The Clinton Foundation attacks: Unfair but utterly predictable and damaging

[cali]

How damaging? Too early to tell. It may not damage her in the primary- though it may, but I think it will be damaging in the general. It's not just the foundation stuff. There's a host of other crap. Just because it's old doesn't mean that it couldn't have a negative impact.

These are the non-ideological reasons I believe HRC is a poor candidate. She doesn't have the attributes of a great politician that her husband does, that would enable her to overcome them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. The GOP will dig up everything so what's new?

It's politics

[misterhighwasted]

2. Lol. Same old opinion, different day.

yadda yadda
But DUers are entitled to their opinions. Predictable or not.

IMO

[Abouttime]

3. I'm worried

Earlier this week I was ready to blow this off as just the latest attack on the Clintons. Now I fear this one is going to stick, this is ugly. I hate to say it but if a Republican such as Condi Rice had done ten percent of this we would be raising holy hell. I cannot believe the Clintons were so brazen in the way they conducted 'business'. What the hell were they thinking? I mean this along with the email server is the biggest gift ever to the opposition. Who is advising these people? Who thought this was a good idea? Did they not know this would be obvious for everyone to see? I, like most others assumed the White House would be a given for Hillary, now I don't see it happening. We need somebody else or we might get stuck with a Walker or Cruz in the White House.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Ten points proven not to be correct by Media Matters, the writer also admitted he could not

Prove everything but he still wrote them.

[karynnj]

17. The problem is that many of the things referred to are NOT based on that book

In addition to the book, there is the entire email mess, where for 6 years HRC email was not subject to any SD searches for documents related to FOIA or Congressional requests. Now, the SD is dealing with processing 55000 pages of printed emails.

In addition, there is the refiling of Clinton Foundation tax forms. The revisions deal partly with showing contributions from foreign governments. Now, THAT was a sensitive issue when she was confirmed - on both sides of the aisle. The Obama/Clinton agreement was important to the confirmation process. (Note that she was not treated differently here - John and Teresa Kerry had to agree to various things too.)

Note NEITHER of these stories came out of that book.

[Thinkingabout]

18. The writer had said he will correct before the release of the book.

Have you read the information yet and investigated as Media Matters has?

[karynnj]

26. I read what Media matters wrote

I am not sure what you mean by "information". I have read various articles - obviously I have not read the book that has not been released.

I did personally look at some specific charges in his 2011 book on "insider trading" -- and at a point when most here were actually slamming Congress and citing the 60 minutes show, I did explain how many claims seemed ridiculous. The methodology itself was extremely idiotic. There were also some extremely stupid errors - ie in speaking of the 2003 drug bill, he noted for a few Democrats that they led on that bill, thus knew what was in it -- but this was a Republican Senate and a Republican bill. Yet he claimed Kerry chaired the subcommittee that worked on it - except the Republicans had the chairs and the bill was worked in the full Finance committee, not the healthcare subcommittee. Oh, Kerry led a fight AGAINST the bill as written.

I could look and give you links to things I wrote back in 2011, but I doubt that is really what you really care about.

[onehandle]

4. 'Not Hillary' is winning the hearts and minds of his/her supporters. nt

[cali]

20. that would be MOM for me u

[still_one]

5. "She doesn't have the attributes of a great politician that her husband does"? What a sexist,

asinine statement

[DURHAM D]

8. Amen

[cali]

22. How on earth is that sexist? Be specific

[still_one]

28. this is about Hillary, not Bill Clinton. Why even bring HIM into the

discussion?

[cali]

29. because I was comparing her to one of the most prodigeously talented pols

of our time. He happens to be her husband. There was nothing even remotely sexist about it, and if you believe it was, I trust you alerted.

[davidpdx]

33. I happen to agree with you

They are two different people, something many Hillary Clinton supporters complain that people CAN'T see. Yet you make the observation that Bill Clinton has a different personality than his wife. Yet, that IS true.

She doesn't have the attributes of a great politician that her husband does, that would enable her to overcome them

Specifically he is much more charismatic something that is not learned, you are born with it. It is also fair to say that he has had a much longer political career that has spanned back to the mid 70's when he first ran for office. I have no idea what her role was when she was first lady of Arkansas as I hadn't heard her name (or his) until he ran in 1992. I think it would be fair to say since she worked on the healthcare issue then, that was the point where her political career began. So he has 40+ years where as she has a bit over 20 years. Then again, I would argue that Bill Clinton is much more likely to open his mouth and put his foot in it that his wife.

Anyway, the whole lets throw the sexist word around gets old, especially when the people doing it can't even justify why.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. The folks on Melissa Harris Perry's show today didn't seem to think they were 'unfair' attacks.

