted By: cjm005 @ 02/17/2008 3:43:46 PM

      I agree I am from one of those caucus states that she says is not important! What happened to every vote counts? or is it just the votes she likes. I am loosing respect for her fast.

  • Posted By: angelica915 @ 02/16/2008 11:58:08 AM

    Surprise, surprise...another Newsweek "bash Hillary" article. Obama doesn't need to dirty his hands, he has this "unbiased news site" (/sarc) to do it for him!

  • Posted By: brainy woman @ 02/16/2008 11:48:25 AM

    A life long democrat I will vote Republican before I vote for McCain before I vote Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: Lebatep1 @ 02/16/2008 5:16:15 AM

    The Pied Piper of Hamelin did his charismatic tune and all the rats went his way. Too bad a similar tune is dominating the primaries today and, sadly, so many are entranced hypnotically by an empty, non-specific message called 'change.' Hooray for cultism! It's back, alive and kicking.

  • Posted By: ayoss58 @ 02/16/2008 4:02:04 AM

    Obama-Al Gore Ticket is the the "Dream Ticket".Macain's so-called national secutity and hero image will be "the sorry dust of Vietnam and Iraq we Americans want and demand to forget!!!.
    Obama can say yes to Al-Gore just as he said yes to John Kerry.Hillary is the past,we love herr as a great mother who kept some sanity in Bill's WH.Her fidelity is priceless and we love her for that.But know is serious business of beating the republicans,the dumb war mongers.This is not the place for a woman or a mother!!.Why not Obama to sweep the republicans neo-cons out of the WH???.He got what it takes and you had ur chance so beat for the greater cause!!.

  • Posted By: ayoss58 @ 02/16/2008 3:52:45 AM

    I love Al Gore as the democratic elder who has seen it all.Despite the Clintons betrayal,Al Gore has shown the brilliance of his mind and patriotism.The question is can he rise to the urgency of the moment and unite the democrtic party???.
    He alone knows what the Clintons are and what they represent.Can he he stake his enormous reputation like ted Kennedy,or the democratic party is doomed to the Clintons curse!!!.
    What ever happens, Al-Gore can play a historic role unlike Bill who mortgaged his legacy because of his transgressions against Hillary.But Why must we democrats play for his infidelity???.

  • Posted By: Barbs46 @ 02/15/2008 11:25:45 PM

    Once again we receive a clear demonstration that politics in America is all about the money and until we have a level, influence-free political structure, similar stories like Mrs. Clinton's finances will be repeated every four years. I am happy to be seeing less of Prez #42 as it kept opening old wounds of how he conducted himself in my house....the White House not that many years ago.

  • Posted By: Barbs46 @ 02/15/2008 11:23:17 PM

    Interesting story that demonstrates that our government as been totally corrupted by the big dollar stakes. I'm just happy to be seeing less and less of Prez #42 - his appearances just opened up old wounds for me about his conduct when he was at my house...the White House that is!

  • Posted By: orsiorsi18 @ 02/15/2008 7:40:38 PM

    To tell you the truth, I dislike Hillary mainly because Bill Clinton is a phoney. He should have
    hid himself and maybe she had a chance.But, birds of the feather flock together.
    I just pray on bended knees that Obamba is for real.McCain is too wacko to
    be President.

  • Posted By: MrPolitic @ 02/15/2008 12:48:19 AM

    Investigate Obama, Investigate Clinton, Investigate McCain, investigate yourself. If you dig deep enough, dirt will show up on anyone and everyone. It's not relevant. What does matter is who can get our economy back on track and our men and women back home, and repair and restore our social and economic ties with the rest of the world.

