If the money was used for the good of women i think it is poetic justice that men in countries who oppress women helped pay to further human rights! I'm so sick of people attacking Hillary Clinton. She's an amazing and accomplished woman and I'll vote for her if she runs for President!
2
People here ask what did Mrs. Clinton accomplish as a NY Senator. I will remind you. She travelled. She travelled upstate on a so-called "listening tour", never to be heard from again about those unfortunate areas. But it sounded good.
Yes, she carpet-bagged her way into NY Senate on way to possible Presidency, a fly-over. Why are NY elite obsessed with Mrs. Clinton? Can someone explain?
Women can accomplish anything they wish at this time, in this country. If she wishes to care about other countries' women issues, though commendable, then she's not paying attention to this country. And that's the problem with our politicians today, they're not addressing what we want to be addressed, they do not represent us.
Now let us forget about Mrs. Clinton for a moment. Please, voters. Let us ask ourselves what are the 3 or 4 most significant issues facing our country today, and let us apply that short list to ANYONE running for President. Let us make an effort to deduce from what we're fed in general media, including NYT, how they answer that list for you. We cannot be lazy this time out, however tough our daily lives might be. Let us rise to the occasion.
Yes, she carpet-bagged her way into NY Senate on way to possible Presidency, a fly-over. Why are NY elite obsessed with Mrs. Clinton? Can someone explain?
Women can accomplish anything they wish at this time, in this country. If she wishes to care about other countries' women issues, though commendable, then she's not paying attention to this country. And that's the problem with our politicians today, they're not addressing what we want to be addressed, they do not represent us.
Now let us forget about Mrs. Clinton for a moment. Please, voters. Let us ask ourselves what are the 3 or 4 most significant issues facing our country today, and let us apply that short list to ANYONE running for President. Let us make an effort to deduce from what we're fed in general media, including NYT, how they answer that list for you. We cannot be lazy this time out, however tough our daily lives might be. Let us rise to the occasion.
5
Hillary speaks from both sides of her mouth.....women need to take note.....
7
It just feels like the other shoe dropping. It "does" matter, a whole lot, that you compromise yourself to the point of taking millions from these thug-regimes. Oh, Bill had such a slick and predictable excuse. It's always rationalize with these two. Yes, I will vote for her if she is nominated but only if it means otherwise someone like Jeb Bush (who would be even worse) but this is such a terrible choice. She is not as brilliant as everyone says she is, either: For heaven's sake she did what is just about unforgivable and extremely stupid and voted to invade Iraq! Doesn't anyone who supports her care about that catastrophic lack of judgment? I guess not! She is not a leader, not a person who is capable of true altruism or even good judgement. Nor was her spouse. But then, look at the Bush family and what are we going to do? Vote Independent and end up letting in Jeb?
2
"She is not as brilliant as everyone says she is, either:"
Say what, brilliant?
She hired an army of 200+ mercenaries (consultants) to feed her "ideas and rationale" about what to say or do? She never lived paycheck to paycheck like 99% of us Dems who want to vote for her. She lacks any coherent, persuasive and compelling ideas about what’s ailing working families. A self-serving, polarizing empty suit with super capabilities for making easy fast money (cattle trade, Wall Street speeches). Lest we forget, the Clintons perfected the art of cut corners and manipulations:
we feel your pain
we are working for the American people
we are penniless broke.
Three mansions in the Hamptons, Chappaqua, and DC…and they are penniless broke!
What a fraud
Say what, brilliant?
She hired an army of 200+ mercenaries (consultants) to feed her "ideas and rationale" about what to say or do? She never lived paycheck to paycheck like 99% of us Dems who want to vote for her. She lacks any coherent, persuasive and compelling ideas about what’s ailing working families. A self-serving, polarizing empty suit with super capabilities for making easy fast money (cattle trade, Wall Street speeches). Lest we forget, the Clintons perfected the art of cut corners and manipulations:
we feel your pain
we are working for the American people
we are penniless broke.
Three mansions in the Hamptons, Chappaqua, and DC…and they are penniless broke!
What a fraud
3
Clinton is a chameleon and will turn whatever color is necessary to get elected. She will then say she did not have anything to do with anything about anything like she did with Benghazi. When she finally speaks about emailgate it will be that someone else put the server in and told her it was OK. From Arkansas to DC to NY to DC a trail of deception and shifting face to whatever propaganda is necessary for the cause.
5
Philanthropists Hillary Clinton and Melinda Gates are unveiling the "No Ceilings" report. What is their advice to young women? "Marry well." Two women basking in the glory of the husbands are the best we can do?
7
If one takes the time to look at the Clinton history with regards to Haiti, that in itself speaks volumes. It is not at all pretty.
5
If I did, what Clinton did, I would be in prison.
6
WHATEVER Hillary Clinton has done, the BUSH Family has done far, far worse.
1
And that is fine by her. What don't you understand?
2
The scandal is not that Mrs. Clinton allowed her foundation to take money from nations like Saudi Arabia. Rather, the scandal is that a Secretary of State set up a foundation and then did an arm twist or shakedown or something (choose your description) of foreign nations to allow them to influence her.
Has any other Secretary of State done something remotely similar? Has any other potential presidential candidate done something remotely similar?
This story, plus the incredible control she has over her emails as Secretary of State, will not go away.
Has any other Secretary of State done something remotely similar? Has any other potential presidential candidate done something remotely similar?
This story, plus the incredible control she has over her emails as Secretary of State, will not go away.
10
Hillary Clinton is no Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Golda Meir, Sheikh Hasina, Kim Campbell, Julia Gillard, Kay Bailey Hutchinson nor Dilma Rousseff. Their First Gentleman stayed in the background.
Being Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton was good enough for Senator from New York or Secretary of State. But a female John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush as POTUS is as much a stretch as they were. Another Bush and Clinton is a bit much. Royalty and family are not the American way.
Being Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton was good enough for Senator from New York or Secretary of State. But a female John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush as POTUS is as much a stretch as they were. Another Bush and Clinton is a bit much. Royalty and family are not the American way.
8
The Clinton Foundation has accepted over $2B. It still has most of that money. The foundation accepted vast sums of money from foreign governments, companies and individuals while Hillary was Secretary of State.
Now - we find out - 2 1/2 years after she is out of State Department that Hillary used a private email address for all her correspondence which Secretary of State. and never had a government email address. that seems pretty bad and loose with things. But - wait! she had her own email server - located at her home in New York State.
And then it took Hillary 2 years after she was out of office, for her to submit her emails, as Secretary of State to the State Department - and the Federal Government.
So! - she is sitting on $2B, she was in a position to sell our our country to foreign government, companies and individauls, for 4 years. The Clinton Foundation got $M's - many $M's from all these foreigners during her tenure.
Did she sell her position to get this vast fortune of money? We'll never know - because she was shrewd enough to keep total control over all her email correspondence on her own email server - located at her house. And she took 2 years to give it over to the Federal Government.
2 Years - that is plenty of time to sterilize any and all crimes out of this email and out of the record to avoid prosecution.
And this is a person who has decades of scandals behind them - so she has learned how to protect herself.
Now - we find out - 2 1/2 years after she is out of State Department that Hillary used a private email address for all her correspondence which Secretary of State. and never had a government email address. that seems pretty bad and loose with things. But - wait! she had her own email server - located at her home in New York State.
And then it took Hillary 2 years after she was out of office, for her to submit her emails, as Secretary of State to the State Department - and the Federal Government.
So! - she is sitting on $2B, she was in a position to sell our our country to foreign government, companies and individauls, for 4 years. The Clinton Foundation got $M's - many $M's from all these foreigners during her tenure.
Did she sell her position to get this vast fortune of money? We'll never know - because she was shrewd enough to keep total control over all her email correspondence on her own email server - located at her house. And she took 2 years to give it over to the Federal Government.
2 Years - that is plenty of time to sterilize any and all crimes out of this email and out of the record to avoid prosecution.
And this is a person who has decades of scandals behind them - so she has learned how to protect herself.
11
It seems that when you’re a rich politician, with a lavish playground, making rules for yourself, it becomes a battle ground, and your name becomes known for corruption, obsession and violence? The Mansons...I mean the Clintons give in to the belief they have more power and influence than others, a feeling that sometimes makes them feel justified in expressing anger and retribution.
The rich can afford better lawyers, and they may even have the money to hire people to do the dirty work for them. But eventually, if the law catches up with them, money can only do so much.
The rich can afford better lawyers, and they may even have the money to hire people to do the dirty work for them. But eventually, if the law catches up with them, money can only do so much.
9
This may not be "the one"...but sooner or later Karma will walk into the front door of the Clinton household...all of them...
9
Those who wish the Clintons would not take money from the Saudis, et al, would do better to put their money where their mouths are. Why do you think she has to ask them for money, hm?
1
This "Clinton Foundation" is nothing more than the public relations arm of the Clinton Machine. Nothing more and nothing less. Why all the moralizing and analysis of what is, essentially an entertainment/political entity?
Who cares?
Perhaps the time required of Ms. Clinton toward the administration of this item was what prevented her from complying with standard State Department rules concerning the secure server of her e-mails.
Who cares?
Perhaps the time required of Ms. Clinton toward the administration of this item was what prevented her from complying with standard State Department rules concerning the secure server of her e-mails.
5
So rules don't apply if they are too time consuming? Lame excuse for corruption and lack of transparency.
9
sure, let me use that excuse on my taxes
"sorry IRS< I didnt bother with my taxes because there are to many forms and its too time consuming."
"sorry IRS< I didnt bother with my taxes because there are to many forms and its too time consuming."
2
HRC has no business being on the short list for president. Her only goal is self aggrandizement and ego fulfillment. She has no morals, ethics or integrity. She attempts to convert celebrity into legitimacy, and fails. Her only accomplishment was pretending to answer a 4 AM phone call.
14
Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Republican 'Goldwater Girl'.
NO thanks!
NO thanks!
8
The First Native American President. It's about time!
NOT Hillary!
NOT Hillary!
7
so lying about your heritage to get ahead is just fine?
4
jschmidt-
not referring to Elizabeth Warren BTW.
not referring to Elizabeth Warren BTW.
4
Reagan used to say, "I take their money but I don't take their ideas." Out here where Hillary's our girl, taking their money and using it to do good is a neat trick and I for one applaud her for it. Guess not taking their money would ease the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia? Reducto ad absurdum indeed!
3
Reagan was a liar to. You think you can take money from people like that and don't give return? so who is being absurd.
7
Hilliary and Bill have always been huge advocates for, well, Hilliary and Bill. The kind of money we are talking about is available only for the richest and most powerful. Some earn their money while others like the Clintons, use politics to extort money. Hilliary cares as much about woman and children in these Arab countries as Bill cared for the Tutsis and Hutus. Champions of the poor? Only if they can be used. What is most pitiful are the comments defending both the 'pay to play' foundation and the clandestine server. America; wake up.
16
Many comments in support of the Clintons insist "what does it matter where the money comes from as long as it's put to good use." Really? Do you believe that these large donations by repressive regimes and oligarchs are done for altruistic reasons? Or is some future quid pro quo expected. If Saudi Arabia wished it could fund the entire UN program on Aids or any number of good causes. They choose to donate to the Clintons for a reason. A comprehensive audit of the Clinton Foundation by the appropriate Congressional oversight committee may be in order.
13
those are the same people who think her answer of "what difference does it make!!!" was a good answer
This issue may have its own importance, and so does the issue of her personal control of her emails (in ways that break either regulations or laws or both, and that all of her email correspondents knew about too). Those two issues have in common the trait that she is canny and deliberate in controlling information that the rest of us have an interest in knowing (not the information details themselves, but the fact that she is controlling the information about herself with her own sole discretion). All those men politicians probably do much the same thing until they are found out, but the point is that she does it. She shouldn't pretend otherwise, and us voters should be very aware that she's like that.
10
Many charitable foundations, like political parties, support many different causes and accept contributions from many different groups. It is not, nor should it be, a condition of accepting a charitable donation or a political contribution that the donor support all causes or positions supported by the foundation or the party.
1
She's been morphing into the Democrats version of John McCain for quite a while now. Someone who once stood for something but has since decided that getting to be the president trumps anything else. Both the foundation's fundraising and her adoption of the Bush administration's illegal use of private email for government business are but two examples and there will be more.
She is shallow, evasive, condescending, sarcastic and self-righteously outraged when anyone dares to question either her motives and/or actions. Both she and Bill love money, and the power that comes with it. As a result, the wheels are starting to loosen on the Clinton wagon and the results will not please either of them. Their strategy of moral relativity when it comes to money isn't one that's built to last forever, especially for a presidential candidate.
She is shallow, evasive, condescending, sarcastic and self-righteously outraged when anyone dares to question either her motives and/or actions. Both she and Bill love money, and the power that comes with it. As a result, the wheels are starting to loosen on the Clinton wagon and the results will not please either of them. Their strategy of moral relativity when it comes to money isn't one that's built to last forever, especially for a presidential candidate.
16
Didn't we get burned last time for electing a president based on civil rights progress? And that's not to mention the debacle from electing members of political dynasties (we are truly SOL in the event of a J. Bush v. H. Clinton election).
Can we at least make a half-baked attempt to nominate and elect presidents based on merit? If not, fine... we may be too far gone, but there are plenty of better female candidates to choose from.
Can we at least make a half-baked attempt to nominate and elect presidents based on merit? If not, fine... we may be too far gone, but there are plenty of better female candidates to choose from.
14
Tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments to the presumed presidential candidate for 2016. And no emails in evidence. Just can't take more endless Clinton scandals for another ten years.
One thing is for sure: the Clinton's will do a better job of eliminating the "missing emails" than Lois Lerner and John Koskinen did.
One thing is for sure: the Clinton's will do a better job of eliminating the "missing emails" than Lois Lerner and John Koskinen did.
17
Well let's see. In '08 she played down her interest in women as such because it seemed expedient. Now she's playing it up for, apparently, the same reason. In '08 she tried to blame her defeat on Mark Penn's advice about the issue. Now she's listening to him, and allegedly 199 other advisers.
A final point: she's married to a recognized political genius, yet continues to make egregious political blunders in public. What does that say about her ability to recognize and listen to advice?
A final point: she's married to a recognized political genius, yet continues to make egregious political blunders in public. What does that say about her ability to recognize and listen to advice?
13
Hilary is a Clinton. Noting more needs to be said. She is for whatever is convenient for her, Bill, and now Chelsea. She led, behind the scenes, the trashing of women who came forward with accusations against Bill. She's happy to take money from oppressive regimes since it helps her. Of course she will spin it to say she wants to change them. Secret emails - no problem since she knows best which ones we need to see.
No offense but Hillary is a fraud. She got knocked off last time by a do nothing IL State Senator who was a US Senator barely two years. She's not invincible and she is not inevitable. I love the picture of Hillary with her Blackberry sending a message around the Libyan crisis. Funny, she hasn't produced that one.
No offense but Hillary is a fraud. She got knocked off last time by a do nothing IL State Senator who was a US Senator barely two years. She's not invincible and she is not inevitable. I love the picture of Hillary with her Blackberry sending a message around the Libyan crisis. Funny, she hasn't produced that one.
23
You hit it on the nail. Thank you.
8
What has just come to light regarding Hillary Clinton has reduced her chances of becoming President. She does not deserve to hold the highest office of the land. Her lack of judgement is so profound that now the Democratic Party must scramble to find a viable candidate. The use of a private server to send emails while Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundations' acceptance of donations from foreign organizations while she was looking to run for President demonstrates poor judgement and an attitude of being above reproach.
Expect Hillary Clinton to announce that before using her private server she consulted with private experts to make sure she was fully secure. This may be true but the point is the National Security Council, and at the very least the President, should have not only been informed but made the decision that the use of a private server was acceptable. Until a review by the NSA is complete the nation will not know whether our security may have been compromised.
Expect Hillary Clinton to announce that before using her private server she consulted with private experts to make sure she was fully secure. This may be true but the point is the National Security Council, and at the very least the President, should have not only been informed but made the decision that the use of a private server was acceptable. Until a review by the NSA is complete the nation will not know whether our security may have been compromised.
9
Security compromised? If Gufccifer (the Romanian hacker who sits in jail) hadn't picked up Hillary's and Sid Blumenthal's correspondence, we would never have known about the private server for the people's business.
8
that has nothing to do with her using a personal email acct.
Hillary's reality is that she is both a strong champion of women's rights and morally challenged when it comes to what she will do for money and power. Her supporters and critics choose to ignore that other side that doesn't fit the image they are attacking and/or defending.
At some point, however, her moral challenges outweigh her strengths and certainly outweigh her gender. The first female president still has to have a moral compass.
At some point, however, her moral challenges outweigh her strengths and certainly outweigh her gender. The first female president still has to have a moral compass.
14
Time to recruit OPRAH!
4
It seems unfair, if there is such a thing in hypocrisycracy, to single out Hillary-machine for questionable altruistic devotion to women's rights. There is a separate article today on pervasive worldwide multi-cultural violence on women. The emperor (any man abusing relative power over women) needs a new wardrobe.
She may or may not be a viable US president if there is such a thing anymore; but, attacking her about such an enormous issue is more "false-flag" operation than anything else.
I favor women's rights. Lefts would be good too. These would be jabs, crosses, hooks and uppercuts.
She may or may not be a viable US president if there is such a thing anymore; but, attacking her about such an enormous issue is more "false-flag" operation than anything else.
I favor women's rights. Lefts would be good too. These would be jabs, crosses, hooks and uppercuts.
7
Please step aside Hillary. We don't want you. We want better choices.
16
We don't want JEB either. Step aside JEB. We want better choices.
7
And some of us want Hillary. Always best to watch that majestic plural.
2
Speak for yourself, Einstein. I'd like to hear much more from, Jeb. He seems like a reasonable candidate, and we need many more of them.
5
Bill Clinton rationalizes that the source of money isn't as important as what's done with it. That's a clever rationalization. It fits with what we hear from those who support Hillary. Yet, for ordinary folks, the sources of money just as the company one keeps tell a lot about a person. Maybe the extraordinarily wealthy don't see it that way. Soliciting and obtaining large sums of money for her family's foundation from repressive leaders who then continue being repressive, especially toward women, raises real misgivings when we hear Hillary's message about improving the lives of women.
19
Ends justify the means. Straight out of Machiavelli.
8
To turn away this kind of money you would need ethics and moral standards.
You would need to put you money where your mouth is.
Of the 8 million spend on travel from this fund, I wonder how much went to Hillary at the same time the Dept of State paid the same bill. Bet if dug into you would find double dipping.
You would need to put you money where your mouth is.
Of the 8 million spend on travel from this fund, I wonder how much went to Hillary at the same time the Dept of State paid the same bill. Bet if dug into you would find double dipping.
16
This doesn't matter. Not politically, anyway. When the dust settles, the two candidates for president in 2016 will be Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. To elect Bush would mean America wants to put a third in office, and the weakest one yet. Neither candidate is desirable, but Clinton will win the 'lesser of two evils' election and she will be our first female president.
7
Wrong. No way Jeb Bush. None.
3
Hillary may carry your precinct in Cambridge (maybe) but she will not win a national election in 2016 or any other year, no matter who the Republican candidate. If she couldn't beat Obama in 2008 among the Democrat core when you she had every advantage at the start how can you imagine that she could win a national election after her mediocre tenure at State and the recent revelations? No way. She needs to step aside for the good of the party.
7
In life, several--sometimes many--things can be simultaneously true. That the Republicans despise Hillary Clinton is true. That Republican elected officials have been enthusiastic feeders at the money trough is true.
That does not make Hillary Clinton acceptable as President of the US--because everyone is equally venal and dishonest.
As a young woman, Hillary was a Republican. Her earliest values were conservative. She found a Democratic rising star to build their joint ambitions on, and the two of them have had a singular drive for power ever since. Their partnership is apparently based on "first my turn, then yours."
Hillary does not have the courage to go against the interests of major donors to her campaigns and party, in the interests of, say, a genuine and lasting Middle East peace agreement or rapprochement with Iran, which is the major linchpin in countering Sunni fundamentalism in Iraq.
So what, exactly, would a Hillary Clinton presidency bring to the US, and the world? In what way would it be worse than a Republican presidency? Her husband gave us DODT and the dismantling of welfare programs. How are these people friends of progressive and enlightened policies?
That does not make Hillary Clinton acceptable as President of the US--because everyone is equally venal and dishonest.
As a young woman, Hillary was a Republican. Her earliest values were conservative. She found a Democratic rising star to build their joint ambitions on, and the two of them have had a singular drive for power ever since. Their partnership is apparently based on "first my turn, then yours."
Hillary does not have the courage to go against the interests of major donors to her campaigns and party, in the interests of, say, a genuine and lasting Middle East peace agreement or rapprochement with Iran, which is the major linchpin in countering Sunni fundamentalism in Iraq.
So what, exactly, would a Hillary Clinton presidency bring to the US, and the world? In what way would it be worse than a Republican presidency? Her husband gave us DODT and the dismantling of welfare programs. How are these people friends of progressive and enlightened policies?
9
I to was a republican but then came Reagan and since I have become an evermore staunch Democrat. While isn't it plausible that Hillary did the same?
3
LOL, Hillary will do ANYTHING, for power & money. Someone should read her history of whom whom she defended in early days....
wow.
Wish we had someone who was running for America...
wow.
Wish we had someone who was running for America...
5
Another example of Hillary Clinton's very poor record on woman's rights:
In 2003, the IRS was finally going to tax wealthy executives on their stock options - for payroll taxes.
That is - even though the law required certain types of stock options ("disqualifying dispositions") to be taxed as wages, the IRS always looked the other way regarding payroll taxes. When the IRS was finally about to tax these type of stock options for payroll taxes, Hillary Clinton endorsed a bill that would permanently exempt these stock options from payroll taxes.
Who receives stock options - well, honestly, mostly men. In fact, sometimes, for the very same job, women are classified in such a way as to NOT be eligible for stock options, even as men are classified to receive stock options for the same position.
In 2003, the IRS was finally going to tax wealthy executives on their stock options - for payroll taxes.
That is - even though the law required certain types of stock options ("disqualifying dispositions") to be taxed as wages, the IRS always looked the other way regarding payroll taxes. When the IRS was finally about to tax these type of stock options for payroll taxes, Hillary Clinton endorsed a bill that would permanently exempt these stock options from payroll taxes.
Who receives stock options - well, honestly, mostly men. In fact, sometimes, for the very same job, women are classified in such a way as to NOT be eligible for stock options, even as men are classified to receive stock options for the same position.
9
There are too many inconsistencies about Hillary that make me uncomfortable; too many places where the worst could be true. She promotes woman’s rights but accepts money form countries that are notorious violators of woman’s rights; she travels as the Secretary of State representing the US yet there is the possibility that she is accepting money for her foundation. She communicates on a private server for her email where I have to trust her people to provide the emails that are relevant. Also, I’m not happy about the fact that someone from her own State Department that was fired because of these same violations. These are only a few of the inconstancies I could name. I can’t have a president that I will always be wondering about.
13
Mrs. Clinton had found that the old adage, " no good deed goes unpunished" is so true.
Why must Mrs. Clinton prove or defend her record on women's rights or women's equality?
She is an accomplished federal official, an admired First Lady, a visible and outspoken national and international leader, done outstanding philanthropic work, a strong independent spouse and parent and yet it's not enough for some.
Mrs. Clinton could have ended her term as our Secretary of State, retired from public service and she still would have done more than most of us ever do to serve our country.
What male candidate for national elected office has ever been subjected to such nonsense?
It's fine to question or disagree with Mrs. Clinton's political policies or official acts but let's stop holding her to a completely different standard than other potential candidates.
Oh, and I will certainly vote for Mrs. Clinton over any Republican should she become the Democrtic nominee for President!
Why must Mrs. Clinton prove or defend her record on women's rights or women's equality?
She is an accomplished federal official, an admired First Lady, a visible and outspoken national and international leader, done outstanding philanthropic work, a strong independent spouse and parent and yet it's not enough for some.
Mrs. Clinton could have ended her term as our Secretary of State, retired from public service and she still would have done more than most of us ever do to serve our country.
What male candidate for national elected office has ever been subjected to such nonsense?
It's fine to question or disagree with Mrs. Clinton's political policies or official acts but let's stop holding her to a completely different standard than other potential candidates.
Oh, and I will certainly vote for Mrs. Clinton over any Republican should she become the Democrtic nominee for President!
10
It is so sad for the future of the country when you see seemingly intelligent people on either side of the aisle flat out state that no matter how crooked, shady, damaging to the country a president would be, said candidate is assured of their vote for purely blind partisan reasons, no more no less. Yet, they carp about crooks in office, greedy 1%-ers, revolving door politics, no accountability to the people. When you tell the politicians, especially by your vote, that their lack of ethics or candor is of no importance, trust me they listen - and go right on with their no consequence shenanigans.
9
George S:
Partisanship provides a lot of cover for not only immoral behavior but for ineptitude too.
Partisanship provides a lot of cover for not only immoral behavior but for ineptitude too.
8
Again proving that Jonathan Gruber was right.
6
Hillary cares about one thing, and one thing only, advancing her career. That includes advancing the financial well being of her family. Of course, she is not unique in that regard. But let us hold no illusions tied to the facts that she was born with two X chromosomes and is a member of the Democratic party. She is no champion of women, no champion of the environment, no champion of the poorest 80% of Americans and no champion of world peace. She is a ladder climbing social climber and most voters know that in their guts. And that is fine. She will never win the Presidency.
16
Hillary Clinton, in 2006, running for the re-election of US senator from NY, living in a town whose name she probably still can't pronounce, was asked about running for the presidency in 2008 (aka: so long suckers from NY state).
Clinton's response: that she hadn't yet decided whether she was going to run for president in 2008. Translation: Hillary Clinton was the only person in America not to know she'd be running for president two years hence.
And she's the most admired female in America.
So you can see why we're in the mess we're in.
Clinton's response: that she hadn't yet decided whether she was going to run for president in 2008. Translation: Hillary Clinton was the only person in America not to know she'd be running for president two years hence.
And she's the most admired female in America.
So you can see why we're in the mess we're in.
9
Who was the bigger carpetbagger: Bobby Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton? Star power makes New Yorkers roll over so quickly, as Nita Lowey learned.
4
I believe that all of the donor countries are American allies, as well, so, if the American government can deal with them, I have less of a problem with the Clinton Foundation accepting money which it then uses to fight AIDS, and other worthy causes. Our government gives a billion dollars a year in aid to Egypt's new dictatorship, so going all righteous over donations from pro-American regimes that are misogynist seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
While I abhor the treatment of women in many Muslim countries, should a foundation refuse to accept money that can be used to help poor people in 3rd world countries because the donors aren't as pure as we would like? If the donated money was being used to work against women, I would agree with the criticism, but given the fact that charities can't function without donations, I am not too bothered by it.
However, if Hilary is elected, the Clinton Foundation should not be used as a back door way for foreign governments to get influence with Washington. Bill and Hillary need to step back from the foundation at that time.
While I abhor the treatment of women in many Muslim countries, should a foundation refuse to accept money that can be used to help poor people in 3rd world countries because the donors aren't as pure as we would like? If the donated money was being used to work against women, I would agree with the criticism, but given the fact that charities can't function without donations, I am not too bothered by it.
However, if Hilary is elected, the Clinton Foundation should not be used as a back door way for foreign governments to get influence with Washington. Bill and Hillary need to step back from the foundation at that time.
8
What about when she was Secretary of State? No problem with the Saudis influencing her then, I guess.
8
What exactly would make them step back? They have no incentive to do so, for they know many partisan defenders will twist themselves into ethical pretzels making excuses for them and looking the other way. It's so silly to think they (or similar people) will change their ways. They have no reason to.
5
There's a difference between a strategic ally and an ideological friend. Hopefully whoever wins the presidency will understand that (Hillary does, of course) and able to tolerate the necessary.
1
I'm the last to deny that the Clintons are ethically challenged, but what, exactly, is the story here? They have a large, complex Foundation that accepts money from many sources, including "Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women." These same Middle Eastern countries give money to everyone—American politicians of every stripe, universities, you name it. I wish we lived in a purer world where this didn't happen, but in the meantime, this is what we've got.
Moments ago, in this same newspaper, there appeared an article on a U.N. report that cites increasing violence against women worldwide; its first paragraph mentions New Delhi, South Sudan, Iraq, and, yes, the U.S. Should everyone stop accepting funding from all of these countries?
Do we have nothing more to look forward to between now and the next presidential election than an ever-increasingly thin anti-Hillary campaign?
Moments ago, in this same newspaper, there appeared an article on a U.N. report that cites increasing violence against women worldwide; its first paragraph mentions New Delhi, South Sudan, Iraq, and, yes, the U.S. Should everyone stop accepting funding from all of these countries?
Do we have nothing more to look forward to between now and the next presidential election than an ever-increasingly thin anti-Hillary campaign?
5
Nixon had his 18-minute gap in the dictaphone tape, and Hillary has her hand-picked email hand-over. She has a lot of other issues, too. I think a lot of people are asking why it is a given that she "must" be president.
42
The only ones asking are the republicans who are trying to defeat her.
1
The Clinton's advocate for themselves period. The thirst for power and money is the driving force. Phony issues like women's rights, income inequality, and the middle class are the smoke screen for them to obtain their objectives. The Gruber people and the media have been happily obliging them for decades.
11
I am a woman and I would like to see a presidential candidate who can list some other accomplishments on his/her resumee, besides speaking out for women' rights.
11
Well, she's handy with home electronics.
And she did dodge bullets in Bosnia.
And she did dodge bullets in Bosnia.
9
I'm a former whistleblower in the State Department and female. My action began during the Bush-Cheney era, and came to completion during Secretary Clinton's tenure. Mrs Clinton's staff failed whistle blowers in the Department. And I was denied Due Process. What voice?? As a female whistleblower, I had no recourse, even when I asked for an Ombudsman and a hearing. Im not a crazy Republican. I am a registered Independent and voted twice for President Obama. Much of the time the Secretary was traveling, collecting awards. There were no much-needed reforms. I gave my career and the moral of this story, the rules don't apply to whistleblowers and they do not apply in an entirely different way to our seniors. Shame
17
So,Ms.Chozick states that Mrs.Clinton will be considered suspect on women*s rights,conditions because the Clinton Foundation accepts donations from countries such as Saudi Arabia,the U.A.E which are inclined to assign to women a socially subordinate status.So,when donations to the Clinton Foundation go towards the alleviation of AIDs,of maladies afflicting large populations globally,these donations are indicative of a country such as Saudi Arabia*s intent upon maintaining a woman*s subordinate status.
I am unpersuaded.
I am unpersuaded.
3
I cannot think of a better way to use Arab monies than to put it to use freeing, empowering and educating young girls and women.
The U.S. does not help the Clinton Foundation's other than from private donors. Their work knows NO boarders. Money is nothing unless put to the uses for good~ Who cares where it comes from when it is doing so much good for women all over the world. The women in these countries will become empowered enough to stand up to and change govt.s where men think they are the stronger or 'smarter' beings. It will stop the domination once and for all~ Blessings to the Clintons.
The U.S. does not help the Clinton Foundation's other than from private donors. Their work knows NO boarders. Money is nothing unless put to the uses for good~ Who cares where it comes from when it is doing so much good for women all over the world. The women in these countries will become empowered enough to stand up to and change govt.s where men think they are the stronger or 'smarter' beings. It will stop the domination once and for all~ Blessings to the Clintons.
8
We are sick and tired of women's rights being used to justify war and domination.
5
There was this notion that if we elected a black president everything would improve for the colored population. Big surprise that did not happen. Same thing here, when a woman is going to be president everything will improve for the women in our society (no glass ceilings!). This completely ignores the realities in American politics. Yes, it was about time we got a colored president and it is time we get a female president. Will it improve our country? I could, but probably not. Most likely Mrs. Clinton will be facing a a republican majority in of the Senate and the House and her Presidency will be the worse ever, doing more damage to women in our society than ever.
7
I've never seen, heard or read about anyone who thought that electing President Obama would magically make things better for all people of color.
2
Women's advocate??!!?
She was a WALMART attorney! Hard to get any more anti-women than that!
She was a WALMART attorney! Hard to get any more anti-women than that!
15
Pull back the curtain, Democrats, and see the reality behind your 2016 wizard. When will the next shoe drop from Hillary's closet? Sen. Schumer can not carry water for her much longer, as Sen. Feinstein made clear on TV yesterday.
And since Bill Clinton explained in Miami that's it's fine to take $$$ from Mideast despots since it's for "a worthy cause," why not take $$$ from Russia, and Venezuela, too?
And since Bill Clinton explained in Miami that's it's fine to take $$$ from Mideast despots since it's for "a worthy cause," why not take $$$ from Russia, and Venezuela, too?
9
Instead of Obama's presidency helping the country acclimate to the reality that someone other than a white male can lead this country, the backlash against him, a black man in that office, was only the warm up act for what looks to be an even more virulent backlash against the idea that a woman might actually end up achieving that position and thus holding that power. The irony of the Clintons taking money from opressors to free the oppressed, as someone else here phrased this issue, is lost on those who react to any Clinton "news" with a visceral need to cut her from contention.
2
Before praising Hillary's record on "women and children" as Parker Lee does, let us recall the Clinton's "welfare reform." Though Hillary was board member of Children's Defense Fund, CDF president Marion Wright Edelman's husband resigned from the Clinton administration in protest of this "reform". Marion Wright Edelman herself said this. "For the sake of looking tough on 'welfare queens,' Bill and Hillary (and they were indeed a team) sacrificed the well-being of millions, forced single mothers into underpaid, underinsured work and added further strain to many families."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/22/441421/-Marian-Wright-Edelman-o...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/22/441421/-Marian-Wright-Edelman-o...
3
The Democrats appear to have already decided that Hillary is their 2016 candidate for President. You have to ask why. Even before the Clinton Foundation and e-mail stories broke, Clinton had very high negatives. These negatives are doubtless much higher now. The Clinton Foundation allegations and, especially, the e-mail disclosures are real, major stories, not at all trumped-up scandals that can be brushed off as the work of political enemies. It is unlikely they will be resolved any time in the near or even mid-future. Whatever her merits on substantive issues, Clinton is simply not the strongest candidate the Democrats can offer. If she continues, despite everything, to be the Democrats' default candidate and faces no major challengers, it will be proof that big money now really rules the party, even over the prospect of winning.
24
After Bradley Manning sent over 700,000 confidential diplomatic messages to Wikileaks FROM THE CLINTON STATE DEPARTMENT in 2011, you'd think she would have learned something.
Her arrogance and her high-handedness are her greatest weaknesses.
From the comments below, it seems that you bleating 'progressive' Democrats will vote for this train wreck anyhow. Which is why you'll lose the White House in 2016.
Her arrogance and her high-handedness are her greatest weaknesses.
From the comments below, it seems that you bleating 'progressive' Democrats will vote for this train wreck anyhow. Which is why you'll lose the White House in 2016.
11
None ofthe Clintons ever did anything for free. Ever. That's her platform, and that's the only one. Getting to talk about herself (i.e. campaigning, for lesser mortals), getting paid exhorbitant fee for doing so, and now parading her daughter who did absolutely nothing of value in her life (i.e. creating a dinasty, for lesser mortals.) When did my Democratic party become so innured to such obvious moral corruption? And let's stop comparing her to Bush: if we compare her to, say, Putin, she is perfection perconified.
11
"Fix this on your own and I won't say a word..."
As if that was the only case in Saudi Arabia (and Qatar and...) of a pre-pubescent girl married to a man at least thirty years her senior, against her own will and likely the will of her mother...
Well, of course we don't embarrass our donors, do we? We'll just sweep this little bit of dirt under the rug...
If this is the only woman the Democratic Party considers as a viable candidate for President, then women have come nowhere in this country.
And why wouldn't a strong male candidate be a better advocate for women? When I founded and ran a women's center in one of the most conservative cities in Pakistan, our strongest supporters were local men and our most venal enemies were local women, who were intent on not losing any of the servant class to something as awful as education and financial independence.
The best candidate will support equal rights for all human beings, and with more than wagging lips. Hillary ain't it.
As if that was the only case in Saudi Arabia (and Qatar and...) of a pre-pubescent girl married to a man at least thirty years her senior, against her own will and likely the will of her mother...
Well, of course we don't embarrass our donors, do we? We'll just sweep this little bit of dirt under the rug...
If this is the only woman the Democratic Party considers as a viable candidate for President, then women have come nowhere in this country.
And why wouldn't a strong male candidate be a better advocate for women? When I founded and ran a women's center in one of the most conservative cities in Pakistan, our strongest supporters were local men and our most venal enemies were local women, who were intent on not losing any of the servant class to something as awful as education and financial independence.
The best candidate will support equal rights for all human beings, and with more than wagging lips. Hillary ain't it.
10
It doesn't matter that Hillary took millions and millions of dollars from countries that endorse violence against women and deny them basic freedoms. Hillary has the correct biological body parts. That's what's REALLY important. Right?
12
Dear NYTimes. Is there a difference between an international foundation that supports poor people and women all over the world and works for things like clean water, micro-businessess etc. and raising money to run for office?
Why don't you clear this up for us as part of this article?
And while you are at it, please list all the middle eastern money that has flowed to the Bush family BUSINESSES, which do not work to do good around the world, but work for their own profit.
Why don't you clear this up for us as part of this article?
And while you are at it, please list all the middle eastern money that has flowed to the Bush family BUSINESSES, which do not work to do good around the world, but work for their own profit.
6
Dear NYTimes. Is there a difference between an international foundation that supports poor people and women all over the world and works for things like clean water, micro-businessess etc. and raising money to run for office?
Why don't you clear this up for us as part of this article?
==============
Evidence seems to indicate that the Clinton Foundation exists to funnel money to the Clinton family and its supporters. 85% of the money it takes in is spent on salaries and expenses. Only 15% goes out in grants to actually do anything the Foundation claims it want to do.
Why don't you clear this up for us as part of this article?
==============
Evidence seems to indicate that the Clinton Foundation exists to funnel money to the Clinton family and its supporters. 85% of the money it takes in is spent on salaries and expenses. Only 15% goes out in grants to actually do anything the Foundation claims it want to do.
7
If that's so, I'd like to see a reliable source discuss it. "Evidence seems to indicate" is meaningless and often precedes a misstatement.
1
If that's so, I'd like to see a reliable source discuss it. "Evidence seems to indicate" is meaningless and often precedes a misstatement.
===============
It's here:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
===============
It's here:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
Lets face it Hillary is a flawed candidate, starting with her husband & his peccadilloes, her vote for our invasion of Iraq, Benghazi, & now her Cel Phone.It seems she's disorganized, & not focused.The Problem is the Democrats do not have anyone to take her place.God help us a Republican Senate, Congress & President. Goodbye, Obama Care, Woman's Choice Gay Rights, & the separation between Church & State.Hello trickle down economy,& recession.
1
Actually there are number of possibilities in the wings, all better than Jeb Bush. But bottom line is, Hillary continues extremely strong in the polls. It occurs to me that the media will tar Hillary because they want a better horse race. We really don't need more circus. We need a Democrat in the White House because the alternative is awful.
2
I nominate a Democratic ticket of Gore/Kerry. Gore actually was elected President, and Kerry has demonstrated what the office of SoS ought to be. HRC's qualifications pale in comparison.
Hillary Clinton,s campaign slogan: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes
18
I would support Ms. Clinton if she had divorced Bill years ago. Instead, she chose to support Bill and attack Bill's victims. That is hardly the behavior of a women's advocate.
16
Desperation is settling in for democrats and it should be.
13
The Clintons were corrupt back in Bill's Administration, in Arkansas. Scandal after scandal, lie after lie, cover-up after cover-up. What made you progressives think this would be any different.
13
There is no way of appraising this issue. What we do know is that the electorate is distracted by all the "human rights" issues, woman's rights being just one of them. Some years ago, I attended a program in which Ms. Clinton was the key note speaker. Whether you like her or not, she was fabulous, as she spoke to the graduates of this women's school. You could just feel the cause, whether you were an adolescent or not. The point, though, as important as human rights might be, much of it is tied up in economics and Ms. Clinton seems a step or two behind in terms of where we need to go today.
3
Bravo NYT and Amy for publishing this article. Some suggest that the Times is liberal, however this story contradicts this belief. Let's get all of the facts out there and let the voters decide who they elect. This isn't a smear campagin or something you expect on Fox news @ Dan R. This is journalism and giving readers both sides of the story. If the Times posts a story about conservatives receiving contributions from BP- think big oil spill, I won't mind because let's get all the facts out so we can make an informed decision on voting day. Enough with single platform politics.
4
I guess I don't understand why this is any more objectionable than the Koch brothers and their influence---or Jeb Bush and his association with the Saudis.
Kind of a huge double standard here, no?
She has my vote. She is the only candidate who has consistently stood where I stand politically and that's all there is to it.
Kind of a huge double standard here, no?
She has my vote. She is the only candidate who has consistently stood where I stand politically and that's all there is to it.
2
Maybe it's different because the Koch boys and JEB aren't running on a platform of supporting women's equality.
1
The world is not a perfect place and despite "American exceptionalism" slogans by conservatives, the United States isn't perfect either with women making 77 cents compared to men. Tunisia has a higher percentage of women serving in their parliament than we do in our congress.
So what is to be done? The Clinton Foundation has done much good in an imperfect world. Sometimes a foundation must deal with with bad governments for the great good.
So what is to be done? The Clinton Foundation has done much good in an imperfect world. Sometimes a foundation must deal with with bad governments for the great good.
1
The Clinton Foundation has done much good in an imperfect world. Sometimes a foundation must deal with with bad governments for the great good.
===============
Please name some of these accomplishments. I mean, other than keeping 85% of the money it takes in to pay its own salaries and expenses.
===============
Please name some of these accomplishments. I mean, other than keeping 85% of the money it takes in to pay its own salaries and expenses.
9
Campesino, you keep banging that drum. Provide a source, an actual breakdown and fair analysis (not some Fox howl) if you want credibility here.
Hillar is an advocate of war, economic sanctions, coups, international capitalism and banking, corporate power and oligarchy here at home, "free" trade pacts that exploit the working and the poor, and every corporate lobby in SC.
What she is NOT in any way is an advocate for anyone in the world (including women) who has no choice but to work for a living.
What she is NOT in any way is an advocate for anyone in the world (including women) who has no choice but to work for a living.
9
I have said here and elsewhere that I'm not "Ready for Hillary." However, if she can become a true champion of women--their reproductive rights and their pay--here at home as well as abroad, I'm willing to reconsider. Women's reproductive rights have been under attack and those courageous enough to challenge the white male patriarchy like Wendy Davis in Texas have been cruelly excoriated as "abortion Barbie." I don't care about Saudi money since we buy their oil and tolerate their financing terrorists and because they're our major ally in the Arab world and pals, to boot, with the Bush family among other Republicans. If Hillary will take the lead and honestly push hard to roll back the Republican attacks against women, I can see myself and other disaffected progressives supporting her.
1
The Clinton Foundation donates less than 25% of its funding to charities. The rest goes to salaries and "other things". It employs over 350 people, many are from the Clinton campaign staff.
In other words, this is the Clinton political operation masquerading as a charitable organisation.
In other words, this is the Clinton political operation masquerading as a charitable organisation.
16
In other words, this is the Clinton political operation masquerading as a charitable organization.
============
Yes, it's a money laundering scheme
============
Yes, it's a money laundering scheme
9
Mrs. Clinton is not an advocate for women, but rather an advocate for one particular woman. If Ross Perot had not entered the 1992 election, Mrs. Clinton would still be working as an attorney in Little Rock.
14
If Ross Perot had not entered the 1992 election, Mrs. Clinton would still be working as an attorney in Little Rock.
==============
She's pretty old. She'd likely be retired by now.
==============
She's pretty old. She'd likely be retired by now.
4
She took money from oppressive regimes and used it to fight oppression. How is that bad? It's ingenious, unless you can prove that the Foundation does not really fight oppression. Good luck.
3
If the Foundation gets, say ten million dollars from one of those regimes, can you show us how much of that money actually goes to "fight oppression" and not for salaries, travel expenses, private jets and a 1% lifestyle? Good luck.
9
The Clinton foundation only gives 25 percent of the money they receive to worthy causes. The rest is used for salaries for their 350 person payroll. Most of whom are also working on HRCs campaign. So this is just a way for the Saudis to bankroll her presidential campaign. Which begs the question: what do the Saudis, the Qataris, et al, expect to receive in exchange for their millions?
6
She took money from oppressive regimes and used it to fight oppression. How is that bad? It's ingenious, unless you can prove that the Foundation does not really fight oppression. Good luck.
==================
Review of the Clinton Foundation IRS reporting documents shows it spends 85% of the money it takes in on salaries and internal expenses and only 15% on grants.
Paying the Clintons and their friends is job 1 there, fighting oppression - not so much.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
==================
Review of the Clinton Foundation IRS reporting documents shows it spends 85% of the money it takes in on salaries and internal expenses and only 15% on grants.
Paying the Clintons and their friends is job 1 there, fighting oppression - not so much.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
6
The American voters need to start holding their politicians to higher standards. Transparency doesnt mean a thing if politicians are not held accountable for their cynical behavior. God forbid that we will be faced with a Bush-Clinton choice in 2016.
3
As a democrat, I am prepared to see a republican prevail against Hillary. It is probably what us liberal progressive democrats need to experience in order to reboot the values of the democratic party. Hilary Clinton will be running as a woman, largely financed by groups who do not have similar interest or values of core democrats. As most successful rehabilitated addicts know until you hit bottom you continue to repeat destructive behavior. Democrats need to hit the bottom in order for the democratic politicians to realize that success is not about electing the first woman president success is stick to and fighting for our core values. Fair wages, single payer healthcare for all, equal education opportunities, etc.
4
The democratic party is losing married women. There's a reason Hillary's running as a grandmother.
You're right, however, about the party's need to reboot. It needs to get away from identity politics and get back to issues that span all identities.
You're right, however, about the party's need to reboot. It needs to get away from identity politics and get back to issues that span all identities.
3
AACNY - Where are the facts to back up this assertion?
Hillary as a sincere advocate for women and girls worldwide doesn't compute with her hiring of lawyers, private detectives and faux journalists like David Brock to silence and discredit women who were and may have been harassed and had relationships with her husband. Accepting money for her family foundation/presidential campaign in waiting; from regimes that have a history of oppression towards women is equally hypocritical. Progressive democrats need to speak out about these contradictions and not be so focused (as former Vermont Governor Howard Dean is) on cabinet or other positions in a future Clinton administration.
7
It is no secret that (ahem) Hillary Rodham Clinton is a world class carpetbagger who only has American tax revenue with which she can settle her political debts. I want democrats to muster up hypocrisy and as cash they can afford to waste on her. This promises to be interesting.
8
I'm still on the fence about Hillary as the Democratic Presidential candidate, however, I don't think it is fair to say that she hasn't been sincere about women's issues. As Secretary of State, my observation was that she focused a great deal on women's issues in every country she visited. At at some point well into her tenure, folks were even saying they wished she'd lighten up on the subject and talk about other things. Goes to show how hard it is to please everyone. I sure wouldn't want the job.
14
I don't think you've heard of her perverted husband and his affairs and her attacks on those victims! but that's o.k,not everyone is informed on everything!
2
The Democratic Party is in a real bind. Hillary is the only viable candidate, will no doubt win the nomination, but she's a Clinton and this means she'll run a poorly organized and poorly executed campaign and there will always be some semi-shady incidents leaking out. Personally, I think she's unelectable, and as a lifetime Democrat, I have to say I could not in good conscience vote for her. She's simply not trustworthy.
11
Let's start a drumbeat for a Gore/Kerry ticket.
Why isn't the press talking about the impressive achievements of the Clinton Foundation over the years or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton's achievements as secretary of state and senator from New York?
6
I agree with you Mark. She is a human first, one that was quite successful as Secretary of state & in my opinion these email and donation issues are distractions that do not succeed in changing my high opinion of her intelligence and policy goals.
2
Perhaps because, when looked at in the cold light of day, there really aren't very many? How many bills enacted as a senator? How did she fare in end results around the world as Secretary of State, especially as compared to the likes of say, Ms. Albright or Ms. Rice?
5
She was reelected senator with a huge plurality which says a great deal about how her work was regarded by New Yorkers. And why exactly is it necessary to compare her with those two particular secretaries? Because she's a woman? Don't get me started on the false nuclear threats Ms. Rice pushed as one of Bush's warmongers.
4
How much of a feminist can Hillary be given that she's the enabler of a sexual predator?
11
Isn't it a GOOD thing to have these nations investing funds in an institution that is working to change what is broken about their social systems?!? Shouldn't the countries most at fault in gender discrimination be the exact ones putting money into orgs. that combat it? Isn't that the whole idea? How is this a bad thing?
3
Ask yourself just what do these countries expected to get in return by contributing to this Foundation, which is just a front created to launder cash and funnel it into her political campaign?
3
Will Iran have nuclear weapon? Will they use it against Israel? I guess it depends on who donates the most money to the Clinton foundation
7
The Clinton's have always been for sale to the highest bidder (Hello pardon for Marc Rich!) and are only interested in their own self interest. They are disgraceful, Wal Mart type people.
9
Hillary was an attorney for WalMart before Bill got into politics.
1
Hillary was an attorney for WalMart before Bill got into politics.
==============
She served as a board member for WalMart while Bill was governor. I wonder how she got that job?
==============
She served as a board member for WalMart while Bill was governor. I wonder how she got that job?
3
I agree that questions about the sources of financing for the Clintons' foundation is not out of bounds and, indeed, is relevant. However, I do not understand why the Times does not address the main flaw with arguments that donations to it indicate a conflict of interest. Namely, the non-profit foundation is not the same as a political campaign, is not subject to the same rules, and is not exclusively governed by Mrs. Clinton. Moreover, there are numerous examples of candidate affiliations with organizations that also might receive money from people, entities, or countries that do not act in ways the candidate prefers. This article seems like it has not been well-developed and it does not show much recognition of those nuances.
4
Make no mistake, the Clinton Foundation is nothing more than a tool to launder foreign money so it can be used to pay the salaries of Clinton campaign worker staff. Of the 350 people employed by the Foundation many if not all of them also work for the campaign.
3
I've been a registered Democrat since the age of 21 in 1968. I voted for Democrats, not blindly but generally in support of the Democratic Party and what it stood for. Now here I am 46 years later and I wonder if I did the right thing all these laters. I think I made a grave error. The Democratic Party no longer represents the American middle class. In fact there is no American middle class left mostly due to Democratic presidents and policy. Bill Clinton was a direct cause of the destruction. He lobbied for and signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Hillary supported her husband. But not the middle class despite her own doubts of NAFTA. I no longer trust the Democrats or Hillary. We've been betrayed. Obama care has savaged our health care policies. My premiums have almost doubled. Our military has been reduced. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Seniors can't support themselves when CDs earn less than 2%. Social Security and Wages are stagnant. Chinese goods saturate our markets and American jobs are non-existent. We don't have a wage gap so much as a jobs gap. And what does Hillary do? She hides her e-mail. I will not vote for her. The Republicans could offer the Ghost of Richard Nixon and that would be a better choice. Hillary is for Hillary. Take her out of the running and put a real, Democratic candidate in the running. We need Democratic leadership, honesty, integrity to restore jobs, industry, research and development in the U.S..
15
Elizabeth Warren does not have such baggage or conflicts. She is much more consistent and, frankly, believable, in her advocacy of truly progressive ideals.
Perhaps we should consider her as a fresh alternative?
Perhaps we should consider her as a fresh alternative?
4
Elizabeth Warren does not have such baggage or conflicts.
==================
Other than falsely claiming to be an Indian for years to get extra "affirmative action" points for jobs. Or the low quality of her published work. No baggage at all.
==================
Other than falsely claiming to be an Indian for years to get extra "affirmative action" points for jobs. Or the low quality of her published work. No baggage at all.
2
This article focuses only on the income side of the equation -- where the donations come from. Isn't it at least as important what the money is used for? Bill Clinton's observation seems absolutely correct -- either you're going to accept money only from people who agree with your political view on everything, in which case you're going to have a very small "global foundation" (although maybe a very large political action committee), or you're going to reach out further and take money from others - and hopefully use it for good purposes. Did they pull punches?? Did they accept money from these countries with a wink and a nod not to push their hot button issues or embarrass them?? If so, THAT would be news worthy. But nothing in this story as written "tests" Hilary's record as a strong advocate for women and girls.
2
This article focuses only on the income side of the equation -- where the donations come from. Isn't it at least as important what the money is used for?
==================
Good question. It's mostly (85%) used to pay salaries and expenses for the Clintons and their supporters. Only 15% gets used for grants to actually do something.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
==================
Good question. It's mostly (85%) used to pay salaries and expenses for the Clintons and their supporters. Only 15% gets used for grants to actually do something.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
Give me a break! We've got global warming, destruction of the environment, the NRA distorting our Constitution all out of recognition, the Tea Party obstructing even normal government business ... and this is a complaint?
My goodness, the Saudi's probably do some good in addition to the problems they cause and should be contributing money to every do-gooder organization in the world. And the Koch brothers do some good, too, contributing to efforts to do much better with the way we imprison people in this country -- where's the article attacking Melinda Gates for partnering with Koch? Or maybe we should note the contribution and not go on the attack.
My goodness, the Saudi's probably do some good in addition to the problems they cause and should be contributing money to every do-gooder organization in the world. And the Koch brothers do some good, too, contributing to efforts to do much better with the way we imprison people in this country -- where's the article attacking Melinda Gates for partnering with Koch? Or maybe we should note the contribution and not go on the attack.
5
Is Melinda Gates running for president?? You don't see that a potential president who so often breaks or skirts the rules (relying on weak defenses from others like, well it wasn't technically illegal, or its sexist to even dare criticise her) would do far more "distortion of our Constitution" than anyone since Nixon?
4
Is this how it will be now? From now until Election Day 2016, The Times will print trumped up, speculative attacks on Secretary Clinton? Do your editors believe it is actually a vetting process that she hasn't already been subjected to? Or are they aware that their faux progressive stance flies in the face of Fox News-like brush with which they paint?
TIRESOME.
TIRESOME.
6
The Clintons seem to adhere to a longstanding approach to take money from whatever source, values be damned. When you compromise yourself in such a way, do you really stand for anything at all except...money?
10
We spent most of the 1990's enduring the Clintons' ethical lapses, half-truths, bad behavior, lies and worse. Even progressives can't want another go with her. What's the real upside? She hasn't changed a bit.
13
I'm more disgusted and outraged that the U.S. is allied with the absolutely awful regimes in these countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei. Our president cut short a trip to India in order to "pay respect", in person, to the new despot in Saudi Arabia. The Clinton foundation taking money from these utterly disgusting regimes for charity doesn't bother me half as much as our lickspittle fawning to these countries were women's rights are seen as a massive threat and "honor" killings of women -by stoning - are just part of their laws.
21
But you would no doubt be OUTRAGED if a conservative foundation, or say the Koch Bros, was taking money from these reprehensible countries. Your outrage is conditional, as it is with most Dems.
3
Need I remind you that the Bush clan not only has been close to the Saudi clan, when 9/11 happened, only one plane was allowed to leave US airspace. It carried members of the Saudi royal family back to home base. So when you use the term "lickspittle," please remember to include our politicians on the right - the Bush family in particular.
Hillary says she is for gender pay equality, but yet, she paid female staffers in her Senate office 72 cents for every dollar a man made. Same for the Clinton Foundation.
Accepting foreign donations is wrong, especially since the Clinton Foundation is not a charity. It is a slush fund for the Clintons, as this paper pointed out a few months ago. 10 cents of every dollar goes to charity, while far more goes to the Clintons. This reminds us of when Bill accepted donations from the Chinese. They are dirty, and should not be allowed back into the White House.
Accepting foreign donations is wrong, especially since the Clinton Foundation is not a charity. It is a slush fund for the Clintons, as this paper pointed out a few months ago. 10 cents of every dollar goes to charity, while far more goes to the Clintons. This reminds us of when Bill accepted donations from the Chinese. They are dirty, and should not be allowed back into the White House.
11
"Hillary says she is for gender pay equality, but yet, she paid female staffers in her Senate office 72 cents for every dollar a man made."
Interesting but... source?
Interesting but... source?
2
Confetti, you asked for the source. Here it is:
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-still-decrying-gender-wa...
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-still-decrying-gender-wa...
1
The Times onslaught on the Clintons continues apace. From the the fiction of Whitewater to this silly story. Isn't it better to get the money even from less than saintly actors to do good than to sit on your hands and whine in editorials?
5
Republicans regularly define themselves by what and who they are against rather than what they are for. Thus their response to anything Clinton should be no surprise. For them it's "just aother day at the park"; just another expression of their toxic smoke screen habit (like the anti anything Obama one) they slyly use to distract the rest of us from their own serious inadequacies. It's time they learn that it would much more beneficial to build themselves and their candidates up; to let us know what they value and can do for us and our country rather than spend their time and ours tearing someone else down.
5
If Clinton becomes the president, she will make the erring Arab nations pay as per following rule:
The more human rights violations and abuses the State Department decides you are guilty of, the more contribution you will make to Clinton Foundation to make amends.
Problem solved. What better way to make those despicable regimes clean up their acts than by imposing a 'fine' on them?
The more human rights violations and abuses the State Department decides you are guilty of, the more contribution you will make to Clinton Foundation to make amends.
Problem solved. What better way to make those despicable regimes clean up their acts than by imposing a 'fine' on them?
6
Funny, how those on the Right who have never been shy about challenging the most basic right of women, the right to have the final say about what she does or does not do with her body, now wants to step-up and decry a proven leader of women's rights. When the Right steps up and demands that Jeb explain and justify the Bush families extensive and multi-level dealings with the Saudis (who certainly qualify for some of the worse offenders of not supporting the basic rights of women), then lets talk about the Clinton Fondation's acceptance of money from repressive regimes for philanthropic purposes (Yes, including Women's Rights). Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle Black...But Hey, hybebole and hypocracy has been the stock in-trade of the Right Wing and it's mouthpieces since at least Saint Ronny.
6
I wish the Clinton's would take some of their dirty money and build a remote retirement home in Alaska that would house the Bushes and them. Please let both parties put forth a real leader for once.
5
Why can't they stay in Arkansas?
2
The Clintons have helped destroy the principles that guided the Democratic Party since FDR and have left the party in tatters. The fact that Hillary is the uncontested front runner for 2016 with no major challenger speaks volumes of the weakness of the Democratic bench. Where is the new generation of leaders? Why do so many willingly carry water uphill for the Clintons? Hillary cannot win in 2016: too much baggage, too Wall Street cozy, too much the War Hawk, and too many shady dealings. Plan B anyone?
9
How about Gore/Kerry? Both have long and outstanding records. Gore actually was elected President, and deposed. Kerry has been anti-war, longtime senator, and exemplary Secretary of State.
And let's not hear any ageism mentioning how old they are. They are both still vigorous.
And let's not hear any ageism mentioning how old they are. They are both still vigorous.
Mrs. Clinton is no friend of the middle-class, no friend of the average working and struggling American. She is a good friend of Wall Street and the big bankers. She is a DINO who only cares about the Clinton's. If the Democratic Party power brokers won't allow viable alternative to a Clinton selection as the Democratic Party's candidate then the people must act. Elizabeth Warren, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Vice President Biden and Martin O'Malley are all good alternatives. It's time to end the "Hillary is inevitable talk"; she shouldn't be, for the good of the party and for the good of the nation.
4
Clinton should run as a Republican and get out of the way so somebody else can take the Democrat Nomination. She's parading her daughter around on public stages now, apparently trying to make a dynasty she can live and die with. Maybe that's her idea of helping women.
5
Show me a candidate who hasn't had their family out there campaigning for them.
Her daughter is an adult and is free to decline.
Her daughter is an adult and is free to decline.
2
What exactly has Ms Clinton done to deserve the Presidency? What achievements? She was a forgettable US Senator and a disastrous Secty of State? As an independent, I wont vote for another Clinton (or Bush). Cannot the D's find someone with some successes in either government or private industry?
The whole email thing is just icing on the cake that is the Clinton's bizarre world.
The whole email thing is just icing on the cake that is the Clinton's bizarre world.
11
Although I think Hillary is a very strong individual, and could make a very good President, my gut is telling me there is something missing, that something is not quite right about what she says and what she does. These are just the two latest oddities, taking money from the richest men in some of the most anti-women's rights countries while supposedly championing women's rights, and having her own email server while serving as Secretary of State so she could control what is saved. I guess I just don't trust her. That being said, the Democratic Candidate for President will still have my vote. I just hope it is someone other than Hillary.
21
@ron,At least you seem to get the big picture insofar as the lack of character and duplicity is concern,now,if only you can work on the ideology part,you'll be good to go!
Ron, you say you question Hillary's ethics..but you'd vote for her anyway. How is that any different than Mrs. Cinton questioning Saudi ethics, but taking money from them anyway?
These foreign donations are akin to, say, an oil company donating to an environmental protection philanthropy. Not only unseemly, but almost counterintuitive to their purpose: by providing a philanthropic shield to a country like Saudi Arabia, wouldn't the charity turn a blind eye toward abuses the foundation tries to undo?
I know the Clinton Foundation funds many noble initiatives beyond womens rights. Medical research, AIDS education and support in Africa, and the like. I assume someone at the Foundation is sifting out the incoming funds to ensure each is allocated to its proper mission. Or are they?
I fear this Foundation may be the Clintons' undoing. It's grown too large not to attract the type of awkward attention and conflict of interest issues that have dogged this family all its life. In fact I believe it may ultimately prove more damaging than Hillary's emails.
But it's also sad too. Because wouldnt it be ironic if funding sources from countries with abysmal women's rights policies end up killing a candidacy based on promoting these same rights?
A double whammy for the future of women both here and abroad.
I know the Clinton Foundation funds many noble initiatives beyond womens rights. Medical research, AIDS education and support in Africa, and the like. I assume someone at the Foundation is sifting out the incoming funds to ensure each is allocated to its proper mission. Or are they?
I fear this Foundation may be the Clintons' undoing. It's grown too large not to attract the type of awkward attention and conflict of interest issues that have dogged this family all its life. In fact I believe it may ultimately prove more damaging than Hillary's emails.
But it's also sad too. Because wouldnt it be ironic if funding sources from countries with abysmal women's rights policies end up killing a candidacy based on promoting these same rights?
A double whammy for the future of women both here and abroad.
22
These donations were from individuals, not governments. Can you simply not conceive of the idea that there are people in the Middle East who support change and progress for women's status and that they might donate to organizations that support the same goal? That there are many well-educated women in the Middle East who contribute to organizations that don't face the same impediments they might in funding or running organizations established within their own countries? The level of provincialism on display here is kind of amazing.
3
" ... countries with ABYSMAL women's rights policies" ??? ... you are just way too kind !
Try CNN "leaked video Saudi beheading" of a woman in the streets just last month, not to mention 34 beheadings just this year. These countries set THE standard of barbaric justice that ISIS follows, and Hillary is so proud to be on their "contribution" list.
Try CNN "leaked video Saudi beheading" of a woman in the streets just last month, not to mention 34 beheadings just this year. These countries set THE standard of barbaric justice that ISIS follows, and Hillary is so proud to be on their "contribution" list.
2
@barbara: did tou read the article? It specifically states that the donations were from countries and governments, not individuals. If you have some source for the content of your reply, I'd love to see it.
The article goes on to say that 1) donations also came from a poltical advocacy group called Supporters of Saudi Arabia...again, not individuals...and 2)The Foundation did state that no donations were specifically for the womens rights promotion just released to great fanfare....as if that were some wonderful point. I suggest again that it would be interesting to see how many donations from foreign governments were earmarked for causes other than womens rights.
The article goes on to say that 1) donations also came from a poltical advocacy group called Supporters of Saudi Arabia...again, not individuals...and 2)The Foundation did state that no donations were specifically for the womens rights promotion just released to great fanfare....as if that were some wonderful point. I suggest again that it would be interesting to see how many donations from foreign governments were earmarked for causes other than womens rights.
1
The Clinton Foundation is a separate legal entity that existed prior to Sec. Clinton's becoming Secretary. Didn't she disclose the existence of the Foundation as part of the vetting process? Did the Foundation accept gifts from foreign countries before or after she became Secretary. Was this disclosed? Didn't the senate do its work before confirming her? Didn't the Obama Administration vet her?
This article is throwing out a lot of sand but is woefully light on substance.
Coupled with the e-mail story (which is similarly devoid of salient facts, like the legality of a separate e-mail account), one could draw the conclusion that the NY Times is trying to sink her candidacy before it begins.
As far as the record of some of the donors on women's rights, the test should be whether the Foundation is doing good work with those funds. If so, then the only question should be why would misogynistic countries want to donate contrary to their own principles.
PS. Wealthy and somewhat wealthy people set up Foundations for many purposes, including tax benefits. Don't look too closely at the Foundations set up by Republicans, Democrats and independents. You might just find lots of problems, ethical and otherwise.
This article is throwing out a lot of sand but is woefully light on substance.
Coupled with the e-mail story (which is similarly devoid of salient facts, like the legality of a separate e-mail account), one could draw the conclusion that the NY Times is trying to sink her candidacy before it begins.
As far as the record of some of the donors on women's rights, the test should be whether the Foundation is doing good work with those funds. If so, then the only question should be why would misogynistic countries want to donate contrary to their own principles.
PS. Wealthy and somewhat wealthy people set up Foundations for many purposes, including tax benefits. Don't look too closely at the Foundations set up by Republicans, Democrats and independents. You might just find lots of problems, ethical and otherwise.
9
All of this goes to show that no party should depend upon one person to be their candidate for president. The Democrats should have a deep enough field in case Clinton cannot be a viable candidate. If not that they, and the Clintons, should be prepared to defend and explain most of what the GOP decide to attack about her record. I don't want to see the GOP winning because the Democrats don't have another good candidate in mind. I don't want to see them winning when they have absolutely no understanding of what life has become for the middle and working classes in America. And I don't want them winning after their petulant behavior when we elected Barack Obama as president twice and with no need to resort to the Supreme Court to approve his election.
5
It seems to me the NYT is going out of it's way to cast a more negative light on Ms. Clinton, with spins originating from the right wing and little balance of perspective. Before you throw her under the bus, best take a broader view... who can come up from the shadows if she's knocked from a even plausible advantage of running ... and what about a little more light shed on what she has done well. A perfect candidate likely doesn't exist. And perfection is a scary notion anyway. Negativism and sensationalism is a real turn off ... it's how the republican party operates, why are you following that lead NYT?
7
I wonder if the writer of this article would be willing to undergo a thorough scrutiny of her own personal emails? What about the Republican candidates running for office? A dangerous and patently unfair precedent has been established in allowing this tactic. We should start asking to see Jeb Bush's personal emails just to get a more complete picture of the strategic comings and goings of all of the candidates.
2
You've misunderstood the problem completely. Nobody is asking to see her personal emails. We are, however, entitled to see all her work-related emails, which she improperly sent through her personal email account, in order to avoid public scrutiny & disclosure.
5
So no presidential libraries for you, eh?
why is the writer's emails relevant? The writer is not running for President. I say we agree that any candidates who used private emails to conduct gov business so that the communications were not publicly available should be precluded from running for the presidency.
1
Hillary Clinton has too much negative baggage to win the presidency. She should have the courage to step aside and let a viable candidate run. If her giant ego and hubris put a Republican in the White House in 2016, this nation is doomed.
8
You really think Sanders or Warren (neither of whom indicated they are running) could beat the likes of Jeb?
2
None of this matters and will not hurt Hillary. Her voters/supporters will vote for her without reservation under any circumstance. Democrats vote in lock-step, so, none of these—or any—scandal will have even the slightest impact.
8
Democrats vote in lock step?
Apparently you haven't heard all the fuss from the more liberal wing of the party about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Apparently you haven't heard all the fuss from the more liberal wing of the party about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
3
What a tragic observation.
2
You don't know any Democrats do you?
1
Despite my status as a die hard supporter, and number one defender of Madam Clinton among my cohort, this article has given me pause. If the foundation has taken money from Saudi Arabia and other Emirates, I am no longer a supporter.
It was swell while it lasted.
Feeling a little bereft right now.
Kalidan
It was swell while it lasted.
Feeling a little bereft right now.
Kalidan
18
Dont' be so hard on yourself. Money is flowing into all kinds of organizations working to basically destroy civilization, for example, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Relax.
1
Missing from this report is the incident in 2009 when Hillary and Holbrook talked the neophyte elites-pleaser Obama into pressuring the Pakstani government into invading their northwest tribal territories and upsetting a decades long status quo of relative autonomy. The fighting resulted in two million refugees fleeing the region; all this reported by the Times, without my deep insights of course, and buried. I remember the videos of women and their children lugging a few possessions down dirt roads and thought, so this is what Hillary is doing to families. Women's rights is her cause only when it doesn't interfere with her imperial, Wall Street agenda and it's time to gin up the vote at election time appealing to superficial demographics.
34
Go ahead, try to tell me the Times isn't gunning for Hillary in order to clear the way for their favored "progressive," Elizabeth Warren.
Be that as it may, the trouble with the "Clinton Foundation" is a lot more basic. There are hundreds of private foundations -- Gates, Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. But they exist to give away their own money. The "Clinton Foundation" exists to give away other people's money -- which requires doing something for the donors.
Be that as it may, the trouble with the "Clinton Foundation" is a lot more basic. There are hundreds of private foundations -- Gates, Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. But they exist to give away their own money. The "Clinton Foundation" exists to give away other people's money -- which requires doing something for the donors.
14
The "Clinton Foundation" exists to give away other people's money -- which requires doing something for the donors.
=================
Except that the Clinton Foundation only gives away 15% of what it takes in and spends 85% on its own salaries and expenses
=================
Except that the Clinton Foundation only gives away 15% of what it takes in and spends 85% on its own salaries and expenses
2
HRC seems to be the likely candidate, Warren has declared that she's not running. Is the NYT supposed to refrain from writing about the likely candidate?
I am unsure why one would wish to to commemorate a 1995 first-lady speech.
Reaching so far back in time to such an insignificant event reinforces the impression that she is just an empty pantsuit.
Reaching so far back in time to such an insignificant event reinforces the impression that she is just an empty pantsuit.
12
This is so clearly case of ... the more you know, the less you like.
And PLEASE do not fall into the trap that "we know all there is to know about the Clintons. Sadly, we don't and as with Obama's citizenship, the truth is arguably less important than the rumors and perceptions.
And one other caution - some Dems, no doubt, are still enthusiastic - the recent fracas about LBJ should serve as a reminder that 40-50 year old beliefs (in "Camelot," for instance) aren't particularly mutable - about HRC.
And a much larger number - with at least a little logic going for them - are in the ANR (any non-Republican) camp.
But once one gets to genuinely undecided voters, the picture becomes bleaker than bleak. Of course, few people understand the Clinton marriage - but a healthy majority of Americans find it laughable or pathological.
Used to be that some people in NYC felt superior to white males in Ohio say. (I certainly include myself - at a time when union-busting went hand-in-hand with homophobia, it struck me as bizarre that union members would vote for candidates whose stance they liked on the latter, even though they were jeopardizing their families' chance to be/stay middle class.) ... But superior or not (i.e., logical, decent, etc.), we MUST acknowledge that there are 10's of millions of such individuals - women, too - who will no way, no how vote for HRC. If you were depressed after the 2014 elections, you should quake in your boots about 2016 if HRC tops the ticket.
And PLEASE do not fall into the trap that "we know all there is to know about the Clintons. Sadly, we don't and as with Obama's citizenship, the truth is arguably less important than the rumors and perceptions.
And one other caution - some Dems, no doubt, are still enthusiastic - the recent fracas about LBJ should serve as a reminder that 40-50 year old beliefs (in "Camelot," for instance) aren't particularly mutable - about HRC.
And a much larger number - with at least a little logic going for them - are in the ANR (any non-Republican) camp.
But once one gets to genuinely undecided voters, the picture becomes bleaker than bleak. Of course, few people understand the Clinton marriage - but a healthy majority of Americans find it laughable or pathological.
Used to be that some people in NYC felt superior to white males in Ohio say. (I certainly include myself - at a time when union-busting went hand-in-hand with homophobia, it struck me as bizarre that union members would vote for candidates whose stance they liked on the latter, even though they were jeopardizing their families' chance to be/stay middle class.) ... But superior or not (i.e., logical, decent, etc.), we MUST acknowledge that there are 10's of millions of such individuals - women, too - who will no way, no how vote for HRC. If you were depressed after the 2014 elections, you should quake in your boots about 2016 if HRC tops the ticket.
5
Donations to the Clinton foundation DO matter. Why are the Saudi's donating? Because they care about women's issues? Or because they want to retain influence with the Clintons? The answer is obvious.
14
She's been fueling the Libyan investigation by withholding evidence. People I talk to don't know she no longer works for the government. They are asking, "Well why is she in the papers each day?"
I ask, "Would you vote for her?"
"No, are you kidding?" The arrogance of a server at home while Secretary of State is beyond the boundaries. The first husband can not claim ignorance, they both know exactly what they are doing. I hope she goes away, and she should get off the stage now because The President is taking most of the heat for her irresponsible behavior.
I ask, "Would you vote for her?"
"No, are you kidding?" The arrogance of a server at home while Secretary of State is beyond the boundaries. The first husband can not claim ignorance, they both know exactly what they are doing. I hope she goes away, and she should get off the stage now because The President is taking most of the heat for her irresponsible behavior.
8
The only women's rights Mrs. Clinton cares about are voting rights so she can be elected.
11
1998 Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
201? Hillary Clinton: "I did not have financially corrupt relations with those men, their Royal Highness Kings."
201? Hillary Clinton: "I did not have financially corrupt relations with those men, their Royal Highness Kings."
8
I'm sure there are people who think that if they just keep harassing Hilary Clinton she will drop out. In fact, the Republicans are crossing their fingers and holding their breath. But this story is just one more cheap shot.
I was around when Hillary Clinton spoke to the Beijing conference. I KNOW she worked hard for women's equality during a time when it was mocked and denigrated, and she has never wavered since then. It takes a lot of nerve for the party of Rush Limbaugh, Todd Akin, and Scott Walker to question her credentials as a women's advocate.
This reminds me of Republican chicken hawks recruiting a few veterans to smear John Kerry's record as a war hero. An insane tactic, but it worked then, why not try it again?
I was around when Hillary Clinton spoke to the Beijing conference. I KNOW she worked hard for women's equality during a time when it was mocked and denigrated, and she has never wavered since then. It takes a lot of nerve for the party of Rush Limbaugh, Todd Akin, and Scott Walker to question her credentials as a women's advocate.
This reminds me of Republican chicken hawks recruiting a few veterans to smear John Kerry's record as a war hero. An insane tactic, but it worked then, why not try it again?
4
So tell jus Miss Chozick which of the Republican front runners would champion women's equal pay, women's right to abortion, women's right to contraceptives, women's access to healthcare, a mother's access to child care, a mother's access to fundd public schools, and the list goes on.
I am no fan of Hillary at all. She had a chance to stand out under Bill's administration for poor women when Congress cut access to welfare - a move mostly aimed at poor mothers with children. Hillary could have easily taken a moral stand against Congress and her husband. She didn't.
However now after six years of Obama and seeing what he has NOT done, I really wonder if we wouldn't have been better off with Hillary in 2008 than Barak. Anyone who is somewhat a liberal feels completely betrayed by the 'leaders' of the supposed left.
I am no fan of Hillary at all. She had a chance to stand out under Bill's administration for poor women when Congress cut access to welfare - a move mostly aimed at poor mothers with children. Hillary could have easily taken a moral stand against Congress and her husband. She didn't.
However now after six years of Obama and seeing what he has NOT done, I really wonder if we wouldn't have been better off with Hillary in 2008 than Barak. Anyone who is somewhat a liberal feels completely betrayed by the 'leaders' of the supposed left.
3
Speak for yourself. I'm quite happy with President Obama, particularly when it comes to the economy.
I'm no fan of hers, but Hillary's sole record on women's rights will always pale in comparison to the totality of the republicans' – an entire political party – record on the very same issues.
I hate to make this a "lesser of two evils" thing, but I don't see Clinton (or many of her democratic cohorts, even the Blue Dogs) on the campaign trail, talking about dismantling Roe v. Wade or discussing "legitimate rape."
I hate to make this a "lesser of two evils" thing, but I don't see Clinton (or many of her democratic cohorts, even the Blue Dogs) on the campaign trail, talking about dismantling Roe v. Wade or discussing "legitimate rape."
9
She's as tough as nails, and the media and the general public has consistently faulted her and tried to take her down. Yet she wipes herself off, keeps moving, and her accomplishments are impressive. As far as I'm concerned she's stellar example for women on a whole. Most people would buckle under the pressure or the opposite becoming motivated by a mean spirited spite. Hubby or not, she's got grit, substantial experience, and I feel deserves much respect.
6
her accomplishments are impressive
==============
What would those be? Any legislation while in the Senate? Diplomatic breakthroughs while Secretary? Can't think of any
==============
What would those be? Any legislation while in the Senate? Diplomatic breakthroughs while Secretary? Can't think of any
3
Grit or blind ambition?
Firstly, Mrs. Clinton would not be my first choice, however, I must come to her defense on this issue. Her critics and others are missing the point: that individuals or countries with poor women's rights records would support her is a step in the right direction for those rights. If she is elected she will be the strongest argument yet for the women of their repective nations to rise up and demand those rights, and for a President Hilary to come to their aid through word and deed.
32
There are better female choices out there. She just feels that now she is entitled to it after what Bill put her through the first time.
I can assure the New York Times, Hillary Clinton will have no trouble at all gaining the support of most women. The idea that women other than staunch Republicans would question her commitment to them is ridiculous.
6
Is NYT trying to flesh out all possible angles to attack Hillary Clinton before she announces, or is NYT or Amy Chozick trying to catapult other potential candidates into contention by running articles that as another reader noted," sounds more like what is reported in Fox News" . Alternatively, has NYT found that these types of articles generate a lot of reader interest ( and hence eyeballs count), and so have been running a number of these articles to raise readership and in turn ad revenue?
I especially fine the NYT's attempt to smear the record of Clinton Foundation solely on the basis that the Foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia and other Countries. So long as the Fdn put the money into good use in projects and programs that are consistent with its objectives, that is all that matters!
I especially fine the NYT's attempt to smear the record of Clinton Foundation solely on the basis that the Foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia and other Countries. So long as the Fdn put the money into good use in projects and programs that are consistent with its objectives, that is all that matters!
4
The email scandal and the donation scandal is the same scandal. She set up the server in her house because she knew as Secretary of State she'd be selling influence not only as SOS, but as the presumptive next president. That is what is in those emails she will never release.
8
In 1995, Hillary was a pioneer in talking about aspirations of women. Today, women are far more integrated in many avenues of American life. Being a strong supporter for this issue no longer makes her unique.
2
it makes her an example ... and a leading one.
3
I assume we will also soon be getting an extensive NYT look at the finances of the GOP candidates, all of whom recently flew to Vegas to grovel before a casino billionaire who gets much of his money from Macau? Or how about the Koch brothers and their ownership of Scott Walker?
6
What this article amounts to, basically, is an assertion that women are not allowed to play the game, or not by the same rules. Scott Walker is an actual paid lackey of the Koch Brothers. The entire Bush family are paid lackeys to Saudi oil interests, and increasingly, wealthy Chinese investment interests. But at the NYT even the merest hint of doubt about Hillary Clinton goes straight to the top. One might get the cynical view that the NYT wants to generate the kind of drama for the 2016 campaign that is generally good for the press. I don't know, but if that's the goal, you are going to have to do a whole lot better (or maybe worse) than this article, full of innuendo and no real facts, along with silly quotes from supernumerary Carly Fiorina followed by the usual barrage of Hillary hating comments.
7
The issue with the Clinton Foundation isn't just who they take money from, it's what they do with the money.
A recent review of IRS documents shows that the Clinton Foundation took $500 million in donations between 2009 and 2012. Of that amount only 15% left the Foundation in grants. The remaining 85% was spent on salaries and undefined "expenses".
It really appears that this is just a giant money-laundering operation for the Clinton family and their supporters.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
A recent review of IRS documents shows that the Clinton Foundation took $500 million in donations between 2009 and 2012. Of that amount only 15% left the Foundation in grants. The remaining 85% was spent on salaries and undefined "expenses".
It really appears that this is just a giant money-laundering operation for the Clinton family and their supporters.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-h...
9
Let him without sin cast the first stone. The Republicans can seize upon this issue all they like but they have not exactly demonstrated that they are true friends of women. And to balance this argument, there is an old Jewish saying to the effect that silver purifies the bastards. Ms. Clinton should be nominated and be elected on her own merits if the majority of voters think she deserves both the chance and the presidency.
1
The Elizabeth Warren camp backed by the WH team are out for Bill-ary. The Republicans should back off let them do the nasty deed
1
Thank God at least WH and EW camp care for the country and not their pockets.
1
There has been and continue to be opportunities here in the US for Hillary to speak up for Women's Rights and she has gone silent for political reasons. Where was she when Wendy Davis was running or Gov. Of Texas?. Not a word in the Republican States that have passed Legislation denying women the right to litigate pay inequities, all the teachers in our public schools who lost or have had their pay cut with the war on Unions, if Hillary wants my vote she needs to get out of the balcony of narrative and down on the ground where the real action is being fought daily. People watch what you do more than what you say. Keeping silent is a form of consent.
26
Maybe if the Obama Admin started paying its female employees the same as male employees you would have a point. Until then.....
1
Now I understand. When Hilary is talking about a 'war on women' she's on the side of the Wahhabi.
That makes so much more sense.
That makes so much more sense.
5
I am not a supporter of Hillary, nor am I a detractor. I have to say the only compelling reason she might get a vote from me in '16 would be the 'D' next to her name on the ballot, or more to the point, the lack of an 'R' next to her name. Having said all that, please tell me this woman's opponents on the Right aren't honestly going to go after her based on her light record for advocacy on behalf of women. Perhaps it's true that Ms. Clinton doesn't have a history of fighting on behalf of women, as one might expect of a politician in her position. Yet, we're going to listen to conservatives beat her over the head using this on the campaign trail? What next, will a member of the Bush family have the gall to denigrate Obama's foreign policy record??
I would think if a particular political sub-group had glaring, historical policy issues in a particular area, the last thing they would do was attack their opponents based on that criteria.
I would think if a particular political sub-group had glaring, historical policy issues in a particular area, the last thing they would do was attack their opponents based on that criteria.
2
If Washington, has only one guiding principle, it is "Follow the Money." Hillary will have a more and more difficult time putting her candidacy forward as the voice of the underdog, whether women, minorities or the politically and economically disadvantaged. Time for Democrats and the party to save themselves from being trounced in 2016 by finding a more credible standard bearer
5
Sen. Elisabeth Warren, a far more credible standard bearer.
What exactly does the Clinton Foundation do, such that the Saudis contribute 10 million dollars to it? Are the Saudis really softies at heart, but sadly unable to create charities of their own, or are they (more predictably) buying influence and hedging their bet regarding who might end up President some day? Wow, that's a tough one......
91
Exactly, the women angle totally misses the story.
2
What exactly does the Clinton Foundation do, such that the Saudis contribute 10 million dollars to it?
================
It appears that the Clinton Foundation mostly pays itself salaries and spends money on its own expenses. 85% of the contributions taken in are spent on internal costs and only 15% goes out in grants.
================
It appears that the Clinton Foundation mostly pays itself salaries and spends money on its own expenses. 85% of the contributions taken in are spent on internal costs and only 15% goes out in grants.
2
Do you really want to know what the Cinton family foundation does, or are you a troll seeking to impugn the institution without facts?. It seems to me that with the same number of key strokes that you use to ask this question you could input "clinton family foundation" or even https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about into your favorite browser and get more information than you can handle.
Now what I got is a list of directors all getting paid $400,000 or more. Because of that high overhead I wondered how Charity Navigator rated them and found that the following resoinse: "Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator."
I can say that quite frankly that bothers me.
Now what I got is a list of directors all getting paid $400,000 or more. Because of that high overhead I wondered how Charity Navigator rated them and found that the following resoinse: "Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator."
I can say that quite frankly that bothers me.
The frontrunners are Hillary and Jeb; that's where the money is.
The expected attacks are now in full force.
If you think this piece is bad, just wait until the media gets truly reved up with Jeb.
Hanging chads, Stand Your Ground, Terry Schiavo.
And then there's the criticism of the Bush family, especially Dubya.
Don't even know where to begin with that one.
Hillary knew the attacks would be vicious. Everybody knew.
She will survive them.
She will prevail.
Nobody else could prevail against the GOP contender.
The expected attacks are now in full force.
If you think this piece is bad, just wait until the media gets truly reved up with Jeb.
Hanging chads, Stand Your Ground, Terry Schiavo.
And then there's the criticism of the Bush family, especially Dubya.
Don't even know where to begin with that one.
Hillary knew the attacks would be vicious. Everybody knew.
She will survive them.
She will prevail.
Nobody else could prevail against the GOP contender.
2
Considering obama got elected, I guess integrity and honesty don't count anymore to Democrats.
2
If I were trying to raise money to put toward what I felt was a worthy cause, I don't think it would help to go around seeking it from those who didn't have any, instead going to those that did.
Of course in the world of politics, logic and rational all goes out the window simply for the sake of "perception" and illusion. That probably explains why politics is such a cumbersome and inefficient process for getting anything really beneficial done for regular people. It's simply high drama for wanna-be's seeking the celebrity lime-light and the halls of power.
Of course in the world of politics, logic and rational all goes out the window simply for the sake of "perception" and illusion. That probably explains why politics is such a cumbersome and inefficient process for getting anything really beneficial done for regular people. It's simply high drama for wanna-be's seeking the celebrity lime-light and the halls of power.
She might make a decent president, but wouldn't women be prouder of someone who got where they were without anyone's coattails?
7
Mrs Clinton has been a professional woman for a long time. She is hardly riding anyone's coattails.
2
Mrs Clinton has been a professional woman for a long time. She is hardly riding anyone's coattails.
=============
If her last name wasn't Clinton we would never have heard of her
=============
If her last name wasn't Clinton we would never have heard of her
2
Ibivi - there are plenty of people with just as good skills and just as good backgrounds who were not the beneficiaries of marriage or family connections. She got a lot simply to appease Bill Clinton. We do not need her.
1
Women on her staff also get paid only about 68% relative to men.
Of course, it is a ludicrous statistic since it does not take into account career choices, years in the job, educational qualifications, etc., but that doesn't seem to matter in the pay equality "war on women" debate.
Of course, it is a ludicrous statistic since it does not take into account career choices, years in the job, educational qualifications, etc., but that doesn't seem to matter in the pay equality "war on women" debate.
9
How do you know how much women on her staff get paid?
3
One other problem with Hillary being a spokesperson for women - while women in America make $0.77 on the dollar compared with men, if they worked for the Clinton Foundation, they made even less. I think the figures are $0.68 on the dollar. And of the top 12 people on the Foundation in terms of position and salary, the top 9 were men.
Also, recently there was a scandal where a buddy of Bill's was caught pimping out underage girls. Will Hillary defend this behavior? Or will she speak out against it? Or simply remain silent?
Where I come from, advocating for women has to include defending vulnerable girls. That includes speaking out against child marriage in places like Saudi Arabia and it also means speaking out against sex trafficking.
People who say all politicians do it - well, maybe if so many are sleazy it's because we don't hold them to higher standards. What if we did? If politicians actually understood that they could not be elected if they were involved in scandalous behavior - maybe that would convince them to stop.
At one point Hillary was on the commission that indicted Nixon. She used to care about standards. What has happened to her since?
Also, recently there was a scandal where a buddy of Bill's was caught pimping out underage girls. Will Hillary defend this behavior? Or will she speak out against it? Or simply remain silent?
Where I come from, advocating for women has to include defending vulnerable girls. That includes speaking out against child marriage in places like Saudi Arabia and it also means speaking out against sex trafficking.
People who say all politicians do it - well, maybe if so many are sleazy it's because we don't hold them to higher standards. What if we did? If politicians actually understood that they could not be elected if they were involved in scandalous behavior - maybe that would convince them to stop.
At one point Hillary was on the commission that indicted Nixon. She used to care about standards. What has happened to her since?
8
Hillary is focused on improving the situation of women; especially her and Chelsea's.
14
NY Times and women are surprised that the Clintons advocate something other than middle class women's values through out the world?
Many have known this for decades and great many of them just happen to be men; all for a Lady President, just not this "lady".
Many have known this for decades and great many of them just happen to be men; all for a Lady President, just not this "lady".
5
Remove the "Republican" bogeyman from the equation: The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars in donations from countries that deny basic human rights to women and other groups; and as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton conducted all official email communication in a manner that may make full government review of those documents impossible. If neither statement is troublesome, then move along ... nothing to see here.
However, lets remember to then afford the same deference to all public officials in the future -- regardless their political persuasion; and perhaps it's time we offer an apology in memoriam to President Nixon for the way he was pilloried over a missing 18 minutes of audio tape.
However, lets remember to then afford the same deference to all public officials in the future -- regardless their political persuasion; and perhaps it's time we offer an apology in memoriam to President Nixon for the way he was pilloried over a missing 18 minutes of audio tape.
4
No. Two wrongs do not make a right. My country is NOT a dictatorship. My government MUST answer to the people. That means proper records must be kept, whether on audio tape, paper ir electronic.
1
Petty, petty.
How about some coverage about poor people being affected by the economic policies of Mr. Bush or Mr. Walker? Or they labor policies? Or how the wealthy and big corporations had been doing in their states? I mean, how about some real news.
How about some coverage about poor people being affected by the economic policies of Mr. Bush or Mr. Walker? Or they labor policies? Or how the wealthy and big corporations had been doing in their states? I mean, how about some real news.
7
so true!
Yes, it's a terrible thing that the Wisconsin State Legislature is giving public sector employees a choice as to whether or not to belong to a union. Where is the outrage?! People should just be thankful that they're being forced to join and shut up about it. As for Boooooooooossssshhhhhh, I recall when the NYT bemoaned the "anemic" state of the economy under Pres. Bush. GDP growth was 3.7% and unemployment was 5%. I'd gladly trade this obama "recovery" for a Bush "recession." Clintons taking big bucks from nations that treat women as property is real news. I realize it's not quite as big of a headline as Anne Romney riding a horse or Sarah Palin buying clothes for a presidential campaign, but it will have to do.
It's an interesting standard that any negative story or information about HRC is simply dismissed as "petty, petty" but any like story about the other party is "real news".
You must really be afraid of what's out there (and willing to turn a blind eye to it for purely partisan purposes) as anything that doesn't fit the agenda must be railed against and kept hidden from the American people. Sheer hypocrisy.
You must really be afraid of what's out there (and willing to turn a blind eye to it for purely partisan purposes) as anything that doesn't fit the agenda must be railed against and kept hidden from the American people. Sheer hypocrisy.
2
"Dead Broke" after 2001 according to Hillary. Well, The Clintons successful financially until they jumped into politics now they seek the company of the 1% as their bank accounts.
According to a recent Mother Jones article about Hillary's gilded 1% image, "Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)". YES.... while she simultaneously preaches to the masses about income inequality and fair share.
The Clinton's are always out for themselves, ready to TAKE a buck but never EARN a buck. People and WOMEN around them have suffered, gone to prison or died but, the Clinton's endure. They avoid taxes, launder their money through foundations, twist arms for people to hire their daughter ($600,000yr part time), make a big deal of grand gestures to help and do nothing. In the end many Democrats worship them and don't care what they do or don't do.
According to a recent Mother Jones article about Hillary's gilded 1% image, "Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)". YES.... while she simultaneously preaches to the masses about income inequality and fair share.
The Clinton's are always out for themselves, ready to TAKE a buck but never EARN a buck. People and WOMEN around them have suffered, gone to prison or died but, the Clinton's endure. They avoid taxes, launder their money through foundations, twist arms for people to hire their daughter ($600,000yr part time), make a big deal of grand gestures to help and do nothing. In the end many Democrats worship them and don't care what they do or don't do.
13
One of Hillary's moment of showing her true colors was when she told the nation and the world, i.e. also billions of girls and women that despite the one to a billion probability that the white stain on Monica Lewinski's ble GAP dress is her husband's, the POTUS, she doesn't believe it and "stays behind her man."
So, here she was, the most powerful woman, the First Lady, not only the self-appointed model to girls and women, in calculating way accepting gross marital infidelity of her husband and denying the facts the world new in often lurid detail about.
No wonder that our friends on the right - in jest - have been suggesting that women who have been cheated on by their infidel husbands should "take a clue from Hillary", look the other way, accept the humiliation and like Hillary, don't file for divorce and "stay by their men".
So, here she was, the most powerful woman, the First Lady, not only the self-appointed model to girls and women, in calculating way accepting gross marital infidelity of her husband and denying the facts the world new in often lurid detail about.
No wonder that our friends on the right - in jest - have been suggesting that women who have been cheated on by their infidel husbands should "take a clue from Hillary", look the other way, accept the humiliation and like Hillary, don't file for divorce and "stay by their men".
5
NYT is not even subtle about their disdain for Clinton and this effort to finish take her down is obvious. So very sad to see that this is what it has come to at the NYT.
5
It's called journalism. The New York Times is as left leaning as US newspapers come. They are right to report on this, it is a legitimate story that brings up valid questions. It is not a red herring.
5
If you are reading any of the comments left here, it would appear as though a majority of them are negative towards the Clinton's (especially Hillary). I believe a new candidate needs to come forward and soon! The few positives are those, like yours, which seem to pardon this behavior and I heard a lot of those voices this weekend. She is unfit to be POTUS!
1
Bright days? The trail of dead bodies from Arkansas says otherwise. The scrubbing of emails says otherwise. The blue dress says otherwise....
4
Forget about the e-mail controversy for one moment. The very spectra of a Secretary of State traveling the globe while representing the people of the United States raking in hundreds of millions of dollars for her own private foundation from foreign governments is enough to send chills up the spine of any clear thinking American citizen.
At the same time, many large domestic companies were also urged to "participate" and did... presumably to get favorable treatment from foreign governments in their quest for long term contracts.
Whatever the cause, whatever good that might have been achieved by this foundation is completely overshadowed by the unseemly spectacle of a potential President of the USA acting as a strong arm bag lady for the big bucks.
The Ends do not justify the Means.
At the same time, many large domestic companies were also urged to "participate" and did... presumably to get favorable treatment from foreign governments in their quest for long term contracts.
Whatever the cause, whatever good that might have been achieved by this foundation is completely overshadowed by the unseemly spectacle of a potential President of the USA acting as a strong arm bag lady for the big bucks.
The Ends do not justify the Means.
12
More troubling and damning is Mrs. Clinton's personal life. In regard to her husband's serial infidelity, she was either clueless, an enabler, or remains in an marriage of convenience. None of which provides a positive role model to women.
11
Hillary is the most secretive and paranoid candidate for President since Richard Nixon. And just as Richard Nixon claimed he was not a crook, I'm sure Hillary will make a similar statement. After all, Hillary is all about justifying her behavior by pointing to someone else's bad behavior, and there is always Richard Nixon.
12
There can be no doubt whatever that the advancement of women's rights and girls' education globally is among the highest of Mrs. Clinton's priorities, second only to her own political ambitions.
5
Hillary Clinton has not yet responded to the revelations about her e-mail. A coterie of voices from the past has instead risen to defend her. Bill Clinton defends money donated from governments which discriminate against women, some money coming while she was Secretary of State and which she may have solicited for the family foundation. No one yet has explained how her out-of-this-world speaking fees reflect being in touch with ordinary women. We are more sensitive to the aspirations of women than we were in 1995. A generation has passed. The issues of women do not define her in the way they once did. Now, she must define what kind of person she is. To begin, she needs to respond, in her own voice, to the recent controversies and questions swirling around her.
7
What do her speaking fees have to do with the plight of women? There's just no relationship. How would HC going around in sack cloth and ashes contribute to the betterment of women worldwide?
3
Tell me if I have this right - The Clinton Foundation accepts money from countries that have abysmal records for women's' rights and these countries have, primarily, theocratic rulers. The Foundation will turn around and use those funds in grass roots movements to help the women empower themselves and implement change in those same countries. Do I have that right? If so, it sounds like a great plan to me.
8
That would be an interesting premise - IF we could clearly and transparently see the pass through of these finances. That seems to be totally lacking. "Trust me" is hardly a standard of verification.
1
The u.s.'s relationship with Saudi Arabia is not about one single issue. There's also the latest fighter jets and training that the u.s. sells to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi's policies toward Israel, Egypt, and others. When a candidate of the Dems or Repubs accepts money from the Saudi's, the understanding is "We will keep the status quo. Thank you for the money; we appreciate your contracts with Boeing; what a great mutual friendship". And I believe Ms. Clinton would do just that; keep the status quo, when that is what is brought into the world the radicalism of Osama bin Laden, et. al.
@Cujo
What's missing from your clever argument is the question: why would such theocratic and repressive rulers donate so generously to a foundation that promotes the very human rights they are suppressing?
Obviously, they expect to gain something in return. You may have heard the expression "quid pro quo".
What's missing from your clever argument is the question: why would such theocratic and repressive rulers donate so generously to a foundation that promotes the very human rights they are suppressing?
Obviously, they expect to gain something in return. You may have heard the expression "quid pro quo".
I understand why their foundation accepts money to do their noble work. It is a good use of this money. I don't think accepting a check implies that you are in agreement with the donor on anything more than the importance of your charity.
I don't care about her private email account. I suspect before there was email there were unrecorded private conversations in the act of diplomacy. So a private email doesn't bother me at all.
What will matter is who will be the choice? Will anyone surface who has more international experience, more Washington experience and a better stand on issues like women's rights? I don't see anyone in the Republican Party that comes close. The choice always comes down to two major party candidates. Which one do you think will represent the dreams and needs of working women?
I don't care about her private email account. I suspect before there was email there were unrecorded private conversations in the act of diplomacy. So a private email doesn't bother me at all.
What will matter is who will be the choice? Will anyone surface who has more international experience, more Washington experience and a better stand on issues like women's rights? I don't see anyone in the Republican Party that comes close. The choice always comes down to two major party candidates. Which one do you think will represent the dreams and needs of working women?
7
Can you please give us some examples of this lofty "noble work"? You honestly don't see anything wrong with a cabinet level officer of the government, one who believes she merits and is owed the presidency, accepting money in this way from foreign governments? There used to be a standard about avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I really don't think country could withstand four (or more) years of the never ending whiff of scandal that surrounds this candidate. No candidate is pure and pristine, of course, but there's just too much, too often with Hillary.
I really don't think country could withstand four (or more) years of the never ending whiff of scandal that surrounds this candidate. No candidate is pure and pristine, of course, but there's just too much, too often with Hillary.
2
How much money have Presidents accepted just after leaving office from foreign governments or private interests. Didn't Reagan get $2 million for a speaking tour, and that wasn't a check to a not for profit.
If I were Hillary, I would come out fighting. I went to a meeting, her foundation is all for women. Those who invest either don't know or don't care. One problem the foundation has, it requires knowledge of women to succeed of the sort that does not yet exist. Working on it. That said, Hillary- while I don't always agree with ya, you are the best candidate around. Prove me wrong!
8
Hillary should run for president of the end justifies to means club.
1
How can somebody be a true champion of women's rights when her foundations accepts millions of dollars from nations that oppress women and stays married to an adulterous husband?
Can we just put this to rest?
Thanks for their many years of (ethically questionable) public service.
Now, on to the next candidate, please.
Thanks for their many years of (ethically questionable) public service.
Now, on to the next candidate, please.
11
Hilary Clinton is presumptuous, arrogant, detached, and way too interested in being rich. She doesn't represent my hopes for the future of this country, nor me, as a woman. I'm already planning on a write-in ballot.
12
You use a lot of adjectives. Care to support them with some nouns and verbs. What did she *do* to merit these adjectives. I have seen her on TV, read her books, listened to her speeches. I don't find her arrogant, presumptuous, detached or way too interested in being rich.
I think you, as many other women, are setting a double standard for a woman in or seeking power. I would venture to guess that you would never call Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush arrogant, presumptuous, detached or way too interested in being rich, even though you know as little about them as you do Hillary.
I think you, as many other women, are setting a double standard for a woman in or seeking power. I would venture to guess that you would never call Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush arrogant, presumptuous, detached or way too interested in being rich, even though you know as little about them as you do Hillary.
1
Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States is unambiguous:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The enormous conflict of interest created by Mrs. Clinton, through her family foundation, accepting "contributions" from many of the foreign States with whom her department was negotiating simply cannot be dismissed. Nor the fact that in so doing she violated the Constitution of the United States.
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The enormous conflict of interest created by Mrs. Clinton, through her family foundation, accepting "contributions" from many of the foreign States with whom her department was negotiating simply cannot be dismissed. Nor the fact that in so doing she violated the Constitution of the United States.
12
She didn't accept donations. The foundation did. Different legal entity.
2
Which bears her name!
1
She didn't accept donations. The foundation did. Different legal entity.
==============
Hahahahaha!!!
Next you'll be saying corporations are people.
==============
Hahahahaha!!!
Next you'll be saying corporations are people.
2
I actually think that Mrs. Clinton understood this is what a Presidential campaign would be like. The press and the Republicans have attacked the Clinton's unmercifully throughout their careers and the Clinton's are too smart to think that would stop. This article is despicable in many ways but the basic one is that no rational person can question Hillary Clinton's commitment to women's rights and the fact that the Clinton Foundation took money from states that don't' support women's rights to fund the battles against HIV/AIDS and other health issues or to help Haiti after the earthquake has zero to do with her support for women around the world. The New York Times should be ashamed of these stories they are running.
6
Mostly I agree with you but there is a zen way to understand this batch of awful articles by the times about Hillary: they will be her faux primary opponent and that this is ultimately a good thing.
I love Hillary and love the Times and they ultimately are pushing her in the early going to line up her ducks in a row and be ready. She will be our first woman president and she has to be tested these next 14- 16 months and there is no one to test her. The times is perversely doing her a favor.
If Joe Biden runs in the primaries he is serving the same purpose: he can't win and it is just to get her ready. Like a 'rabbit' in a track event, or like that team that toured with the Globetrotters for decades to act as their foil.
So far the times has been Wile E. Coyote in their effectiveness! Hillary not pro-woman? c'mon! is any other candidate even close in this regard?
I love Hillary and love the Times and they ultimately are pushing her in the early going to line up her ducks in a row and be ready. She will be our first woman president and she has to be tested these next 14- 16 months and there is no one to test her. The times is perversely doing her a favor.
If Joe Biden runs in the primaries he is serving the same purpose: he can't win and it is just to get her ready. Like a 'rabbit' in a track event, or like that team that toured with the Globetrotters for decades to act as their foil.
So far the times has been Wile E. Coyote in their effectiveness! Hillary not pro-woman? c'mon! is any other candidate even close in this regard?
2
Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have *always* been total hypocrites - evil through and through. I am sick and tired of the Clinton-Bush dynasty. Time for some new outsider blood for President in 2016.
12
I get your overall points, but to be sure: there is a HUGE difference between the Clinton family and the Bush family.
The Bush family's claws reach back generations.
The Clintons have been around for like thirty years...
The Bush family's claws reach back generations.
The Clintons have been around for like thirty years...
3
Hillary, or better known as Democrat Cheney, has one thing in mind, POWER. From day one she allowed women to be dehumanized, quietly standing by her womanizing husband to gain nothing else but POWER. She has compromised all American values, freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness from women to gain POWER. She has no qualms to repeat GW era of warmongering in a blink of an eye if for nothing else but to show Cheney who the true warmonger is. We would be betraying not only women and children of our country, but women and children of the whole world to even have Hillary as a candidate.
It's so unconscionable to have outstanding and honorable candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and yet go with likes of Kardashians for presidency of our country.
It's so unconscionable to have outstanding and honorable candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and yet go with likes of Kardashians for presidency of our country.
12
This "Clinton Foundation" is nothing more than the public relations-arm of the worldwide Clinton Machine. Nothing more and nothing less. Why all the moralizing and analyzing what is, essentially, an entertainment/politics behemoth?
Who cares?
Actually, maybe all the time required for the administration of this entity was one of the causes for Ms.Clinton's negligent overlooking of her office's requirements for secure e-mail servers.
Who cares?
Actually, maybe all the time required for the administration of this entity was one of the causes for Ms.Clinton's negligent overlooking of her office's requirements for secure e-mail servers.
7
The extinction of patriarchy must and will happen with or without Hillary's election as president. It will unleash the creative energies of billions of women and save the planet. Chauvinists will impulsively attack Hillary as an example of women who are worse leaders than men; it will be the Obama delusion redux. But her presidency will inevitably be a role model for countless women and therefore accelerate the planet's nascent progress with gender equality.
6
Murray, do you choose a surgeon or pediatrician based on the gender, race, or nationality of someone, or, do you want the BEST doctor? Neither Clinton nor Warren are good. If electing a woman is the most important thing in the world to you (I really hope that you see the many bigger issues in the world), find a good one (there are some out there) and promote her.
2
Yes, Hillary is a hypocrite on this issue. But is amusing to see her criticized by a Bush "human rights" lawyer. Remember Bandar Bush, known as the other Bush brother? Remember W strolling hand-in-hand with the Saudi dictator? Remember the Bin Laden family leaving this country on a private jet in violation of the 9-11 flight ban? Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
5
Many conservatives didn't love W, but, we just preferred him to the alternative. The GOP has perfected the art of nominating people Repubs can't get very excited about, so, they just vote for the less bad candidate.
1
coffic - The alternative? So you didn't want an alternative to war and recession? Why is that?
The Democrats need to dump this Clinton Train wreck. Hillary's negatives are so high (read the comments section of the NYT) she wont get over the line. Democrats don't show up unless they like the candidate. Republicans show up and vote whether they like the candidate or not, Note the Republican majorities in both houses of congress. Hillary is going to make Scott Walker the Next President.
4
Let's hope so.
1
Politicians do things for political gain. It is their job. When you speak to them one on one you realize they pretty much say what you want to hear. It is time to have someone running for office that is not motivated by reaching the peak of their career. One intrinsically motivated to do good things for people, the country as a whole, and our earth.
4
Let's also recall how Hillary, in her early legal career, helped pile on more trauma and injury on a rape victim in Arkansas. This was in defense of a violent serial sex offender. She got him off and there is a tape recording of her cynical gloating over the outcome.
And there was that business of the familiar Clinton attack to blame the victim in the Lewinsky matter when Bill committed sexual abuse against a kid who was the same age as his daughter.
And there was that business of the familiar Clinton attack to blame the victim in the Lewinsky matter when Bill committed sexual abuse against a kid who was the same age as his daughter.
17
Also in her early legal career, Mrs. Clinton was fired by Jeff Zeifman, Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee, for dishonest, unethical behavior, conspiring all along to violate Constitutional rules of the House and Committee during the Watergate affair.
Her opprobrious nature disqualifies her from seeking the highest office in the land.
Her opprobrious nature disqualifies her from seeking the highest office in the land.
1
So, how does Hillary explain taking all those contributions from the Gulf countries, where oppression of women is the rule? Watch what she does, not what she says, or would that be too much a test of honesty? The idea that those donations do not what is classic Clinton speak. Are we all fools?
7
I think you'd be incredibly hard-pressed to find a prospective presidential candidate who has never received campaign money from some shady place.
I'm not defending the practice, just sayin'...
I'm not defending the practice, just sayin'...
3
If we all refused funds from anyone or any thing that oppresses women, all commerce and philanthropy would come to an end.
3
Not every ex-president cashes in this way. Look at Jimmy Carter.
I would have supported Hillary but for this creepy foundation that the Clintons have apparently used as a vehicle to shake down corporate donors and foreign countries seeking to influence the next US president. Also, the fact that this "non-profit" foundation money was used to purchase twin million dollar apartments in New York City for their daughter is disgusting.
There is no getting around it. This family is just toxic. Let them make money on their own if they can. Not by dangling the keys to the Oval Office.
I would have supported Hillary but for this creepy foundation that the Clintons have apparently used as a vehicle to shake down corporate donors and foreign countries seeking to influence the next US president. Also, the fact that this "non-profit" foundation money was used to purchase twin million dollar apartments in New York City for their daughter is disgusting.
There is no getting around it. This family is just toxic. Let them make money on their own if they can. Not by dangling the keys to the Oval Office.
17
Oh I see, so if everyone takes money it's okay? Typical ploy to try to remove someone you like from a problem. Sounds like Lanny Davis!!
6
It's hard to imagine ANYONE from the GOP criticizing Hillary about women's rights. Just look at the GOP's focus and assault on women's reproductive rights in America. Pathetic.
11
Aren't you missing the forest for the trees? It's not a criticism of women's rights but a criticism of the shady dealings of a likely candidate for president. The fact that people are willing to overlook it this way is what's pathetic.
2
Of course she was doing something crooked, and everyone knows that the entire purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to pay for travel befitting royalty for the Clinton family-- but how was Hillary supposed to know that the flacks in the media would stop running interference for her?
10
The New York Times apparently has decided to set itself up as the direct outlet for Republican oppo research? This is the silliest yet. It is perfectly possible to be an advocate for women, and accept money from countries you wish would change their policies toward women. The question is, whether the Clinton Foundation USED the money for the betterment of humanity, including women, and the answer certainly is YES. As the article itself demonstrates, way down at the end after most people stop reading, Hillary Clinton has been a consistent advocate for improving the lives and rights of women and girls--how is she responsible for the policies of all of the Clinton Foundation donors? I don't see any evidence that the Foundation allowed those donors to dictate its own programs or policies.
102
"... Hillary Clinton has been a consistent advocate for improving the lives and rights of women and girls--" Yes she certainly has! And by paying the women on her staff 63 cents on the dollar compared to the men on her staff, she has demonstrated, yet again, that the Clinton's can still count on the intentionally uninformed, proudly ignorant of the facts constituents who run to their defense.
2
No it's called blatant hypocrisy. Yes a small part of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation goes to charity but a large part of it pays for the the lavish lifestyle of the Clintons. Last year alone their travel expenses were 8 million dollars. Think about about that. 8 million in travel expenses! And then she comes out and pretends she's running to help the middles class. Go look at Bush 41and 43 and how they behaved after leaving office. Yes they made some money but the Clintons have shaken down corporations and foreign governments for over 2 billion dollars. Their foundation is nothing more than a legal scam to enrich the Clintons.
1
"Hillary Clinton has been a consistent advocate for improving the lives and rights of women and girls.." What are the results? This was about the only thing we saw her do as Sec. of State--pretty much the same speech as she trotted around the globe. Not even Obama trusted her enough to have her take the lead on important global conflict issues. Obama sent Biden. She has shown us nothing, although she has been in the spotlight for years, which would indicate that she should be president.
"I don't see any evidence that the Foundation allowed those donors to dictate its own programs or policies." If every single e-mail could be retrieved from her own personal server, we'd be in a better position to know that, but, we'll never know because, evidently, she and her people decided what to keep and what to destroy. That server could have been used for foundation correspondence which she wanted to keep secret, as well as gov't business which she wanted to keep from everyone.
"I don't see any evidence that the Foundation allowed those donors to dictate its own programs or policies." If every single e-mail could be retrieved from her own personal server, we'd be in a better position to know that, but, we'll never know because, evidently, she and her people decided what to keep and what to destroy. That server could have been used for foundation correspondence which she wanted to keep secret, as well as gov't business which she wanted to keep from everyone.
1
Well, you know, at least Clinton HAS a record of speaking in defense of women.
The Republicans record is just downright nasty.
Really? You, the Times, are seriously referencing Carly? Rand Paul? Citizens United? A "White House ethics lawyer" from the Bush/Cheney era?
Why did you leave out Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell?
Why did you leave out the history of the Equal Rights Amendment?
Why didn't you point out that the Constitution of Japan, that WE forced on them after WW2, took women from feudal status and made them Constitutionally equal - at a time when the women of this country were NOT - and are STILL NOT Constitutionally equal?
Do I see Clinton as a firebrand for women's equality? Not at all. On the other hand she's never told me to put an asprin between my knees to prevent pregnancy. She's never called me and mine a "slut". She isn't interested in me being a forced-breeder. Unlike Dick Cheney she didn't vote against the ERA four times and brag about it.
So she got 10 million from those revolting Sauds? Jeb has gotten more from his Chinese hedge-fund buddies - and I've never seen the NYT cry out for the rights of Chinese women. In fact, yesterday was International Women's Rights Day - and there wasn't a peep from you, Times, about the status of women anywhere. You are hardly a source that I trust on females. In fact, how much have you given for women's rights?
If Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her.
And you need to check out Rand's record on women.....
The Republicans record is just downright nasty.
Really? You, the Times, are seriously referencing Carly? Rand Paul? Citizens United? A "White House ethics lawyer" from the Bush/Cheney era?
Why did you leave out Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell?
Why did you leave out the history of the Equal Rights Amendment?
Why didn't you point out that the Constitution of Japan, that WE forced on them after WW2, took women from feudal status and made them Constitutionally equal - at a time when the women of this country were NOT - and are STILL NOT Constitutionally equal?
Do I see Clinton as a firebrand for women's equality? Not at all. On the other hand she's never told me to put an asprin between my knees to prevent pregnancy. She's never called me and mine a "slut". She isn't interested in me being a forced-breeder. Unlike Dick Cheney she didn't vote against the ERA four times and brag about it.
So she got 10 million from those revolting Sauds? Jeb has gotten more from his Chinese hedge-fund buddies - and I've never seen the NYT cry out for the rights of Chinese women. In fact, yesterday was International Women's Rights Day - and there wasn't a peep from you, Times, about the status of women anywhere. You are hardly a source that I trust on females. In fact, how much have you given for women's rights?
If Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her.
And you need to check out Rand's record on women.....
30
Really? Last time I looked Jeb Bush was not the US Secretary of State. Therefore what he has or has not done in his business or private endeavors is not the issue here.
1
"Clinton HAS a record of speaking in defense of women." What has she actually DONE for women? The crickets are chirping . . .
1
Bill Clinton, the explainer-in-chief, preemptively responded to this criticism recently by saying that the fact that his FAMILY FOUNDATION accepted donations from Arab nations with whose policies he disagreed did not mean he agreed with their policies. Hillary may well say so, if pushed.
A more persuasive defense would be to vocally and regularly criticize the policies of those wealthy 'emirs' whose money Clinton Foundation finds irresistible.
With the Times leading the charge against her presidency, I do not see how far she is going to go in her quest for moving into the WH yet again.
A more persuasive defense would be to vocally and regularly criticize the policies of those wealthy 'emirs' whose money Clinton Foundation finds irresistible.
With the Times leading the charge against her presidency, I do not see how far she is going to go in her quest for moving into the WH yet again.
6
The pain is unbearable, and we have the better part of two years left to go? No more Clintons, no more Bushes. Some fresh blood, PLEEZE!
21
Amen and amen.
Hillary is a Rodham, not related to Clinton by blood.
The same people that criticize Republicans for taking money from the Koch brothers are giving Clinton a pass. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their ilk are orders of magnitude worse than anything in the Koch Brothers' imagination - and yet here we are.
Who knew that the Bush administration would become the yardstick by which Democrats are judged?
Who knew that the Bush administration would become the yardstick by which Democrats are judged?
9
Let's test the validity of the Clintons' argument that it's perfectly fine for the Clinton Foundation to accept money from donors that don't share the values espoused by the foundation. Would it be ok for the Foundation to accept contributions from ISIS? How about gifts from Al Qaeda?
13
“Fix this on your own, and I won’t say a word,” she recalled telling the Saudis. A new judge, she wrote, quickly approved the divorce." So she admits she is able to help rig courts, get judges reassigned, in Saudi Arabia, no less. "Fix this" means "rigged" - the fix is in. That's how the rigged divorce courts in former NY Senator Hillary Clinton's NY work, too. How many judges were reassigned, how many courts did she ask to "fix" things when she was Sen. Clinton? This "fix" is not a policy solution. "This fix" is something "else".
16
Hillary is for no one but herself, Bill and Chelsea. She doesn't have my interests at heart or my daughter's...............she is out for herself, like she's always been..............money and power are her only interests.................
20
Hillary has lobbied for women every where she has gone, every where she has worked. To attack Hillary's record because the Clinton family foundation took money from Saudi Arabia is beyond hypocritical.
The Bush family was in the arms business with Saudi Arabia in the Carlyle Foundation while W was in office. see http://www.economist.com/node/1875084 And the Bush family's interest in the Carlyle foundation was a for-profit one, not for charity. And Hillary will most likely be running against a member of the Bush family enriched by the Carlyle foundation.
The GOP is trying to get the pile on against Hillary started already. This is not the last of the ludicrous attacks the GOP and its surrogates will make on her.
Hopefully Americans will be able to see through such ridiculous accusations.
The Bush family was in the arms business with Saudi Arabia in the Carlyle Foundation while W was in office. see http://www.economist.com/node/1875084 And the Bush family's interest in the Carlyle foundation was a for-profit one, not for charity. And Hillary will most likely be running against a member of the Bush family enriched by the Carlyle foundation.
The GOP is trying to get the pile on against Hillary started already. This is not the last of the ludicrous attacks the GOP and its surrogates will make on her.
Hopefully Americans will be able to see through such ridiculous accusations.
14
Bush family is not the issue...dem trick to deflect from the subject at hand which is the moral, or lack of, morality with this woman...follow the money...
20
With the Clintons, charity begins at home (as evidently do email servers)!
3
You obviously need to remove the blinders if you fail to see the level irony and hypocrisy in this situation. While one might certainly fault the Bush family for its interests in the Carlyle Group, that does not excuse Clinton's behavior or that of the Clinton Foundation.
3
President Clinton will form a task force with the Clinton Foundation to look into this.
20
“It’s a perfect example of the conflict of interest here,” said Richard W. Painter, a White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.
President Bush had an ethics lawyer? Who knew!
President Bush had an ethics lawyer? Who knew!
21
And Bush was unethical how?
It's time for the left to stop making claims like this, and insist they come forward with facts. Today's left wing commenter is about as accurate at the evening news - totally missing the lark of accuracy and honesty.
It's time for the left to stop making claims like this, and insist they come forward with facts. Today's left wing commenter is about as accurate at the evening news - totally missing the lark of accuracy and honesty.
1
How does accepting money from this set back the cause of women's rights? What matter is what Mrs. Clinton does, not what a donor to her foundation does, and Mrs. Clinton has consistently been an advocate of women's rights,
Meanwhile, the Republicans just as consistently oppose abortion rights and measures like the equal pay law. Their technique is one they use frequently, as when they demagogued Al Gore's energy usage or swift boated a war hero, John Kerry: fool the low information voter with lies and illogic. The Times should be ashamed for giving a platform to this self-evident Republican spin.
Meanwhile, the Republicans just as consistently oppose abortion rights and measures like the equal pay law. Their technique is one they use frequently, as when they demagogued Al Gore's energy usage or swift boated a war hero, John Kerry: fool the low information voter with lies and illogic. The Times should be ashamed for giving a platform to this self-evident Republican spin.
31
Hillary Clinton sent a letter of support to democrat Barbara Buono AFTER the New Jersey election was lost in New Jersey. Is that your definition of her doing something for women?
14
wise up...this is like lobbying against and making laws against drug dealing while accepting donations from drug lords....follow the money
Eloise, I think it's neither here nor there. Other big name Democrats did the same. Apparently, they considered her campaign a lost cause.
Seriously, what living President or presidential hopeful has not taken money from Saudi Arabia?
29
Why don't you list them for us with peer-reviewed references, because I can't recall others doing so.
3
Hopefully none, since it is illgal. Mrs. Clinton may be the first, although Obama had some overseas donations that could not be tracked.
1
Jimmy Carter.
3
"And on Wednesday, the Republican National Committee released a biting video showing President Obama calling political donations from foreign sources “a threat to our democracy” — and Mrs. Clinton smiling next to several Middle East leaders."
While I find the Clinton money-grabbing loathsome, the irony of the RNC's comment here is nothing less than hilarious, considering last week's GOP fawning, kowtowing, groveling reception of a "Middle East leader" to speak to the US Congress.
While I find the Clinton money-grabbing loathsome, the irony of the RNC's comment here is nothing less than hilarious, considering last week's GOP fawning, kowtowing, groveling reception of a "Middle East leader" to speak to the US Congress.
30
Benjamin Netanyahu is not a "Middle East leader" in the traditional sense of the term. The Republicans also were speaking about TAKING MONEY from foreign sources. Not giving speeches.
9
Really? Did Bibi leave a check with Congress? Equating a speech with palm-greasing isn't even close.
2
Good point. And my favorite moment was GW Bush holding hands with a Saud and tip-toeing through the Texan blue-bonnets. Warmed my cockles.
3
Hillary is attempting to run on her own merits and not on her husband's achievements bandwagon. The problem is the more voters get to know the real Hillary, less trusted she appears to be.
Hillary's public persona is of a politician without character and moral beliefs. A bad omen for the first female presidential candidate after the American people being lied catastrophically by former occupants of the White House.
Hillary's public persona is of a politician without character and moral beliefs. A bad omen for the first female presidential candidate after the American people being lied catastrophically by former occupants of the White House.
38
Agreed. Clintons are a classic example of "do as I say, not as I do."
4
Can someone tell me what Hillary Clinton's platform is? We New York Times readers hear plenty about women's issues. Great. Why don't we also hear about jobs, agriculture, energy, the economy, and the environment? Also, why doesn't Mrs. Clinton ever meet with members of the press?
59
Since Hillary is not yet an announced candidate, it seems logical that she has not put out her platform yet.
11
She borrowed it from Tonya Harding: I'm here to win.
3
Perhaps her platform is contained in one of the many emails that Hillary did not turn over to the State Department.
2
"Mrs. Clinton tells of quietly intervening when Saudi Arabian courts refused a mother’s pleas to block the marriage of her 8-year-old daughter to a 50-year-old man. “Fix this on your own, and I won’t say a word,” she recalled telling the Saudis. A new judge, she wrote, quickly approved the divorce."
Well.... until it's time to glorify herself.... then she might say something.....
Well.... until it's time to glorify herself.... then she might say something.....
16
And the proof of that intervention? Is that like ducking bullets in Bosnia?
1
What exactly is the Times up to with Hillary? Do we really need this sort of spin? There's always dirt to be dug - if NYT really think that she needs bashing around at least let it be substantial. Plenty of us would prefer Warren or someone like her, but I'm far more impressed with the good work done by that foundation than I am upset by who donated. Amy might work out better at Fox.
20
I think Amy did a great job here and on other stories. In this instance, she is simply pointing out a very important contradiction. How can one be an effective advocate for women's rights when your major supporters oppress women?
6
Egan's column last week reflects the fact that she is well loved here and all unethical activity shall be glossed over and negative comments are not allowed.
2
You folks go with that Warren thing. Just remember that the bulk of the nation only knows that she lied repeatedly about being an American Indian.
Can anyone cite one concrete example of how Hillary Clinton has advanced the rights of women here in this country or overseas? I cannot come up with anything, except that she loves to TALK about women and get paid loads of money for her hollow speeches. In my opinion, she's a total opportunist and a hypocrite, so I hope she does us all a favor by NOT running for president. We deserve so much better from the Democratic Party. Let's convince Deval Patrick, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, or our dream candidate, Elizabeth Warren, to run in 2016. Anyone is better than Hillary!
66
Hummm... do you mean even a republican? Sorry, no sale on that.
4
The GOP loves your list of potentials. All are easy fodder.
Of course I meant any Democrat or Green Party member (never, ever another Republican).
2
The more I read about Hillary Clinton, the more I fear that the Democrats seem to have all their eggs in one basket... and that basket seems to be riddled with holes.
156
just one egg, and it's rotten.
4
I totally agree with this perspective. Even if one does not dislike Mrs. Clinton, and I do not, one can argue, and should, that the Democratic party needs a competition for its presidential nomination. There are other compelling candidates out there. Here are some of them: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Gov. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Gov. Jerry Brown of California, Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, and former Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. That's not an exclusive list.
Mrs. Clinton should not be 'crowned' nominee without a fight.
Mrs. Clinton should not be 'crowned' nominee without a fight.
1
I agree to a point. HRC needs a challenge. Period. Perhaps she is not the best candidate, but I expect more from the finest paper in the country than to let this Amy reporter continue to do a hatchet job.
She's a politician. What'd you expect?
7
We desperately need a plan B. Maybe Gov. Howard Dean deserves a second look?
15
Something...
1
Go Dean!
The GOP is there waiting to criticize, what a surprise.
Maybe they'll even pound the desk and say "no" a few times.
It's either that, or come up with a viable solution, with details, about something/anything wrong in this nation.
I'd bet on the no or the criticism, they haven't had a new idea in 100 years.
[really!... go check their campaign slogan for the 1912 election......smaller government, less taxes.....working great today in Kansas!]
Maybe they'll even pound the desk and say "no" a few times.
It's either that, or come up with a viable solution, with details, about something/anything wrong in this nation.
I'd bet on the no or the criticism, they haven't had a new idea in 100 years.
[really!... go check their campaign slogan for the 1912 election......smaller government, less taxes.....working great today in Kansas!]
3
By hiding Emails, she has prolonged the never-ending investigation of Benghazi. Hillary is a Watergate waiting to happen.
And the Bush regime flew the bin Laden's out of the country after 9/11. And Reagan cut deals with Iran behind the back of Jimmy Carter to "rescue" the very people Carter was trying to aid. Is the NYT really going to pretend that we don't interact with the Arab world? One of my female Saudi students just gave me some (delicious) dates; am I guilty of accepting gifts from the regime?
This article doesn't turn me against Hillary. Instead it raises one very different question: Why is the NYT coming out so hard against Hillary, and so early?
As for Hillary's stand
This article doesn't turn me against Hillary. Instead it raises one very different question: Why is the NYT coming out so hard against Hillary, and so early?
As for Hillary's stand
22
The coping strategy of the Left:
When confronted with a problem, change the subject.
When confronted with a problem, change the subject.
4
PS, You ask, " One of my female Saudi students just gave me some (delicious) dates; am I guilty of accepting gifts from the regime?" As an academician, you should know that the answer is no. But, also as an academician, you should have known to pose a question much more parallel to what has occurred. What if the student was a daughter of a Saudi Prince and was giving you one million dollars, explained as coming from profits in the date industry, and she also implied that there would be some expectations of you. Now it is your turn to answer my question. Also note that the NY Times is coming out hard on every potential candidate, without regard to party. That's what we pay them to do.
Well, think back to Whitewater. Someone at the NYT just KNOWS there is a scandal there somewhere involving the Clintons! Yes, it's kind of strange isn't it?
1
The Hillary Brand's® real test will be to see if her pseudo-populist rhetoric convinces (aka bamboozles) her base to overlook what she has done versus what she says. The second paragraph of this editorial speaks volumes about her political/fiscal agenda. Enuf said…
11
This is so much political nonsense. Where money comes from for the Clinton Foundation should have nothing to do with positions on women's matters taken by Hillary Clinton. Judge Ms. Clinton on her positions and applaud or criticize her on these positions but not on which country a donor to the Clinton Foundation comes from.
24
Mrs Clinton pays her female staff 77% of what her male staffers make ...
5
The Times seems to be on a roll attacking Hillary Clinton. There's plenty to criticize Mrs. Clinton about, including her role with Walmart, her support of war, and her support of Bill Clinton's successful attempt to end any chance of getting one's head above water because of bankruptcy laws.
But criticizing her by following the money is a fruitless pursuit. Big money and dirty money is writ large all over the political system. Why should Hillary Clinton be any different? That's the system she's faced with and that's the result of Republican efforts to gut campaign spending laws. And in terms of women's issues in general, she has a fairly positive record.
I don't know if Mrs. Clinton can win the presidential election. I shudder to think of Washington controlled by right-wing Republicans! Goodbye to what's left of democracy and democratic institutions!
But criticizing her by following the money is a fruitless pursuit. Big money and dirty money is writ large all over the political system. Why should Hillary Clinton be any different? That's the system she's faced with and that's the result of Republican efforts to gut campaign spending laws. And in terms of women's issues in general, she has a fairly positive record.
I don't know if Mrs. Clinton can win the presidential election. I shudder to think of Washington controlled by right-wing Republicans! Goodbye to what's left of democracy and democratic institutions!
93
Don't worry. Obama is trying his best to complete his destruction of those institutions before the next election, and he's making great progress.
3
Why just accept the dirty money? Why not fight back at it whenever you can? Why are Democrats immune from such enquirers? I am sure if a Republican accepted foreign money Howie would be screaming for an investigation. I am not sure what Howie is hoping to preserve by willing allowing more Clinton corruption back into the White House.
3
If she is our only hope to retain 'democratic' institutions, she has plenty of time to do a year in prison before letting the public vote against her.
1
To say Hillary Clinton is "vulnerable" when it comes to women's rights is to assume that voters will forget her 1995 Beijing speech declaring "Women's rights are human rights" and every subsequent speech and initiative she has championed across the globe which has advanced women's lives and livelihoods everywhere. She has been on the forefront of defending women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions without getting permission from their partners or governments before receiving legal medical procedures. If Hillary Clinton is considered vulnerable on women's rights, I eagerly await the meeting the potential opposition candidate whose record on women's rights exceeds hers.
158
It's easy to make speeches in favor of women's rights. But it is much harder to actually refrain from voting for war, wars that tear apart families and their homes, send millions into exile and kill members of their family from the youngest to the oldest, many of them women and children. Hillary made a calculated political decision (not a mistake, as she now claims) in voting for the war on Iraq, to appeal to hawks and look tough, and continues to advocate for military action as a solution to political problems. That vote alone should disqualify her from ever becoming president. Millions of we less "brilliant" people around the world marched in protest against the pursuit of that disastrous war, ruinous for both the Iraqis and we Americans. We were right, Hillary made a grievous decision purely for political gain, and we can do better.
4
Talk is cheap, particularly with the Clintons. What has she actually accomplished, besides paying the woman on her own staff less than the men?
2
Glad to read this comment. I couldn't find the words that you did. It's infuriating to watch the constancy of attacks -- from all angles, including the usual from Dowd -- on a woman who actually could be president.
1
This is not a pro Hillary article Ms. Chozick. It continues (at least in my mind) the ongoing questions about what she will do or better yet, what she would be able to do, especially in light of the current Congressional mind-set which flies in the face of progressive thinking or fair and reasonable actions.
At this point in her non-campaign, I have no idea what future she either sees for America, or will attempt to encourage.
Americans need to think very carefully about a presidency with her in it.
Where for instance does she stand on ISIL, Iran, Afghanistan, ACA, tax reform, election reform, human rights, to name just some of the issues she will need to confront, and the issue that scares and saddens me the most is how she could ever possibly win without the help of millions of donated dollars from wealthy people and groups: the SCOTUS induced tragedy of
modern election strategy.
At this point in her non-campaign, I have no idea what future she either sees for America, or will attempt to encourage.
Americans need to think very carefully about a presidency with her in it.
Where for instance does she stand on ISIL, Iran, Afghanistan, ACA, tax reform, election reform, human rights, to name just some of the issues she will need to confront, and the issue that scares and saddens me the most is how she could ever possibly win without the help of millions of donated dollars from wealthy people and groups: the SCOTUS induced tragedy of
modern election strategy.
4
Do as I say and not as I do has been Hillary's motto for some time now. Why are you just noticing?
26
A "Women’s Advocate"!!
How misleading
How very untrue
Since when exactly was she EVER an advocate for women?
Where in her history can you point out to such advocacy?
Could it be when she sat for 6 long years on WalMart board of directors?
But the facts point to a passive board member, while WalMart was running store (mostly poor women) like a China sweatshop. Minimum wages pay, no benefits not even basic, while store profits were going through the roof, and stock price was in records high. She never even suggested to management to help store women workers with PTO to care for sick child/parent. She was just happy cashing her 6 figure paycheck for a patronage job as wife of Ark governor.
Could it be while she was in the Senate? She was there for 8 long years?
Can you name just ONE law she sponsored or help pass that benefits working women? None
Fact: she VOTED AGAINST sen Warren Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A law written by sen Warren to help families against predatory lending practices by Wall Street Banks. She embraced Wall Street banks against working families of America.
As for the so called “Clinton Foundation” asking for money from regimes with worst human rights records, there is no surprise here. The Clintons are known for going the xtra mile to meet /greet, and feel the pain of any monster in the world with wealth, if they can get part or some of this wealth.
Women’s advocate indeed!
Please
How misleading
How very untrue
Since when exactly was she EVER an advocate for women?
Where in her history can you point out to such advocacy?
Could it be when she sat for 6 long years on WalMart board of directors?
But the facts point to a passive board member, while WalMart was running store (mostly poor women) like a China sweatshop. Minimum wages pay, no benefits not even basic, while store profits were going through the roof, and stock price was in records high. She never even suggested to management to help store women workers with PTO to care for sick child/parent. She was just happy cashing her 6 figure paycheck for a patronage job as wife of Ark governor.
Could it be while she was in the Senate? She was there for 8 long years?
Can you name just ONE law she sponsored or help pass that benefits working women? None
Fact: she VOTED AGAINST sen Warren Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A law written by sen Warren to help families against predatory lending practices by Wall Street Banks. She embraced Wall Street banks against working families of America.
As for the so called “Clinton Foundation” asking for money from regimes with worst human rights records, there is no surprise here. The Clintons are known for going the xtra mile to meet /greet, and feel the pain of any monster in the world with wealth, if they can get part or some of this wealth.
Women’s advocate indeed!
Please
64
Well, Drat. The real problem is that the Democrats arsenal of possible alternatives does not include a lot of other 'first' types: the party itself desperately needs that big glittering generality to distract from what has been a continuous stream of scandals from John Edwards through to today. The giant distracting thing has to be big....something so blinding the populous literally can't see anything else.
5
The fact that Hillary Clinton knowingly and willingly concocted a scheme to subvert official email from government servers to her own private unsecured, unencrypted server which by the accounts given seems to have been installed by the Geek Squad from Best Buy and located in the basement of her house should raise a huge red flag.
I would not be surprised at all if the Clinton Foundation is found to have been operating as the personal tax free piggy bank for Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea. It's been suggested in the NYT the foundation has funded such things as home improvement, lavish travel and a mid six figure income for Chelsea (for doing exactly what I wonder).
Too bad for the Democrats because they have sunk every last dime of credibility into the Clinton's.
I would not be surprised at all if the Clinton Foundation is found to have been operating as the personal tax free piggy bank for Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea. It's been suggested in the NYT the foundation has funded such things as home improvement, lavish travel and a mid six figure income for Chelsea (for doing exactly what I wonder).
Too bad for the Democrats because they have sunk every last dime of credibility into the Clinton's.
39
Forbes and ZDnet dubunked AP News' assumption about the server in her home, AP has taken the story down.
3
The last paragraph of this article saddened me, and almost made me weep.
Does this woman actually think anyone believes this tale?
Please, Hillary, you wanted to be a leader...didn't quite fully work out. You achieved the American Capitalistic Dream of becoming a super wealthy American. Now be a benevolent grandmother, and bake some cookies with your grandchildren.
Does this woman actually think anyone believes this tale?
Please, Hillary, you wanted to be a leader...didn't quite fully work out. You achieved the American Capitalistic Dream of becoming a super wealthy American. Now be a benevolent grandmother, and bake some cookies with your grandchildren.
26
If everyone does it, is it wrong? Apparently only if you're Hillary Clinton:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-hillary-clinton-email...
Similarly, exactly what are the Republican "hopefuls" records on women? Let's just ask them, shall we?
If Mrs. Clinton plans to run, she'd better formalize it and start fighting back soon, or she'll have a lot of "catch-up" to do during the last months before the election. All I know right now is that I'll take Mrs. Clinton's record on anything over any one of those Republican men's records.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-hillary-clinton-email...
Similarly, exactly what are the Republican "hopefuls" records on women? Let's just ask them, shall we?
If Mrs. Clinton plans to run, she'd better formalize it and start fighting back soon, or she'll have a lot of "catch-up" to do during the last months before the election. All I know right now is that I'll take Mrs. Clinton's record on anything over any one of those Republican men's records.
6
as far as i can tell with the email thing, the worst that can be said is that she didn't try to do better than her predeessors at state. i wish she had - it would have shown leadership.
1
LOL. The Tribune is now carrying the Clinton's baggage. As SoS, Mrs Clinton violated the 2009 Regulation put in place for all Federal Agencies (State was not excluded) requiring the use of government servers and email. This was a deliberate CHOICE by Madam Secretary. Note - An Ambassador was FIRED by State for using private email.
The private server should be released to State. PERIOD. Seriously, does anyone truly believe that the 55,000 email pages sent by Hillary previously were not scrubbed??? If you do believe this you are wholeheartedly naive. Mrs Clinton learned one thing during Watergate and that was to have total control of any and all records.
The private server should be released to State. PERIOD. Seriously, does anyone truly believe that the 55,000 email pages sent by Hillary previously were not scrubbed??? If you do believe this you are wholeheartedly naive. Mrs Clinton learned one thing during Watergate and that was to have total control of any and all records.
1
All these speeches for gobs of money but what exactly has she DONE?? Put your money where your mouth is or gst off the stage
22
Let's not forget all the tributes paid to the late Saudi king and the obsequious behavior of Bush and Obama both. It's not just Hillary, not that that excuses her.
26
are Obama and bush taking money from Saudi Arabia?
1
People are calling themselves independent, and abandoning the name Democrat, because of politicians like Hillary Clinton and Obama. Those who don't follow politics on the left, they mindlessly defend these two, people line up to make excuses for her and Obama the same way people made excuses for George Bush. People said George Bush "fixed the economy", when he very clearly had not, right before it blew up in 2008. Now, people say the same about Obama, even though the same financial institutions are even MORE over leveraged than they were in '08. With Hillary, things will only continue down this path, same as they would if a Republican gets in. People are making the utmost pathetic excuses for these politicians, on the left and right, instead of seeing what's fairly crystal clear- we need to put in a bloc of Independent, non-party affiliated representatives, not tied to big money donations, and most especially, if the intelligent people outnumber the others in this country, an Independent President, to break through the delusions that are now plaguing the voters of this country. Its ridiculous that people will defend Hillary, cluelessly, instead of seeing that it actually IS really shady that she's taking millions from Saudi Arabia. She could easily reject Saudi Arabias money in the most public fashion, and call them out on their abuses of women, but instead, she's playing the game Obama and Bush played. Its repulsive. Worse is seeing the left defend her on this.
45
obama has achieved many cherished democratic goals. what he has not done is wasted time on revenge prosecutions of bankers or bush staff. instead we have 11 million peope with heathcare, a thriving economy, and important first steps taken to address global warming. obama may not have been as argumentative and willing to embrace quixotic battles as some progressives might have liked; instead he got results.
3
The tricky part of your argument is that you say that what you believe in is crystal clear and call anyone else who differs with you mindless, ridiculous, delusional and clueless! People just draw the line in different places than you, see considerable worth where you see corruption. Maybe a lot of us just see complexity and nuance where you crave absolutes. Her poll numbers suggest a lot of us see the world of politics much differently than you and that is the strength of a pluralistic system (I think). Maybe your favorite movie never wins the Oscar or sells the most tickets and maybe your favorite tv show gets worse ratings than the stuff everybody else likes but that hardly means that you are better or wiser or smarter than everyone else.
Many of us love and respect and support Hillary for reasons we hold dear.
Many of us love and respect and support Hillary for reasons we hold dear.
1
One of the many myths about Hillary Clinton, is that she cares about women and children. No one who cares about women and children would vote for an illegal war of aggression, of which the women and children are the first victims, and most displaced from their homes. As in how "brilliant" she is and how much she has accomplished, this is another myth just tossed out and accepted (mostly) by women, without critical examination. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party) in the last election because I also want to see a woman break the glass ceiling. I just want a moral, compassionate and qualified woman to do so.
95
I understand the rationale for voting principle. I don't buy it - it gets us Republicans. But I'm old and pragmatic.
4
Why does a woman need to be more compassionate and more qualified and more moral than a man to deserve your vote?!
You just threw your vote away. What a shame.
House of Clinton Season 22
41
Many different episodes but the same basic plot - where's the money?
1
Hillary is the best candidate money can buy.
Are you SURE you want to do this?
You know there are more gremlins in the bushes, if not, the Clinton's will make some. Remember Bubba has been out of the spotlight for years, the minute Hillary declares, he becomes fair game all over again. Lord knows what he has been doing.
Are you SURE you want to do this?
You know there are more gremlins in the bushes, if not, the Clinton's will make some. Remember Bubba has been out of the spotlight for years, the minute Hillary declares, he becomes fair game all over again. Lord knows what he has been doing.
34
The real is issue is why we need to have yet another campaign talking point focused upon setting Americans apart from each other. The faux "women" issue is just a market tested talking point to get votes.
Why can't a Democrat run on making this a better nation for everyone -- instead of pitting one group giants another?
Why can't a Democrat run on making this a better nation for everyone -- instead of pitting one group giants another?
12
jld - You really need to pay more attention. Democrats have been trying to make things better for everyone. It's Republicans who are trying to divide and conquer and who want to keep designating various groups (women, people of color, gay people) as second class citizens and denying them the right to marry, the right to vote etc.
3
Please understand this: Hillary doesn't do any work for women; she works only for herself
She possesses not one altruistic bone.
She possesses not one altruistic bone.
61
Mrs. Clinton, who hasn't driven a car since 1996, figured the Saudi Arabian ban on women driving was no big deal.
"Let them eat cake," her Majesty intoned.
"Let them eat cake," her Majesty intoned.
54
Can any readers reconcile her support for women's rights and her apparent acceptance of her husband's behavior? It seems to me that remaining married to a man that has humiliated in such a public manner is counter to basic principles of women's rights. Perhaps it is an acceptable component of their marriage, but what message does it send to other woman? Should other woman endure such treatment? Would she condone such behavior by Chelsea's husband?
I would really like to hear others' views.
I would really like to hear others' views.
15
I would have to separate the two. A persons dealings with their spouse is generally something we know little about, even for as well known a person as HC. The principle of womens rights is to be treated equally under the law. Putting up with a boorish husband doesn't seem, to me, to have much to do with that.
7
First, I do not see any evidence that she accepted her husband's behavior. All reports about her emotional and interpersonal response to the situation suggest otherwise. Second, the bottom line is that women should have a choice. I am not comfortable with making judgements or proscriptions about what a woman has to do (e.g. Get a divorce). Hilary has and had the legal and financial freedom to make a true choice. She made her choice based on her analysis of her marriage and life. I do not think that I know better than she does what the best choice was for her. Third, I think that it is best to focus on a politician's policy stance, voting record, and professional actions than their private relationships when deciding for whom to cast a ballot. Her husband is a good example: I supported his political views and actions over those of his opponent(s) and thought that the country was better off with his policies even though do not approve of his infidelity. Likewise, I cannot imagine thinking that anyone in the present Republican field would be remotely acceptable or better than Hillary on any issue, especially not on anything having to do with the best interests of women or children.
3
Does anybody think the Clintons have real" marriage? If they did the disgust after learning where he put that cigar would be too much to bear. But I don't think that Bill's activities in the oval office were anything more than a professional embarrassment to Hillary. She knows exactly what he is and she is still married to him because he's her ticket to the presidency.
Here's my bottom line: JFK and Bill Clinton were skirt chasers, but does that mean they wouldn't make good presidents? None of this will change my vote. It's not like I'm going to vote for Scott Walker over Hillary Clinton for POTUS. I do like Rand Paul, but I can't see voting for ANY republican over Mrs. Clinton. If I stay home, it would be the equivalent of a vote for the democratic opponent under the guise of a protest vote. I voted for Ralph Nader as a protest vote in 2000 and ended up with the Iraq War. I won't make that mistake again.
24
Hillary is the most overrated politician in America. From a shady lawyer to a polarizing 1st Lady who fired the travel staff to benefit a relative. On to her not so notable career in US Senate where she had no major legislation to her name then to 4 years as a failed Secretary of State with no diplomatic success and very few actual attempts. Her reset button with Russia was a cringe worthy display of amateurism. Yes I would proudly vote for Scott Walker over her
12
Hillary has her issues.
As a long standing Dem. I will vote for her if she is my candidate.
If you would vote for Walker, you are a long standing Republican--full disclosure please.
As a long standing Dem. I will vote for her if she is my candidate.
If you would vote for Walker, you are a long standing Republican--full disclosure please.
2
Drawing a comparison between voting for Nader and the cause of the war of aggression on Iraq is a red herring. In fact, Hillary Clinton and other Dems voted FOR that war. I voted for Nader twice, votes I am proud of despite the Dems lying smears, because Nader is the only candidate to run in my long life who is an actual public servant, and who also represents me. I also can not vote for a Republican, for all the obvious reasons, but I will no longer vote for the corrupt elites that the Dems put up as a "choice" every four years. They do not represent me, or in most cases, the overall interests of the country. I voted for Obama once, who I consider to be a failure as a "transparent" POTUS, as well as having failed his constitutional duties to prosecute war criminals (as he became one himself) and Wall Street thieves. When the Dems condemned Edward Snowden, they lost my vote--forever.
"Reports of Mrs. Clinton’s use of only a private email account " It was an email SYSTEM, not just an account.
48
I'm disappointed the NYT gave this politically-motivated story space without adding more of its own research. This is spin I'd expect from Fox News. What countries does the U.S. give foreign aid to and what are their records? Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. What are these congressmen doing about that? In other words, what about the hypocrisy of this smear job? And is there any evidence that the money the Clintons have taken is linked to their policy or advocacy positions? In the absence of such evidence, what is the problem here? If there is none, then the real story should be about how the Republicans are hypocritically using this "issue" to wage a PR war against a Clinton presidency.
226
It's the Clinton's job to be open in who donates in a timely manner, and how the funds are spent. And while we are at it, be open about her email and the messages they contain. All of them. Since Hillary chose to operate outside of the norms established, we are entitled to see all the messages she sent while Secretary of State, not just her cherry picking.
This is not a Republican issue, so using that argument against this story show you have none.
This is not a Republican issue, so using that argument against this story show you have none.
9
Wait for Hillary's response this week in front of a softball throwing journalist. If she flubs this opportunity she is toast!!!
3
Exactly.
1
As one Cenk Uygur said, (paraphrase)
"Why doesn't Hillary, just tell the Saudis to keep their millions
and just let women drive.?"
"Why doesn't Hillary, just tell the Saudis to keep their millions
and just let women drive.?"
32
So where are the "women's advocates" going to go if not Hillary?
2
They can go to Anthony Weiner
4
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party. What, she can't win? So a win for HRC is a win for you? Unlikely.
Isn't it a fascinating coincidence that Hillary's top aide, Huma Abedin, is married to Weiner? What they must say to each other about their philandering husbands
as i watch john kerry doggedly grappling with immensely important and complicated problems, i get the impression that hillary skated as secretary of stte, acting as goodwill ambassador while avoiding thorny issues that could complicate her political future. does she ever do good if she can't do well personally?
72
If the press were a hibernating species they just set a record. 6 1/2 years of comatose dreams that prevented any objective analysis of Obama. Now they stretch, wipe the drool off their mouth, rub their eyes, wake up and try to prove they really weren't asleep at all. Poor Hillary.
It's going to take more than a few 'balanced' investigative reports for me to ever believe the press isn't part of the narrative.
It's going to take more than a few 'balanced' investigative reports for me to ever believe the press isn't part of the narrative.
8
Clinton Redux II. Given bill and Hillary Clintons long history of illegal and unethical and even immoral behaviours, why on earth would any rational human being believe HC is telling the truth about anything much less missing emails she kept hidden from not only the public but the government itself. Anyone who has ever worked for the federal government knows full well, that government email accounts must be used not private or personal ones. In fact the feds go to great lengths to train employees on proper email protocols and usage. Either she did not have such training or if she did and ignored it then she was willfully committing a crime. The republicans should peel her hide and hang it on the web.
19
The Clintons care not where the money comes from, it all spends the same. We are saturated with the past Democrats that have been in office and there are a few RINO's who love that microphone and camera too. Same songs different singers.
13
Her search for power has no boundaries-the relationship between her and Bill is all about how to elevate each other and now Chelsea. How does a 20 something warrant a $600K position at CNBC other than mom+dad pulling strings and favor. Hillary will stand on a platform of equality for all women ---what about the firing of the White House travel staff --not politically appointed staff but simply in the way of her having a tiff with someone and demonstrating her power!!
And her above the law moves --deliberate because everything she does is calculated (remember she took tax deductions for Bill's under wear at $5 ea!!) of placing ALL of her emails for over 4 years completely under her control. Remember not just a private email --a separate server with a pseudonym as well!! Can she be trusted with the nations best interest --if it conflicts with hers???
And her above the law moves --deliberate because everything she does is calculated (remember she took tax deductions for Bill's under wear at $5 ea!!) of placing ALL of her emails for over 4 years completely under her control. Remember not just a private email --a separate server with a pseudonym as well!! Can she be trusted with the nations best interest --if it conflicts with hers???
53
The abuses against women worldwide continue unabated since 1995. As the UN convenes its annual big meeting on the status of women today, the litany is long and painful to hear. Yet progress is noted, in maternal health and education & anti discriminatory laws. Still, most of the world's leaders are men. And that may be the problem http://passblue.com/2015/03/08/at-the-uns-yearly-meeting-on-women-scruti...
8
Some say, including Charles Krauthammer, that Hillary doesn't have a single accomplishment to her credit for the four years as Sec. of State. I would call talking foreign heads of State out of millions of dollars is quite an accomplishment. LOL
25
The Clintons are well known for welcoming money from every direction - this is nothing new and hardly upsetting. The Citizens United decision makes money grabbing a full time occupation in political races now, so it's a non issue. Hillary Clinton is brilliant, very tough, and certainly capable of being president. The "perfect" candidates are a couple galaxies away from ours.
10
Where is the evidence that Hillary is "brilliant"? I haven't seen it, and I have been watching closely. We had a near perfect candidate for POTUS twice--Ralph Nader. But the corrupt, entitled Dem and Repub parties made sure that he could not debate the other candidates and overwhelmingly demonstrate that fact to the voting public.
1
Ralph Nader, yes, he is the guy who inadvertently helped George W. Bush get elected - the damage from which America will never fully recover. No thanks Ralph.
1
Hill is the new Ralph.
It appears that Hillary is all about power no matter how she achieves it. Her actions in this case do not represent her words. I think the Clinton foundation and its donors will destroy her as a candadate much the same as when she ran against Obama in 2008.
22
Lets face it. The Clinton foundation exists to enrich the Clintons. As a tax exempt foundation structured to pay Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea huge salaries along with lifestyles of the rich and famous travel expense accounts, the whole thing is a farce. The Clinton's have used their celebrity status and Washington power to bring in millions from governments where human rights are non existent. Shameless....but its more of the same from the Clintons.
117
It's quite "rich" that a man who has a record of exploiting women and sexually assaulting women, stands up and defends a woman who turns her back on nations of women who are so horribly discriminated against for accepting a lot of money from those nations. See, it all gets so confusing and they hang their hats on the hope that it will all be over the heads of most uninformed voters in a country that has a proven record already of NOT DISCRIMINATING against women. There is no "War on Women" but if that's all Hillary has in her bag of tricks, let her go with it. Politics in this nation has reached such a pathetic level when the pool of possible "leaders" narrows down to Hillary Clinton.
72
The pool of which you speak has become more of a cesspool.
3
How is it possible that there's only one possible "leader" in the pool, and that one isn't current?This piece talks about her "important" speech of 1995! If you were 16 then, you'd be 36 now. You'd hardly remember that "important" speech (to which there wasn't one follow-up). How is it possible? The simplest explanation is that slowly but surely the whole process has become rigged and manipulated.
20
Of course Ms.Clinton is all about electing a woman as president, not about electing the best president. The media feeds on and encourages this through utilizing our country's pop-culture mentality. I would suggest that she has demonstrated that she has neither the vision nor the intellect to be president of this country.
97
And George W. Bush DID have the intellect to be president. Come on.
2
I'm trying to summon up some outrage about this issue, but my mind keeps coming back to the GOP's lousy record for supporting gender equality in our country. Kind of makes their bellyaching about Mrs. Clinton seem, well, less motivated by a concern for equality than by hypocritical auto-harping.
And I'm having a hard time seeing what is so terrible -- considering all the other business we do with them -- about taking money from oppressive regimes to fight oppression.
And I'm having a hard time seeing what is so terrible -- considering all the other business we do with them -- about taking money from oppressive regimes to fight oppression.
199
The reason you can't see the obvious is because your world-view is collapsing.
8
Please define "gender equality" and explain how the myriad laws on the books, partnered with the Equal Protection Clause, don't ensure equal opportunity or at least punish violations of it.
Otherwise it's just a hollow buzzword people like you use when the last thing you were griping about turned out to be a farce.
Otherwise it's just a hollow buzzword people like you use when the last thing you were griping about turned out to be a farce.
9
I'm with you if you can only show where the Clinton Foundation has fought any oppression other than on their handouts.
8
The conflict of interest is bad enough, but already a Hillary Clinton presidential bid is being framed by the mainstream media as one that will "appeal to women" in the context that, in 2015 and after a raft of statutes and legislation, there really are still "obstacles" for women to become whatever they want to be (as Clinton herself has done). #hypocrisy
What a breath of fresh air it would be to have presidential contenders from either party run by appealing to ALL Americans instead of only to a few groups/demographics.
What a breath of fresh air it would be to have presidential contenders from either party run by appealing to ALL Americans instead of only to a few groups/demographics.
57
I agree with your point, The Commoner, with one exception: Women are 50-51% of the population! It is annoying when the media tells women what we will get excited about!
I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton because everything she says and does is calculated and orchestrated. She's not remotely approachable, not remotely believable, and not remotely likable. It's time to elect the next president for sheer competency at doing their job - not color of skin or gender.
169
Can you give me some examples of what you mean? I grew up with her being the first lady of Arkansas. You say the same things the men in the opposition party said about her.
Hillary is striving to be the president. She's brilliant, capable and caring. She's been an advocate for women and children her whole life. It drove the wingnuts in my state mad. Especially when she had the audacity to keep her middle name. The other thing I find laughable is this certainty that they only want to enrich themselves. The one thing the Clintons have never really cared about is money.
Hillary is striving to be the president. She's brilliant, capable and caring. She's been an advocate for women and children her whole life. It drove the wingnuts in my state mad. Especially when she had the audacity to keep her middle name. The other thing I find laughable is this certainty that they only want to enrich themselves. The one thing the Clintons have never really cared about is money.
97
Parker Lee: you should be writing their commercials.
3
Can you name three actual accomplishments of Hillary that have benefited society (rather than herself)?
2
Hillary stood by her man and kept her family together. That shows that she is a strong woman. If more women would stand by their husbands than the divorce rate would fall and kids would have two parents.
She deserves the Presidency.
She deserves the Presidency.
21
So that's how we should elect Presidents? However is most deserving? Get a grip man.
14
No, more men should act like decent men. Hillary didn't stay with him to keep her family together. She stayed because he was the door to her political aspiratons.
24
I'm a woman and I find your comment very offensive. No one deserves the presidency because they stood by while their spouse cheated on them. What good is a parent who has no respect for their child's mother or father and what kind of example does that set for children?
18
Her husband is a one man war on women and she is his enabler, so the idea that she is somehow an advocate for women's rights is not merely laughable, it is sick.
120
Indeed. I can think of no Republican man who has warred more on women than Bill Clinton.
1
Comments like this remind me of my Aunt's lament - "Women, you cannot ever organize them." Meaning = Backbiting! I find your comment, M from Pittsburgh, " offensive!"
1
Really? Where have you been for the last 20 years or so. Let me refresh your memory: The male legislators of the states of Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, etc, etc, etc. you need to stay in touch with the world.
"What difference at this point does it make?"
Do tell....
Do tell....
13
Hillary advocates for two women: herself and Chelsea. Every other woman in the country is just another vote.
156