They strongly suggested that when countries give money to a foundation, they expect something in return, and not just photo ops.

[DURHAM D]

11. So they are showing their stupid???

Foundation = THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. The Clinton Foundation is now the United States Government?

If somebody's showing their stupid around here, I don't think it's the folks on MHP.

[DURHAM D]

7. She may not have the "attributes" of a great politician

because she is more than that...she is a fighter. She has had your back and my back for decades as she raised awareness for women and girls, minorities, and the disadvantaged the world over for her entire adult life.

I am disgusted by those who won't get her back while she will still do everything she can to protect your rights.

I think some people are just afraid to watch the mayhem as she keeps on in the role she was born to, a public servant.

Shame on those who don't get this.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Where is she on workers rights? On the environment? On the TPP?

The things that escape her attention are the things that matter most.

Any good Dem we select will protect women's rights.

Hillary would do well to keep up the good work internationally, she does this well.

But she sucks at taking care of our jobs and our ability to prosper because she's all about the global economy, friends in high places, and the 1%.

This problem is self-evident.

[DURHAM D]

14. Yes, we know skip. nt

[NYC_SKP]

9. ---It was epically careless, this mixing of SOS and a gigantic family foundation. Let's find better.

First and foremost, she doesn't have the interest in AMERICAN workers that we need our next president to have.

She's an elitist, taking the most extravagant rooms when visiting dignitaries and business partners like TATA, a firm that provides scabs to bust unions and specializes in outsourcing our jobs or insourcing H1B workers.

When it comes to workers rights, she is the enemy.

http://cwalocal4250.org/article?id=a_1047621600-184433&t=h1b&p=304

[Thinkingabout]

15. It was epically careless of a writer to not check his facts, admit he could not prove his work

And put the information out. Media Matters has investigated 10 points so far which are incorrect. He is a sloppy writer and supported by RW groups.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Not about the book, per se, but their behavior and actions are inexcusable, disqualifying.

In a proper world, they would be illegal.

[Thinkingabout]

21. Lies about anyone should not be accepted as reasons to disqualify anyone.

If you want to know why others do not put themselves up to run for offices is the conduct by many to try and rip the candidate and their families apart. Lying is a part of this process, it is unacceptable to tell lies and write a book to make money off those lies. Why anyone is believing the sloppy work is the same thing FOXites do everyday.

[karynnj]

19. Why keep pushing this strawman -- ie that criticism of the Clintons on this means you agree with

that author? It is disingenuous and extremely unfair towards people who are trying to understand what happened and what didn't - because knowing that is the only way that we can defend her in good conscience.

The fact is that fear that that could happen goes all the way back to the Senate confirmation in 2009. At this point, there is no quid por quo that has been proven by anyone. However, even ignoring the book altogether, there have been examples that at least need defense.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Exactly. We shouldn't be distracted by the book, but we do need to vet this candidate.

The book came along far later then my concluding that the Clintons aren't good for us, to put it nicely.

We ignore the conflicts of interest at our peril, and now is the time to do our own investigations, lest we be caught losing the GE because of legitimate problems.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Damaging, it should be to the writer it was already warned he had faulty

Writings before, this proves he is not to be relied on for the truth.

I get it you are not a Hillary supporter and she may not have the political attributes her husband but in my lifetime there have only been two and the other one was JFK. Yes it is nice to have Bill's political attributes but doesn't disqualify Hillary on having the ability to serve as president.

How start advocating for a unified DNC where we can work towards electing Democrats to offices and bring about great changed and programs like Social Security, Medicare and Civil Rights. Let this generation leave more than the ACA as a legacy. Allow people to choose who they love and get jobs and wages to a point households are able to provide what their families need. I am an optimist, tomorrow is a new day and it can be the best day of my life.

[cali]

24. this is about far more than one book by an asshole con

I just read a rather nuts and bolts piece about problems with the foundation in the journal of philanthropy

[Thinkingabout]

27. It should be about what can we do great for this country but seems to stay

Bogged down complaining about trivial things and letting the important programs fall by the wayside. Obama fought for the ACA, still fighting on some portions, had the House vote over 50 times to repeal it, that is trivial.

[cali]

30. this is a board for discussing politics. it's what we do here

And you don't get to dictate what you think people should say

[Thinkingabout]

31. I guess this goes both ways.

[blkmusclmachine]

32. http://www.trainingforwarriors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Power-of-One-e1347564153152.jpg

[JoePhilly]

34. The GOP will make up shit about any Dem candidate for Prez.

They did it to Kerry, Obama, and they'll do it to Clinton, Warren, Sanders, or anyone else.