    All candidates have good and bad points. Clinton has estabished resources, name recoginition, experience in The White House. Drawbacks, Old Politics, White Water. She also authorized a war which cost this country billions of dollars which should be going toward education, transportation, and health care and other important national issues in OUR country. The decision also contributes to the recessions that most of the country is currently experiencing. Obama, inexperienced period. Pros.. The guy out raised a 20 year established political machine by twice the rated (Anyone who can raise that kind of money from a grass roots movement is probably more than capable of devising a plan to jump start the american economy).
    He also has better odds at converting Red States, and Moderate Republican and Independants.
    So, America needs to make a choice based on issues that matter not irrelevant distractions and inconsistancies that all politicians and humans beings all share. Lets vote on "The Real Issues."
    Who are we going to benefit more from, and suffer less with. Who can provide the best win win situation
    for everyone or at least come closest to the idea.

    • Posted By: vince.stewart @ 02/15/2008 9:28:15 AM

      There it is again "Experience in the Whitehouse," what experience, sleeping, eating, ignoring Bill's cigar parties. I have a hard time seeing this as relevent experience....

      • Posted By: orsiorsi18 @ 02/15/2008 7:34:50 PM

        You know, to tell you the truth she's not that bad.I want her to lose because Bill Clinton
        is a phoney. But,McCain is crazy(really)Manchurian Candidate crazy in my view.I support
        Obamba,because I pray on bended knees, that he is for real.Please, give us a President
        and not someone whao thinks they're Secretary General of the UN,,

  • Posted By: macalexander @ 02/11/2008 8:00:26 PM

    Johnny makes a lot of sense here - "You can go to the Federal Trade Commission website to see where Obama and Clinton are getting donations. However, you cannot track the source of money when Hillary loans money to the campaign. That is why the loan is problematic."

    • Posted By: Johnny1967 @ 02/15/2008 7:15:34 PM

      Correction: Go to the Federal Election Commision website http://www.fec.gov/ (Not Federal Trade Commission).

  • Posted By: Feternal @ 02/13/2008 8:45:01 PM

    It is so sad that the Clinton campaign relies so heavily on the Hispanic "ignorance." Fellow Latinos, unite and strike out at the Clinton campaign who believes that people of Hispanic descent are not "evolved" enough to vote for a black man. I hope no one falls for this trick that Ms. Clinton and her campaign are trying to pull on us Latinos. It is ridiculous that Ms. Clinton's campaign is relying on our support but offers no confidence in Latinos to do the research and find that Mr. Obama is clearly the better candidate. The Clinton campaign believes that Latinos are so ignorant that they would "rather follow any white woman than a black man." No es cierto!!! I would rather follow the RIGHT MAN--Barack Obama.

    • Posted By: jackjack @ 02/15/2008 6:30:58 PM

      Say THAT Feternal! You know its true!

    • Posted By: Olufemi @ 02/14/2008 11:45:23 AM

      Not to mention, any "new doors" that blacks open for themselves are ususally opened wider for latinos, asians and white women . . .

  • Posted By: Shep @ 02/15/2008 1:32:10 PM

    If someone asked you where you got the money to take that last vacation you took, what would you tell them? Probably, it is none of your business. Romney used $35,000,000 of his own money, where were the questions about where he got all of that. I'm sure it was all legal and above board BUT no one has asked that I know of. Between Bill and Hillary, I am sure they have made much more than that $5 million. Do they have joint accounts like most families? Again, none of our business, Right???

    • Posted By: 30meridian @ 02/15/2008 6:20:09 PM

      It becomes everyone's business when voting for a presidential candidate who's about to inherit a spiraling economy. It DEFINITELY becomes everyone's business when that candidate has been implicated in shady business deals in the past. And it DEFINITELY DEFINITELY becomes everyone's business when that candidate claims that he/she's going to battle Corporate America on behalf of the working class. I want to know who is going to benefit from a particular candidate's victory. It usually turns out to be the same people that helped finance the campaign. So, since Barack's money is coming straight from the people - honestly, all I hear about is how much money his grassroots efforts are raising - I feel fairly confident that he knows exactly who he's working for. Now, all we are asking is for Hillary to disclose who she's working for. I want to make sure it's not the same type of people, with the same agendas, as those who were financing Bush's run. My guess, however, is that we'd find some common names on both Bush's and Hillary's list of benefactor's. And I'll bet my name and your name are waaaaaay toward the bottom of that list. Unless your name is WalMart or Clinton or something odd like that... Then, rest easy: You're right at the top!

