Link (
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry4136323.shtml)
First, let me start by saying :lol::lol::lol:
Okay, Hillary sez:"If you will vote for me next Tuesday, you are voting for the most fiscally responsible candidate on either side of the aisle,"
Since I'm busy laughing myself out of breath over here, allow me to share a couple of quotes from the article:
There are a couple of problems with this claim, though. First, her campaign is approximately $20 million in debt, even after she loaned over $11 million of her own money to the cause. Actually it's $11.4 but no point in quibbling over $400,000.
Several vendors and suppliers have come forward to say they are owed money by the campaign, To put it mildly. Many of these vendors are actively trying to recoup what they are owed. Some of them report being lied to and many of the them complain that their phone calls aren't being returned.
and her former chief strategist, Mark Penn, is owed $5 million for his services before he parted ways with Clinton. No comment (okay one comment: 9% of all campaign funds went to Penn's firm (
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/08/penn_fees/)?) Wow!).
Second, Clinton received more than five times the number of earmarks than any other senator, according Taxpayers for Common Sense. Their report also found that Clinton is responsible for receiving over $2 billion in earmarks from 2002 to 2006, which is more than either Barack Obama or John McCain. Well that doesn't bother me. It's unfortunate that "earmarks" are synonymous with "pork barrel" these days, so I guess I'd need to see some evidence that these earmarks were going toward pork before I could...
The report set off controversy when it was revealed that Clinton, and the senior senator from New York, Charles Schumer, supported a $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum....feel comfortable lambasting her for...oh. Nevermind.