Has a Congressional dem mentioned culture of corruption lately?

Maybe Geffen didn't care for Rich's lawyer.
=========================

Mention of these pardons by a billionaire Hollywood movie mogul and Democratic underwriter "reignited" the controversy only in liberal circles where it had fallen down their vast memory hole. Conservatives have always regarded these pardons as the most undeniable case in point of Bill Clinton's personal and depraved use of the powers of his office. From such unhappy memories comes the stubbornly high "negative" perception of Hillary Rodham Clinton in polls of the electorate.

And if you'd like some more material to help you ponder David Geffen's rhetorical question: "Who thinks that Bill Clinton has really changed?", note Jeff Jacoby's column also in today's Globe about the $40M in speaking fees (2/3rds from overseas) that Bill Clinton has accumulated since he signed those presidential pardons literally on his way out the White House door...

Wait, wasn't he redressing the abuses of out of control prosecutors.?

Here, Bill, toke on this. It doesn't work unless you inhale it.
===========================================

So Monica inhaled, Bill didnt, how about Hillery?

Ah, the mendacity and venality of Bill and Hillary!...the gifts that keep on giving.

"Has a Congressional dem mentioned culture of corruption lately?'

Gianni, haven't you been paying attention for the last 30 years? Anything a neo-democrat says before an election is irrelevant after the election. And they know none of the sheeple who are ingnorant enough to vote for them will hold them accountable so why should they bother even trying to live up to their campaign rhetoric?

Geez I think Im related to the Rothams some four generations back! Wheres My 250Gs?

Geffen should certainly be excommunicated for this sacrilege!

Perhaps if Hillary wins in '08, Scooter Libby could pay a visit to Pardon-Mart.

Pardon-Mart?

ROFLMAO

Clinton(Bill) should make a speech on behalf his brother-in law called 'Family values,' 'Corruption in the White House,' it doesn't matter, his fee is 100,000 dollars and then give Hillary's brother the proceeds to pay the loan off...I'm a liberal but why the Dems would choose Hillary, is beyond me? She seem to have all of the flaws of her husband, without any of his compensating virtues.

"without any of his compensating virtues"

President Clinton's sole "compensating virtue" was that he was a very polished, practiced, and professional liar.

However, a few more well placed cracks and the whole thing could collapse, allowing the Clintons' past to pour out and drown Hillary's presidential hopes.

ROFLMAO! This is one of the funniest posts I've seen on Wizbang in a long time.

The only people who care about micro-scandals like these are right-wingers who are never going to vote for Hillary anyway.

Just ask the average voter what they care about and you'll hear: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq (maybe the economy a little). NO ONE is going to base their vote on what Hillary's brothers did or did not do.

Get real. We went thru this same crapola with Clinton for 8 years and his popularity just kept going up. People care about things that affect them; not things that don't.

Uh Larkin boy you sound a little "unhinged" there. Always can tell when the truth hits home.

Larkin,
Uh, didn't Hillary support the Iraq invasion? Not just when she was "co-president", but as NY's junior senator? I seem to recall her being heckled for that recently by the far lefties.
Now add Voted for Iraq to Pardoned People when it Profitted Her Family, and you have a recipe for turning off tons of voters.

The vast center sensed that Bill Clinton was a scoundrel, but they liked him anyway, because he was a likeable guy.

The vast center senses that Hillary was (and is) a scoundrel too, but a large chunk of them don't like her -- because she's not a likeable person.

Cue up the WH secret service stories about the hurled lamps, trailer trash language and ethnic epithets -- people will remember and blanch.

Larkin, you haven't a clue what motivates people to vote.

Get real. We went thru this same crapola with Clinton for 8 years and his popularity just kept going up. People care about things that affect them; not things that don't. Larkin at February 28

OK, lets "get real" shall we.

Indeed, his job approval rating hit its all-time peak, 69 percent, just after the Lewinsky scandal erupted, and then reached almost as high, 68 percent, immediately after the Senate acquitted him of impeachment charges.

His low point, in fact, came years earlier: A 43 percent job approval rating in June 1993, as his new administration floundered and the economy remained weak.

Gee Larkin... I don't understand your "get real" definition.

I thought it may have meant something on the order of the "truth."

But to say his "popularity just kept going up" just doesn't fit the normal definition of "get real." Or truth.

Maybe you meant "truthiness?

Is that it, or are you, as some have suggested "unhinged?"