  • Posted By: perci m @ 02/15/2008 5:56:08 PM

    I know Obama send you out to create this spin. You all are smart. Ok, what's next?
    Republican would like to face Obama rather than Hillary.
    Republicans are so scared, they said, they'd even vote for Obama just not to see the Clintons get the prize.
    Smart people all work for Obama, like this spin.
    Swing

  • Posted By: wyl5326 @ 02/15/2008 2:28:32 PM

    Hill have apparently not learned her lessons by re-igniting another round of attack. This time it is now triggering a backlash from Black Super delegates who felt compelled to abandon her for the popular will of the voters. If she will not be careful, she might as well drag and destroy Maggie's image among the black community in the process. Remember, a switched Super delegate vote will count as 2 in net effect and there are more still out there who are on the
    fence waiting for the right moment to dump her. As scrappy as the Clintons are, they should remember not to cross the line that will trigger a backfire and destroy them for who they really are. I don't mind to destroy them for who they
    are, but they have a lot of their sycophants who could go down with them that are really good people.
    Now, she have turn to the mantra of solution and have abandoned her Fairy Tale of "35 years experience". Unfortunately for her, she has a record of providing so-called solution that was roundly rejected called Hillarycare
    before. Is she now suffering from Alzheimer to remember from her "vast experience" about it ? How ironic to accuse Barack as untested against special interests when it was she who is in the pocket of the special interests ? Why don't she examine her own persona and make a an attempt to change it with real
    effort instead of just a window dressing effort ? I guess, it all boils down to a leopard can't change it's spots. That is her tragedy and it takes a lifetime
    to form one's persona in the same way that it takes a village to raise a child - a title she hijack from African proverb.

  • Posted By: desert rat @ 02/10/2008 8:55:51 PM

    I suppose some of that money comes from the $10,000 per month they charge the government for rent on the quarters occupied by their secret service protectors on the grounds of their estate in New York. If they've got the balls to make the government pay for the privilege of protecting them, they've got the balls to extort the rest from those looking for favors in the future.

    • Posted By: bernas @ 02/11/2008 2:16:25 PM

      All Presidents and First Ladys are entitled to security for the rest of their lives even after leaving the White House. Just some imformation in case you didn't know.

      • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 02/12/2008 8:05:02 PM

        yes they are entitled to it and it is provided on the tax payers dime, so where the hell do they get off charging for them to be on the property. It is a 24/7 job...rotational shifts, etc.. you think those guys want to be there away from their own families? Charging the government a fee for having a place for these people to stay while protecting their sorry asses is downright criminal. We the taxpayers get charged double.... Secret service salaries to protect these deadbeats plus pay the Clintons for the priviledge of providing protection for them.... lets put our brains into action here people.....

        • Posted By: jeffreylebowskijr @ 02/14/2008 5:19:37 PM

          Hey RetiredMarine -- that's just a debunked urban legend. Check it out on snopes.com. Also, you asked early with some incredulity if people thought that the U.S. was more respected in the world under Bill Clinton. Absolutely we were...and last time I checked, 9/11 was on Bush's watch (or rather lack thereof). How do you people let yourselves be so easily led. Check the facts!!

          • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 02/14/2008 7:25:02 PM

            OK, I concede... I should have checked snopes and didn't. My mistake. However, as for the respect of the world, I would beg to differ. The world didn't respect Clinton. They liked him because he was an easy doormat. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if it weren't for him and his failure to retaliate on previous attacks. His history of making threats but never following through on them is what emboldened the enemy. We had hits against US interests such as Embassies, Naval vessels, and even bombings in our own homeland during Clinton. Haven't seen any attacks here since 9/11. Bush followed Reagan's methods. When Reagan was running for office he said that if Iran still maintained the hostages, the US would go in. Sure enough when he was elected, Iran gave them back knowing he would do it. Bush went in and attacked these terrorist extremists who had already declared WAR on us

            How can people like you be so easily led? Check the facts. Yes 9/11 came under Bush's watch, but you can't lay the blame on him after the example the world had previously....

