Marc Ambinder takes a closer look at the lack of disclosure of who's donating to Bill Clinton's library and foundation. As I've written before, the Clinton's really ought to engage in more disclosure here. They're legally within their rights to do what they're doing, but the voters deserve to know. The Clinton Foundation's not a nickle-and-dime operation and it's not being funded by small grassroots contributions, either. As best one can tell the donor list is full of corporate titans and foreign potentates and one can only assume that these people are giving in part out of an expectation that they're currying favor and getting "access" in political terms along with whatever charitable notions they may have.
« Women's Role | Main | The Problematics of Public Opinion »
Clinton Library Donors
21 Nov 2007 08:06 am
Comments (12)
Has any Republican ever undergone this kind of scrutiny? Ever?
I'm not saying that Clinton is right, but I am saying that I'm tired of this. There are plenty of insinuations in this story but not any facts that I know of.
Also "the Clinton's really ought to..."
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html
Live and learn. When I was a kid, we were taught that merely adding an 's' to the end of a word pluralized it in most cases. Certainly adding an apostrophe and an 's' doesn't. As Bob the Angry Flower says
"NO! WRONG! TOTALLY WRONG! WHERE'D YOU LEARN THIS? STOP DOING IT!"
the Clinton's really ought
ahem
Who would care? Certainly the donors are a constituency, but a constituency for what? A "presidential library" is a monument to that most uncertain of qualities, the character of a presidency. IOW, a solid investment in a mercury mine built on a quicksand flat.
What matters is what the foundation or library does- in this case, you must assume that garbage out=garbage in.
A challenge to the pundit, to be sure. A perhaps insuperable challenge to the reader. It becomes necessary to understand (or at least describe) the proposed action and then place it in context, instead of using the convenient shorthand of "good" and "bad" donors.
Kind of an existential challenge of our times, you might say.
Who would care?...A "presidential library" is a monument to that most uncertain of qualities, the character of a presidency.
Who would care? Perhaps the Democratic Presidential frontrunner who happens to be married to that former President?
"As best one can tell the donor list is full of corporate titans and foreign potentates..."
Who else is going to donate to a presidential library?
You can read the list in an article from 2004 in the N.Y. Sun. http://www.nysun.com/article/5137
http://www.nysun.com/article/5152
Whispers - Has any Republican ever undergone this kind of scrutiny? Ever?
I'm not saying that Clinton is right, but I am saying that I'm tired of this. There are plenty of insinuations in this story but not any facts that I know of.
No, no Republican, or Carter, Kennedy, LBJ attracted that kind of scrutiny about Library donors, or White House papers.
That is because they were all "over and done" with, and not plotting a return to the White House and power.
As of now, the Clinton's ethical obligations, and the obligation of reporters to good reporting should be on removing the vast amount of post-Presidency money they have received from various fatcat donors but buried in well-meaning but misguided laws protecting the Presidential records from scrutiny and the private money sources of "now-retired" former Presidents for their libraries and foundations.
Part of this is also to verify Hillary's claims, or debunk them - about being a "hands on executive" regularly weighing in on domestic or foreign policy decisions at the highest levels.
Maureen Dowd was catty today in her column in saying she is mildly appalled at Hillary for recasting nepotism as "feminist accomplishment" when the last thing Hillary accomplished successfully on her own without hubby's influence was getting admitted to Yale Law School.
And a few people that have worked in the White House have said that as medium-weight to inner circle policy makers they generated incredible paper trails doing their jobs. A paper trail Hillary should have if she is honest about her "regular executive decision-making role" in foreign and domestic matters.
She should be on the memos routing lists. Her attendence or not at the daily intelligence briefing, the Joint Chiefs briefings, the crisis meetings all noted and documented by White House secretaries and archivists.
Issue papers on where the President would head on issues like min wage, welfare reform, immigration, relations with China, dollar and trade policy - should have some Hillary! imprint on them if she is telling the truth. Her inclusion in the chain of execs who decided on paper on Cabinet staff selections, flag officer appointments, who would brief her and what sphere of responsibility she was assigned at ME Summits besides kissing Mrs Arafat and Mrs Sharon on the cheek and selecting seating arrangements at luncheons..
First time I've seen Matt do his Broder impression. Trying out for a better gig?
one can only assume that these people are giving in part out of an expectation that they're currying favor and getting "access" in political terms
Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.
First time I've seen Matt do his Broder impression. Trying out for a better gig?
You're mistaken. What Matt is doing here is pressing Obama's advantage on the disclosure issue. It's intraparty partisanship; it ain't broderism.
Somebody is questioning Hillary's ethics?
The woman married to the guy who pardoned Marc Rich?
You need to ask?
The Clintons could surpass Dianne Feinstein as the most corrupt politicians since Hermann Goering - if Dick Cheney hadn't gotten there first.
Comments closed December 05, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
nickel-and-dime, not nickle-and-dime
Posted by Mr Bee | November 21, 2007 8:16 AM