Hillary’s double standard on use of plane

Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton trotted out the vague and loose rules of the Senate and Federal Election Commission Wednesday as a rationalization for accepting rides on a private jet from a fatcat contributor.

"Whatever I've done, I complied with Senate rules at the time. That's the way every senator operates," Clinton claimed in an interview with Associated Press reporter Kathleen Hennessey.

Clinton, however, refused to discuss whether the rules are too lax.

"Those were the rules. You'll have to ask somebody else whether that's good policy," she said.

Her actions, however, stand in sharp contrast to her stated positions on Senators taking such trips or on the overt influence of corporate money on politics.

Election reform advocates say the rules regulating use of private planes allow for widespread abuse and that payments from candidates, usually the equivalent of first class air fare, does not begin to cover the actual cost of use of such planes.

Writes Hennessey:

Clinton's travel, along with and consulting fees paid to her husband, the former president, have come to light recently in a lawsuit against Vinod Gupta, a Clinton contributor and chief executive of the data company, InfoUSA Inc.

The lawsuit by company shareholders accuses Gupta of excessively spending millions of dollars, including $900,000 worth of travel on the Clintons.

Sen. Clinton, who complained about corporate America's largesse and skyrocketing executive pay during campaign events Wednesday, said she did not believe her message was undermined by her acceptance of the private flights. In line with Senate rules then in effect, Clinton's campaign has said she reimbursed Gupta at the cost of a first-class flight, typically a significant discount off the expense of a private jet.

The Senate earlier this year voted to change the rules to require senators, their staff and candidates for federal office to pay the charter rate for flights on corporate jets. All the presidential candidates serving in the Senate, including Clinton, voted for the change.

Clinton struck several populist notes Wednesday in a speech at a union hall and at a town hall appearance at a North Las Vegas high school with large number of minority and low-income students.

The senator told members of the Culinary Workers Union, a group that represents casino and hotel workers, that it should be made easier for unions to organize and that private equity firms should honor union contracts after buyouts. Both issues are important to the union, whose endorsement is considered key to winning Nevada's Jan. 19 caucus.

The senator made light of her own personal wealth.

"I know a lot of rich people. My husband and I never had any money … now all (of a) … sudden we're rich," Clinton said. "I have nothing against rich people. … but what made America great is the American middle class."

Clinton declined to comment on two unreleased biographies that, according to press accounts, describe the former first lady's road to her candidacy in unflattering terms. She said she wasn't familiar with the books.

Clinton acknowledged an assertion reportedly contained in one of the books: that she did not read a National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq.

"I don't believe that I did or that vast majority of my colleagues did because we were briefed repeatedly about everything that was in it," she said.

7 Responses to "Hillary’s double standard on use of plane"

  1. Rob Kezelis  May 31, 2007 at 7:41 am

    of rich fat cats to support my campaign. Oops, what I meant was it takes a village to buy the fuel for my private jet.

    This is a surefire way to connect with that 47% of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that mistrust her, don’t like her and can’t stand the idea of her being president.

  2. Steve Horn  May 31, 2007 at 10:04 am

    Well, Hillary is special, isn’t she? I recall her supporting a number of double standards for integrity while playing the part of first lady …

    Hillary is also seeking advice on a campaign song – you know – something catchy –

    My suggestion? A song recorded by The Who – it’s called “New Song” – or perhaps Aerosmiths “same old song and dance” ….

    Of course, in my eyes, the most fitting for Hillary would be the wonderful Phil Ochs song “Love me, I’m a Liberal” … fits her to a freakin’ “T”.

    Check the lyrics out – you’ll get my drift.

    Peace

    Steve

  3. Bill Robinson  May 31, 2007 at 10:45 am

    She’s right you know. She did comply with the Senate rules and did nothing illegal. Whether it was the right and moral thing to do is quite another question. I think it was neither right or moral, but improper for a woman who is a multi-millionaire. She can afford to pay her own ticket in First Class and she might even meet some of those people who MIGHT support her in the quest for the nomination.
    She chose not to do this. Call her cheap, immoral, and wrong. So what? She is no different than any other of the presidential candidates in both parties with their imperial attitudes and “What, me ride with the general public?” outlook.
    It makes me sick.
    They all make me sick.
    Their regal attitudes are a good indication of what kind of President they would be if we were foolish enough to elect them.
    Let’s fool them. Let’s not elect any of these people. They are all taking with both hands as fast as they can grab the bucks, and the office of President would allow Grander Theft than we poor mortals can imagine.
    We need someone new. Moyers, as suggested in a comment in another of today’s articles, would be a good and moral choice. His foreign policy expertise is probably lacking, but there are plenty of decent, good people at the State Department to help with that.
    I had high hopes for Hillary. I thought she could rise above the pettiness and neauveau rich attitudes–I was wrong. As for the rest of the runners, they are all the same, seeking to grab huge sums when elected.
    We need new bodies. We need amateurs. We need people who won’t steal. Can anyone find such people in only 300 million choices? I surely hope so…

  4. Access Of Evil  May 31, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    I’ll be glad when Hillary and Obama move off center stage as the “warm-up freak show” and we get down to running a Presidential campaign.

  5. gene  May 31, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    WHAT a f**king mess this nation is in. Hillary is their any chance you could have a dozen organisms and simply fade away? Probably not since (ice cold) and controlled is your favorite reality.

    Hillary do you know where Billy boy is…NO…mabe out looking for Monica number 2. Out of your mouth will come lies that will deceive many but not all. You (my lady) (loose term) are full of deception.

  6. Access Of Evil  May 31, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    “new Submitted by gene on May 31, 2007 – 10:06pm.

    WHAT a f**king mess this nation is in. Hillary is their any chance you could have a dozen organisms and simply fade away?”

    — It’s spelled “orgasm” and you’re probably registered to vote. Jeez, that’s scary!

  7. Bill Robinson  June 1, 2007 at 2:32 am

    Organism or Orgasm, that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the minds of men to bring forth the former or to bring on the latter, either shall provide significant entertainment.
    But the fact is that nobody ever faded away from having an orgasm, while a dose of flesh eating organisms might create such a scenario.
    Knowing how to spell is not a requirement to vote. Knowing the difference between the two “O”s should be.

Comments are closed.