            • Posted By: jeffreylebowskijr @ 02/14/2008 7:53:34 PM

              So you think that the fact that Bush and his National Security Advisor (now Secretary of State) had been told repeatedly by a number of highly placed folks (highly placed largely by Bill Clinton, btw) at the FBI and CIA that "Al Queda determined to strike U.S. by using airliners" and did nothing was somehow Bill Clinton's fault?! Don't get me wrong, I am NO fan of the Clintons, but to say that the world respects us more now is just hogwash. Look at the data we get from pollsters around the world -- we're a post WW2 low. As for Reagan and Iran, it is widely acknowledged that the hostages' release was delayed specifically to embarrass Carter not in any way, shape, or form because the Iranians were afraid of Reagan.

              Side note: if you look at the national debt (which is WAY scarier than terrorists to those who really look at the realistic threat posed by each), you'll see that it went from 800 billion pre-Reagan to what will be almost 9.5 trillion by the time Bush leaves office. Actual (non-partisan) OMB numbers: Reagan takes over: debt at 800B and rising at barely 5%/year...Bush 1 leaves office the debt is 5x that and rising 20% per year...Clinton leaves office with a balanced budget and a surplus in 2000, Bush 2 picks up right where Reagan/Bush 1 left office and blows the debt sky high. The right likes to castigate the left for "tax and spend" but "borrow and spend" is far, far worse.

              The bottom line is that the right wing media and spin doctors have so made us afraid of external threats that their sacrificing our constitutional rights and financial future, not to mention or moral standing in the world (which last time I checked it pretty dang important to national security) so that they can retain power and enrich themselves. This whole stupid article is about Hillary loaning her campaign $5M...care to venture that Bush & Cheney's pals in the military industrial complex have made during their tenure? Billion upon billion of no bid contracts...new legislation yesterday that specifically expempts U.S. contractors overseas (read: Halliburton & its subs) from auditing oversight....I mean come on, do you guys really not see what the "Republicans" are doing -- I put that in quotes because I don't think they've been following republican principles (in the political or dictionary definitions) since Eisenhower.

              Peace in '08 -- I would *gladly* take an Eisenhower Republican or a Truman Democrat over ANY of the folks running the show today (and I'm 39 by the way, but I've read a lot of history and political science). Thanks for the debate.

              • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 02/15/2008 11:40:44 AM

                Since we are mentioning age, Im 46 by the way. There are a lot of problems out there. I don't give a ratsass what party someone belongs to if they have the Nations interests in mind. You mention the deficit. Have you looked into how much you and I and the rest of America will be paying for "Hillary's plans"? She stated herself that we couldn't afford her plans. I agree, with you... today's race is a big crap sandwich. Since we are screwed no matter what, at least with McCain, our national defense will be maintained and as for economy, his way will cost us the least... it is the lesser of the evils that we are forced to take. Peace would be great! Having been through several conflicts, beleive me the guys fighting prefer peace more than those back at home. But cutting and running WILL NOT give us peace, it will bring the war to our own shores. You have to understand the mentality of the people who want us all dead.

                • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 02/15/2008 11:49:00 AM

                  Reading history is one thing... being smack dab in the middle of it is another. The majority of the news media is very liberal so you can't really blame things on the so called right wing media (actually a minority in the media world). The reports given here at home are quite distorted against the reality of what is taking place. I just returned after 2 yrs in Iraq. Every Soldier and Marine reading or watching media reports are pretty much ashamed and disgusted with the so called "honest reporting" taking place.

                  It has been interesting this debate of ours, how it got off track.... We each have our opinion and want what is best. Let's hope this crap sandwich of an election turns out ok.

