How Long Will Democrats Stand By Hillary in Face of Financial Disclosures?
Posted: 04/24/2015 10:17 am EDT Updated: 24 minutes ago

Hillary Clinton is in, and with her announcement the rest of the Democrats considering running for president in 2016 are out. In a manner reminiscent of the Republican Party of old, Democrats have ceded the nomination to Hillary Clinton. It is not exactly clear why this is the case. She clearly has a large following in the party and has a huge fundraising base, but that was true eight years ago as well. Perhaps it is because she lost a close race for the nomination last time that she is being handed the baton this time. Or perhaps the theory is that as the scorned candidate and cuckolded spouse she has suffered enough, that it is her turn. Whatever the reason, Hillary is off to a rocky start, and it could be a long year.

It used to be that the Republican nomination outcome was pre-ordained. Sure, the GOP went through a primary process, and every so often--1964 comes to mind--the clash between the conservative and establishment wings of the party could be titanic. But the era of the GOP as a tightly controlled cabal where candidates waited their turn and tenure and experience were rewarded is over. This year, the imprint of Barack Obama is evident as well. Tenure and experience are passé. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are first-term Senators, and each mock rather than defer to the establishment candidate, Jeb Bush. John McCain, Bob Dole and George H. W. Bush must look on and shake their heads.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, will be the candidate of experience. She only announced her candidacy two weeks ago, but already Clinton fatigue has begun to settle in. Hillary has been in the public eye for a quarter of a century, yet she began her campaign with a strategy to remake her image. Her campaign--we knew this already--will be a meta-campaign. It will not be about what she believes in or promises to do, instead everything she says and everything she does will be scrutinized from the perspective of strategy. What she says will not be the focus, but rather why she is saying it. Little or nothing will be taken at face value.

This is because strategy rather than commitment and values are central to the Clinton brand. Bill Clinton emerged from the back woods of Arkansas and won the White House as a "New Democrat". A New Democrat was a phenomenon not of principle but of strategic positioning. In accordance with game theory, in a two-party race, a candidate should seek to position him or herself as close to the opposing candidate as possible in an effort to capture the "median voter" in the center, and then take by default everyone else on their side of the ideological spectrum. Bill Clinton embraced this strategy and moved as close as he could to the moderate Republican position with the expectation that he could then take all of the votes to the left of that position. Thus it was that voters on the left who voted for Bill Clinton for president in 1992 described the experience as being at a shotgun wedding. Bill Clinton said it best early on in his first term when he pronounced to his cabinet, "We're all Eisenhower Republicans now."

Hillary's coronation has not been eagerly embraced by the Democratic left. She has been unable to convince those who have urged Elizabeth Warren to run that she shares the Massachusetts Senator's outrage at the pandering to Wall Street, or those who admire Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that she is animated by passion for traditional Democrat values, including support for labor and distrust of free trade, charter schools and other hallmarks of now-entrenched New Democrats. In Hillary's remarks declaring her candidacy, she took the obligatory swipes at Wall Street and growing income inequality. But her claims that she would work to repeal the carried interest exemption that blesses hedge fund and other investment managers with a lower tax rate than Warren Buffet's secretary, or perhaps champion campaign finance reform rang hollow, and were quickly dismissed even by Wall Street supporters as a necessary strategy would never be manifest in policy down the road. Hillary's claims that she would take on Wall Street and campaign finance--issues that animate both the right and the left against the entrenched center--only served as a reminder that the Clintons have been the recipients, through campaign contributions, speaking fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation, of literally billions of dollars in largesse from the richest people, corporations and countries in the world.

The issue of money is likely to haunt the Clinton campaign in the months to come. Any hope that Democrats might have had of making hay of the corrosive effects of money on our democracy--whether targeting Citizen's United, SuperPACs or the near-$900,000,000 David and Charles Koch have committed to raise for this campaign cycle--will be neutralized by the many manifestations of the ways that the Clintons have enriched themselves and their world.

This week, the New York Times published a story suggesting linkages between the activities of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's actions as Secretary of State, and Bill Clinton's receipt of a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian Bank, surrounding the sale of uranium assets by a Canadian company to a Russian company. The story is a product of an agreement reached by the Times, together with the Washington Post and Fox News, with Peter Schweizer, author of the forthcoming book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich to research the information he has compiled regarding connections between political contributions and speaking fees paid to the Clintons, contributions to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton's actions as a public official.

A decade ago, Philadelphians saw up close the mixing of philanthropy and politics erupt into a corruption scandal. Vince Fumo was a powerful Democratic State Senator in Pennsylvania who created a charitable organization called Citizens Alliance for Better Neighborhoods. In 2004, Philadelphia Electric Company made a $17 million contribution to Fumo's charity. Federal prosecutors began an investigation into whether the PECO contribution had been given in exchange for Fumo agreeing to support utility deregulation in Pennsylvania. Ultimately, the corruption case could not be proven, but Fumo and two members of his Senate staff were indicted on charges of obstruction of justice for destroying electronic evidence, including e-mail related to the federal investigation.

The parallels with the Clinton foundation are ominous: A charitable organization created by powerful political figures, staffed by political associates, taking philanthropic contributions from people and organizations who can benefit from the actions of the sponsors of the charitable organization, and, of course, the destruction of electronic communications that in the worst light could be seen as bearing on those interrelationships.

While the Times was quick to deny that they had documented any quid pro quo or illegal actions in their scrutiny of the uranium deal, the Clinton campaign asserted in the article that no one "has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation." That may well be true, but it is not necessarily is the point either. For Americans who are distressed by seeing Republican presidential candidates catering their stances on Israel and Iran to curry favor with casino magnate and mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, or who cannot imagine that the $5 billion of Wall Street money given to Congressional campaigns over the past decade is not linked to the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the finance industry, the magnitude of the Clinton empire is troubling in and of itself.

It is just two weeks into the 2016 Presidential campaign and Democrats have ceded their nomination to Hillary Clinton. They better hope that she and Bill have good answers to the questions that are going to be coming their way. We could be in for a long year.

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

You mean democratic politicians and republican politicians are the same? Out for their own personal gain? Good thing we have a federal government that is growing to reign them in. Oh, wait a second.......

"personal gain"?
the Clinton Foundation?

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

I'm sorry, WG, you're right, the Clintons are the exception. They are not corrupt, they don't lie, and they are generally out for the good of the country....

Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate, but so was the PiC and he won twice. So we know that progs will ignore any and every flaw by their candidate and happily vote for any variety of villain, incompetent or evil-doer. As I have said in connection with the PiC, Hillary could be video taped killing and eating a baby, and the progs would pooh pooh it. They'd say that the Republicans were responsible for her doing that. Vast right wing conspiracy, if you will. These people are zombies, who will do what they're told to do.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

What I'm saying is that money that goes to "the Clinton Foundation" is charity, not "personal gain". Unless someone is alleging that Hillary is dipping into that fund for her extravagant pant suits...

While she is not my preferred candidate for the Democratic nomination (I would prefer a real Liberal) I don't see any viable alternative popping up and she is certainly better than any Republican on the issues.

And yes, I do believe that they are generally out for the good of the country.



-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/

Big time!

 

Ummmmmm, , , , , I would consider the "Huff Post" to be the liberal's version of Fox News, , , ,.

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

None of us like the idea of the private e-mail deletion, but since nothing has come of it (and if nothing surfaces), it's really politics as usual.

The Bush administration deleted upwards of five million e-mails and that didn't effect the republican belief in republicans. You guys sure as hell didn't stop voting republican, the re-election of Scot is a prime example.

Why are Democrats held to a different standard?

-------------------------
I was right.

Why are Democrats held to a different standard?

 

 

 

Hope and CHANGE my friend Hope and CHANGE.

What??? No Change, Should the Democrats be held to what they promised or are they above that sort of thing?

-------------------------

Um, that's Obama, not Clinton.

Are you really this dumb or do you just act it on this forum?



-------------------------
I was right.

Correct, nothing will come of it. The press saw that this was a real issue that couldn't be swept under the rug. Thus, they reluctantly reported on it. By next year, all they will say about it is that it is yesterday's news. Instead, they will be trumping truly important news, such as carrying a dog on a roof. We know how this works.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

That piece is obviously penned by an "insider" that is cynical of anything but the paycheck Huffpo gives him to write baseless manure.

These financial dealings were no secret.  Heck they were so transparent that journalists "uncovered" them.  Repeat journalists.  

How about spending a paragraph on some two bit scandal in Philly which is in no way related to the Clinton's and then noting some illusory parallels.   

Let's try to give credilbilty to something by citing a holy trinity of journalistic excellence: "the Times, together with the Washington Post and Fox News". Shazbat!

Perfect example of people in the media writing stuff for other media members and not for the public.  They burn themsleves out as each tries to outscoop the other and keep a continual stream of news coming by rewriting the same things over and over.  This piece is evidence this guy already has nothing left in the tank.    

His summation:  "It is just two weeks into the 2016 Presidential campaign and Democrats have ceded their nomination to Hillary Clinton. (AND?) They better hope that she and Bill have good answers to the questions that are going to be coming their way. (THEY WILL, THEY ARE THE CLINTONS) We could be in for a long year. (ESPECIALLY IF THE "REPORTING" IS THIS LACKLUSTER)"

 

Why are Democrats held to a different standard?>>

 >>

 >>

 >>

Hope and CHANGE my friend Hope and CHANGE.>>

Cole: Um, that's Obama, not Clinton.>>

> >

> >

Hahaha, I see that you have already yielded the high ground.>>

Already Clinton is NOT going to be held to the same Low standard that Obama didn't meet.>>

Already you are making excuses for her. >>

Um, She never promised Hope Or Change..... that was Obama... Hahaha,  what Total disconnect..>>

No Dude that's stupid Clinton never promised that and she has a totally different agenda than Obama, no way can you hold her to the same standard...>>

IF she has a totally different agenda and can't be held to the same standard as Obama and you worship Obama and think he did No Harm... Then why are you also Following Clinton who is so totally different and does NOT meet the same standards???>>

Don't you even realize you slandered them BOTH with that one comment???>>

That was Obama that promised hope and Change and Clinton didn't promise that.>>

You blindly followed Obama and will now not hold Clinton to the same standards because you know SHE CANNOT MEET THOSE SAME LOW STANDARDS.... AND you don't expect her to... You settled for less 2 elections in a row and are already prepping for lower standards next time... HAHAHaha...>>

-------------------------

Follow Cruz and see the US fail again?

Follow Bush into the same mistakes his brother made?

Perry? Moron.

Rubio? No one knows what he stands for. Hell, he doesn't even know.

Personally, I prefer Warren, but that's not going to happen, so Clinton it is.

-------------------------
I was right.

But you never answered the question: Why is it okay for Bush to delete millions of Federal e-mails, but a calamity of epic proportions when Clinton deletes roughly 1% of the Bush number and that 1% were of a personal nature?

-------------------------
I was right.

The bigger question is why does anyone expect Hillary to give a F about the perception of people who are a dwindling minority, will be vehemently opposed to her for the rest of their sad little lives no matter what, and aren't needed anyway?

It's just a blog post though, not necessarily indicative of how Arianna is thinking.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

The really sad thing is that despite Hillary being blindly ambitious and not above using some questionable tactics or even downright dirty tricks, the Republicans can't seem to manage not to trip over their own dicks and bring forward a decent candidate to take her on.

Jeb is the closest thing to a rational coherent candidate and he's got Bush smeared all over him and the TP calls him a RINO.

So sad. Welcome Madame President. I hope she asks Warren to join the ticket so I can hold my nose and vote for her.






-------------------------
"Hey, where's Cricket?" - Kristi Noem's daughter.

when she is on the stand for whatever charges are levied, take your pick, and starts to plead the 5th amendment multiple times, I will put her on top of my list of republican candidates to vote for.  I don't want to see her outrank brother jeb though.

I am done with holding my nose. If the Republicans put up a Bush, Christie or someone of that ilk, I'll go third party.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Preach it brother, I'm with you!

I pray each night for a Teddy Cruz/Louie Gohmert ticket.

If the government doesn't clean up it's act, shut the mofo down.

Teddy is the master shuterer.

Teddy is the master shuterer.

Keep up with the smooth talk - like the above - and I might take a ride on the Cruz ship!

-------------------------
I was right.

Ted Cruz is the new Nixon. We need Ted Roosevelt.

-------------------------
"Hey, where's Cricket?" - Kristi Noem's daughter.

They are fewer, but they have lots of money.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Getting deeper, , , , , when the Boston Globe steps in, you know that you are in deep yogurt!

Thu, Apr 30, 2015, 2:59pm EDT - US Markets close in 1 hr and 1 min
Watchlist ?

Hillary Clinton's charity empire hid way more foreign donations than anyone realized
Business Insider By Colin Campbell
2 hours ago
????


The Clinton Foundation's finance controversies deepened on Thursday, when The Boston Globe reported that a huge affiliate of the charity failed to report its foreign-government contributions to the State Department.
When Hillary Clinton, now the leading Democratic presidential candidate, became secretary of state in 2009, she agreed to have her family's foundation submit new donations from foreign countries for State Department review. This was designed to avoid potential conflicts of interest with her new government role.

But Clinton's foundation, now called the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and its various initiatives repeatedly violated this agreement, reports over the past few months have shown. The Washington Post reported in February that the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose $500,000 from Algeria at the time the country was lobbying the State Department over human-rights issues. And Bloomberg reported this week that the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, a Clinton Foundation affiliate, failed to disclose 1,100 foreign contributions.

And The Globe's report on the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), another foundation affiliate, may cover the most notable omissions yet as tens of millions of dollars went undisclosed to the State Department.

"Government grants to CHAI, nearly all of them from foreign countries, doubled from $26.7 million in 2010 to $55.9 million in 2013, according to the charity's tax forms," The Globe reported.

According to the paper, CHAI "makes up nearly 60% of the broader Clinton charitable empire" and has an annual budget of more than $100 million.

"The failures make the Clinton Health Access Initiative ... a prominent symbol of the broken political promise and subsequent lack of accountability underlying the charity-related controversies that are dogging Clinton as she embarks on her campaign for president," The Globe's Annie Linskey wrote.

CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley told The Globe that her organization "didn't think" it needed to report many of the contributions because they were simply increased payments from existing donor countries.

The "memorandum of understanding" the Clinton Foundation reached with the White House, however, indicates otherwise under CHAI's section of the agreement:

Should an existing contributing country elect to increase materially its commitment, or should a new contributor country elect to support CHAI, the Foundation will share such countries and the circumstances of the anticipated contribution with the State Department designated agency ethics official for review.

Indeed, a spokesman for Secretary of State John Kerry said CHAI should have disclosed the contributions.

"We would have expected that CHAI identify for the department the foreign-country donors that elected to materially increase their donations and new country donors. The State Department believes that transparency is the critical element of that agreement," the spokesman, Alec Gerlach, told The Globe.

Additionally, the paper reported that CHAI failed to disclose numerous payments from new donor countries, which Daley had various explanations for. Switzerland was an "oversight." Rwanda's $300,000 was considered a "fee" rather than a contribution. And CHAI did not consider Flanders a "foreign government" because it is part of Belgium rather than an independent country.

The agreement the Clinton Foundation struck with the White House, however, said CHAI contributions should be considered "a foreign country" if they are from "an agency or department of a foreign country, as well as a government-owned corporation."

When previously confronted with criticism of the foundation, the Clintons and their allies have pointed to their nonprofits' beneficial projects around the world. CHAI, for example, began as the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative and seeks to achieve "a large-scale, transformation, and lasting impact that saves and improves people's lives," especially in the developing world.

But in the world of 2016 campaign politics, the reported $2 billion Clinton Foundation has proved to be a repeated headache for both Hillary Clinton and her family's charity network.

Last week, The New York Times connected the foundation's contributions to the sale of US uranium production to Russia. The Washington Post noted that Bill Clinton was paid $26 million in speaking fees from the foundation's major donors. And Reuters revealed the foundation's tax returns misreported tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments.

Politico's Ken Vogel reported Thursday that the charity was in a "campaign tailspin" as the former secretary of state seeks the White House.

"The uncertainty comes at the beginning of what was supposed to have been a four-month victory lap," Vogel wrote. "Instead, it's turned into heartburn for Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and for the foundation, which has been under increasing pressure to distance itself from its more controversial partners."

-------------------------
Dora Hates You