                  • Posted By: jeffreylebowskijr @ 02/15/2008 1:25:03 PM

                    I would have once agreed with you that the majority of the news media is liberal, but I think that that's changed. There are *plenty* of right-leaning news sources out there. As for the psychology of those who would want us all dead...I have no doubt that there are many who wish that (and I salute those of you who have been serving under our flag -- I would never mistake that for anything other than courage and sacrifice), however I would argue that a majority of those who want us dead would not in fact desire this has we chosen a different way of treating them for much of the last century.

                    There are two arguments I would make here: 1) a man who has hope -- economic hope, a hope for his family, his nation, his self-determination whether he be American middle class or Sunni herdsman has little to gain by waging war against a remote and foreign people and much to lose, whereas the converse is also the case. Revolutionary zeal is seldom inspired by those who are by relative measures fat & happy, regardless of their religious, political, or social beliefs. 2) the empires of the world (Britain, Germany, France, Spain, and Portugal in act one, followed by the U.S. and Soviet Union in act two) by waging centuries of proxy wars over territory, resources, and ideological hegemony have sown the seeds of some not entirely misplaced anger.

                    Just as debt comes back to haunt the over-borrower, oppression comes back to in the form of rebellion and yes, terrorism in time. I am in no way arguing that terrorism is justified, but that it is an outcome to be understood in the context of a longer view than that Saddam or Bin Laden are somehow just rogue bad guys who "hate us for our freedom" -- they do not. That hate us because we have long used them as our pawns and because we have tried to apply our template for civic government to tribal peoples the world over with little grace or understanding.

                    We should not "cut and run" from Iraq, but neither do we have any more business in instructing them how to govern themselves than they would us. To prove that we, the United States, occupy any sort of moral high ground in the world requires, at least in my opinion, that we resist the application of power to coerce change and that we reapply it (while of course securing ourselves in a prudent and vigilant way) to ensuring economic success in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe that is not based on single source, exhaustible commodities such as oil, diamonds, uranium, natural gas, etc...again, back to the "those who are fat & happy don't take up arms" argument -- everything from freer speech and government to more moderate applications of politics and religion flow *directly* from a people who are at peace, can provide for themselves, and see a future here, on earth, within their own communities as a rewarding and attainable goal to their lives.

      • Posted By: jag0581 @ 02/12/2008 11:11:57 PM

        The law on that has or will be changing in the near future, The former Presidents are given Secret Service protection for I beleive I read 10 years after leaving office, then it is up to the current President to actually continue the service. Please check out the following website this will explain the law on Presidential Protection.

        http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml

    • Posted By: jeffreylebowskijr @ 02/14/2008 5:15:46 PM

      That's just an urban legend of course...like most of what the right puts out there against the left. Too bad it's so effective -- just goes to show how easy it is to lead people astray.

    • Posted By: washington29 @ 02/11/2008 4:30:38 PM

      No f*cking way. They have to pay in order to protect them?
      When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. ... We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

      Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/08/politics/main3244256.shtml

      1. Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton. As an Illinois Senator he passed over 200 of the bills he wrote. These bills include:
      1. A bill that expanded healthcare to over 100,000 people in Illinois.
      2. A bill that set up community health centers to serve underserved populations.
      3. A bill that provided the earned income tax credit to thousands of Illinois families.
      4. A bill that reformed the death penalty that had sent innocent people to death row
      5. A bill that banned gifts and meals from lobbyists.
      6. And much more.
      2. While Hillary Clinton has spent more time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has gotten more substantive legislation that affects the American people passed while he???s been there. Many of Clinton???s bills were about naming post offices and buildings. However, Obama???s legislation includes:
      1. A bill with Senator Richard Lugar which bans the development of nuclear weapons.
      2. A bill that created a public database where average Americans can see how the government is spending their money.
      3. A bill that provided important assistance to address the situation in the Congo.
      4. A bill that Nancy Pelosi calls ???one of the toughest ethics reform??? bills in this history of the Congress.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse