NY Times cropped Bill Clinton quote regarding whether foundation donors would try to influence a Hillary Clinton administration
SUMMARY: In a New York Times article, Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker, and Mike McIntire reported that Bill Clinton has "pledged to make public future donors" to the William J. Clinton Foundation if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected president. The article then stated, "While disclosure is not legally required, failure to do so, Mr. Clinton said, would raise 'all these questions about whether people would try to win favor with her by giving money to me.' " But the article omitted the rest of Clinton's statement, in which he asserted, "You know it wouldn't work, and I don't think they would. Still, there are legitimate questions."
In a December 20 New York Times article discussing donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation, reporters Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker, and Mike McIntire reported that "some of" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) "rivals argue that donors could use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence" and claimed that "Mr. Clinton himself echoed those concerns this fall when he pledged to make public future donors if Mrs. Clinton was elected president." The article continued: "While disclosure is not legally required, failure to do so, Mr. Clinton said, would raise 'all these questions about whether people would try to win favor with her by giving money to me.' " But the article omitted the rest of Clinton's statement, in which he asserted, "You know it wouldn't work, and I don't think they would. Still, there are legitimate questions."
Bill Clinton was quoted in a September 20 article in The Economist saying that if Hillary Clinton were elected president, failing to disclose donors to his foundation would raise "all these questions about whether people would try to win favor with her by giving money to me." From the Economist article:
Mr Clinton insists he will continue his philanthropic work even if he becomes First Spouse-though some things would have to change. In particular, he would have to be more transparent. "Now we don't have to publish all of our donors, for example, and if Hillary became president, I think there would be all these questions about whether people would try to win favour with her by giving money to me," he says. "You know it wouldn't work, and I don't think they would. Still, there are legitimate questions." But given the power of Mr Clinton's personal brand, that transparency may be a price worth paying.
However, the Times article omitted the portion of the quote in which Bill Clinton asserted that he did not believe that donors would make contributions to his foundation in an attempt to influence a Hillary Clinton administration, and that if such an attempt were made, it would be ineffective. From the Times article:
Over the last decade, former President Bill Clinton has raised more than $500 million for his foundation, allowing him to build a glass-and-steel presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., and burnish his image as an impresario of global philanthropy. The foundation has closely guarded the identities of its donors - including one who gave $31.3 million last year.
Now, the secrecy surrounding the William J. Clinton Foundation has become a campaign issue as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination with her husband as a prime source of strategy and star power. Some of her rivals argue that donors could use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence.
Mr. Clinton himself echoed those concerns this fall when he pledged to make public future donors if Mrs. Clinton was elected president. While disclosure is not legally required, failure to do so, Mr. Clinton said, would raise "all these questions about whether people would try to win favor with her by giving money to me."
Even so, past donors should remain private, he insisted, "unless there is some conflict of which I am aware, and there is not."
But an examination of the foundation demonstrates how its fund-raising has at times fostered the potential for conflict.
Yeah, and, of course, Haliburton doesn't try to influence policy or curry favor...
Halliburton doesn't just TRY to influence policy - it does.
Dick Cheney is Haklliburton. And don't forgrt, Lynne Cheney is Lckheed.
So I guess the moral of the story would be...
Don't engage in philanthropy if you want your wife to be president, but it's perfectly OK to throw money around with all your friends in big oil and the military industrial complex.
...moral of the story?
Say it ain't so Bill!
Wow, I didn't see Haliburton referenced here anywhere?, seems it's off topic....but then it was brought up by those who read between the lines.
Never mind.....
Aw Tommy we know how it goes here.
If the Dems run into trouble they always yelp the Republicans did it too!
Of course when the Republicans get into hot water & we point out the Democrats did something similar they scream Strawman!
The point here folks is that it is perfectly legitimate to demand just who these donors are. And it's the same for either party. If someone seriously believes there isn't a chance [a good one] of influence or favors then I suppose they also believe in Santa.
Bottom line:
Edwards is correct when he talks about 2 Americas. There's the one our lawmakers reside in with their wheeling & dealing.
And there's the one the rest of us live in. Powerless. And in some cases [like now] gullible.
You would have a point IF the topic were the ethics of lobbyists and whether their donations are for buying favors. A decent conversation, but not the one we are having. The POINT about Halliburton is the hypocrisy of the writers here since I dont remember any stories when Bush got elected about how much money Halliburton and Enron gave him. THOSE stories only popped up AFTER Enron went down the porceline drain and Halliburton got no bid contracts. Do we regularly see stories about REPUBLICANS and questions about did THEIR donors try to curry favor by donating? When we do this wont be a point. UNTIL we do the hypocrisy IS a point.
No, Jeter's point is that when a conservative brings up similar doings on the liberal side, that person is automatically scolded for straying from the topic - in other words, "we don't want to hear it, yada, yada, yada".
Yet here, Haliburton is brought up and its perfectly legitimate? HAHA!!
If you can't admit the double standard in that, then the cries of hypocrisy are your own.
Thanks Tommy, you said it better than I could have.
Not only that, haven't we heard about Halliburton for 5 or 6 years now & how they are connected to Bush/Cheney? The media hasn't ignored this at all.
SURE you have and well you should have ONCE they got no bid contracts. That is once it BECAME RELEVANT. Just the giving of the dontations is what these guys are talking about. Did you hear about Halliburton DURING the election? Did they threaten Bush with every corporation that gave him money WHILE he was running and insinuate they were trying to buy influence? THAT would be the same as what these guys are doing. Hey if she gives one of her major donors no bid contracts I WANT to hear about it. At THAT point you definitly wont be hearing me say well Bush did it to. I will be screaming bloody murder just like I did about Halliburton.
Solon, you are missing my point by a mile.
The first 3 posts here are Liberals bringing up Halliburton.
What does that have to do with anything other than to deflect or detrail this thread from it's topic?
So my point was that these 3 posts are saying ignore the Clintons, let's throw out a strawman & say the Republicans are doing it too.
Another words, when we do it, everyone screams blue bloody murder. When Libs do it, it's ok?
Of course J, you're right.....just look under the "Flag this comment" link, one of the reasons is "off topic".......Halliburton is not the topic of this thread, which logically means it's off topic.
This is easy stuff......
While Halliburton is not the topic. Hypocrisy IS and Halliburton IS an example of WHY this story is hypocritical. I didnt see any such stories about POSSIBLE influence buying during the Bush campaign and Halliburton DID get preferential treatment. No one is accusing Hillary of giving preferential treatment to donors they are saying she MIGHT do so.
Its not derailing the topic. YOU are obviously missing what the topic IS. For instance it ISNT that Clinton did anything wrong. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. Not the writers of the article not anyone else. There is NOTHING WRONG with taking donations. Halliburtion is an example of the HYPOCRISY of the story which IS THE TOPIC. It is a good example from a hindsight kind of way because they DID get preferential treatment but the point ISNT that. Rather the point is that the press COULD write this kind of story about ANY candidate but they sure didnt about Bush. It is a good example of WHY this story is hypocritical. I dont even understand why you guys keep pretending that we are somehow excusing some imaginary wrong Clinton did when NO ONE IS ACCUSING HER OF WRONGDOING.
No its NOT the same for the reason I stated. When you bring up OTHERS wrongdoing to justify those on your side its a weak excuse. THAT isnt what is being done here. Who is saying that taking donations is WRONG? I dont see anyone. The political process would grind to a halt without donations or would be given to only the rich to hold office. So he wasnt bringing up Halliburton to JUSTIFY anything. Rather to point to the hypocrisy to bring up CLINTON donations as a way to cast aspersions when there is no evidence of anything more than normal donations when they didnt do the same for GOP candidates. THAT is a huge difference.
Never mind, whether you admit the double standard here or not is irrelevant, it absolutely is, and it's rather sad that you won't admit it......but whatever?
Your laundry list of excuses is entertaining nonetheless....
I'm not referring to a double standard on the part of the political right, I'm talking about the one we're getting from the "liberal media".
Pete,
Perhaps my original post was misplaced under yours and should have been in response to the first 3 posts here that brought up Haliburton with no provocation, and didn't address this thread whatsoever.
Sorry.
bygones :-)
EXCUSES. Nevermind whether you ADMIT the obvious difference isnt important its clear enough to anyone with a working cerebral cortex. I notice you didnt even TRY to address the points I made about WHY they are different. Explain to me the inherent WRONG in taking a donation. Without that your whole false equivilence becomes clear nonsense. NO ONE IS SAYING taking donations is wrong. Not for Bush not for Clinton. You are always so desperate to bring out this false double standard argument. There isnt one here. Your incredibly weak attempt to say there is just falls on its face until you explain what is wrong with taking donations.
Solon, you explained it about as well as someone could. If they can't see that the point was very definitely NOT an example of "well, they do it too" you probably won't be able to convince them of their error.
Without that the "double standard" argument falls pretty flat.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
And neither of you get it - it has nothing to do with the intracasies of the argument, but rather introducing an off-topic example as an absolute "well, it's not as bad as........."
Liberals here let liberals here get by with everything from hideous personal attacks and guttersnipe namecalling to derailing topics all the time, face it......it's nothing new.
And by all means, keeping on keeping the conservatives in check with a far shorter leash, we can take it. Just don't expect your double standard not be pointed out from time to time. Live with it.
No YOU are the one that isnt getting it. There IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD. No one is excusing a non existant wrong by Hillary by bringing up Halliburton. They are showing the hypocrisy of the ACTUAL TOPIC the writers of the article and the NYTimes which didnt treat Bush that way as Halliburton is just one example of. That is pretty clear. This isnt a double standard its another chapter of you saying I REFUSE to see the obvious point and am going to be stubborn about it. YOU said we take you to task when we excuse wrongdoing by pointing to other wrongdoing. These reporters are not CLAIMING ANY WRONGDOING. They are saying they are going to hang all her donors around her neck and INSINUATE that they are trying to buy influence there is no claim of wrongdoing they are questioning about POSSIBLE wrongdoing to come. THIS THEY DID NOT DO TO BUSH. It is about the hypocrisy of the story itself. This is not that complicated.
That is not what they are saying at all. They are pointing out that other Democratic candidates have expressed concern that donors can use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws designed to limit political influence. Even though Bill Clinton indicated that he did not think it would happen, the jist of this concern about using presidential foundations to find loopholes in campaign laws. Clinton himself indicated it was a legitimate concern.
Bringing up Haliburton has no relevance and it was off topic. Is it the first three posters belief that Haliburton gave money to a presidential foundation which garnered political influence with Geroge W. Bush? If so then it would be a legitimate question, if not it is rather easy to see that they see this article as an attack on Hillary and therefore have to rebut with "well look at Haliburton" It's as clear as day.
It in fact IS a legitimate question. Halliburton also DID donate 50 Grand to the Elder President Bush's foundation for his library. So AGAIN this same exact story COULD have been written about Bush but WASNT. Its about the hypocrisy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0FYF-g2Nq3YC&pg=RA17-PA258&lpg=RA17-PA258&dq=halliburton+donated+to+presidential+foundation&source=web&ots=yxwjLvFr7e&sig=p8DB5q-XT750ws9-kOWzj9P0-p8
Scroll down and read both Halliburton AND Brown and Root a Halliburton subsidiary that gave 500,000$ to the Elder Bush library.
Looking at this story again. It could be read to say the real focus is on whether past donors should be kept private IF Hillary became president. In THAT light I dont see the Halliburton relevance. If they originally read the story as I did being about the RACE and whether or not donors are trying to curry influence it would be. Perhaps I was wrong in my original reading of the story.
Fair enough, but in the abstract, I wonder if that was the reason why the first three posters brought up Haliburton? Perhaps it was, but as the flow of the conversation went up to this point, your viewpoint had nothing to do with such a legitimate comparison, it rather focused on your opinion that this was a question of donors in general as you wrote "The POINT about Halliburton is the hypocrisy of the writers here since I dont remember any stories when Bush got elected about how much money Halliburton and Enron gave him", HIM being the operative word. You then wrote "SURE you have and well you should have ONCE they got no bid contracts. That is once it BECAME RELEVANT. Just the giving of the dontations is what these guys are talking about. Did you hear about Halliburton DURING the election? Did they threaten Bush with every corporation that gave him money WHILE he was running and insinuate they were trying to buy influence? THAT would be the same as what these guys are doing". Your original point was flawed, but I'll give you credit. You were able to escape by being able to show how Haliburton gave money to the Bush Library.
I still don't think the point of the first three posters was that it was legitimate to bring up Haliburton because they gave to the Bush Library, YOUR quotes show that this was not your original point as well.
The point was ALWAYS that the story is hypocritical because they didnt treat Bush this way. There is nothing WRONG with donations. Not to Bush not to Hillary. Their point was when THEY try to excuse wrongdoing by saying Dems do it too we call them on it but NO ONE is talking about wrongdoing, rather we are talking about hypocrisy. That THIS story could have been written about Bush but wasnt. That was ALWAYS my point so I am not sure why you think it changed, it didnt. As I said though rereading it seems the point THEY are making is that Bill is talking about keeping past donars secret if Hillary wins. MMFA is saying they misrepresented what he said since he also included reasoning why it would be problematic. I need more evidence on how that is usually handled before I comment on that but by THAT reading I have to agree that I dont see any Halliburton relevance. It could be the first posters misread the article in the way I did.
I ain't buying that. The first poster wrote "Yeah, and, of course, Haliburton doesn't try to influence policy or curry favor..." Now, what is the purpose of that statement? Was it to show that Haliburton donated to presidential foundations in an attempt to curry favor? I don't think so.
I dont know. I wont try to read his mind. I only know what I was talking about and since I knew Halliburton had made such donations I dont see why he wouldnt.
Was the "liberal media" all over the money trail during either one of Bush's campaigns?
Did I say Halliburton?
A little snip here, a little snip there...
What really happened: In a playful moment, Bill repeatedly struck Hillary with slushy snowballs.
NY Times: Bill repeatedly struck Hillary.
Gooooood Puhhpeeeees!
or "Ice Queen Takes Hit Over Bill's Slush Fun"
Wow - I'm beginning to appreciate your sense of humor! Must be time for Franken's Reindoctrination Camp!
I think AA's been hanging around the non-Republicans too long- his jokes are getting pretty good. ;0)
Yeah I noticed that too.
This is just the tip of the iceberg - and has been gaining momentum as #1 "talking points memo" for every Hillary-bashing Republican based media organization and/or pundit from here to eternity. Bill's no dummy - they'll be watching him like a hawk, and he knows it. The money will be kept on the up-and-up - but there's really not much anyone can do about donors intentions now, is there? It's ok to pander to lobbyists, though - but which is more blatant?
Bill Clinton has to be ecstatic about the success of his foundation thus far. Of course, even when he wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his humanitarian efforts, the neocons will still be calling him a fraud. He'll never win them over, so why should he care - it's all like water down a duck's back.
Of course Mr. Clinton is correct, that the mere appearance of impropriety is enough, to go beyond whatever disclosures the law might require, when we're talking about something as important as National Policy and the integrity of the Office of President of the United States.
And if folks give money to Mr. Clinton's foundation, and we think maybe they're trying to purchase some kind of influence ("influence peddling") by way of it, then we must also have an idea of specifically what it is being purchased, right? Or else we just have a vague unfocused cynical suspicion, more like paranoia than like anything diligent and watchful, right?
The EPA refuses to allow 17 States (and as many as 20 would like to) set greater emissions standards for automoblies, than are currently required by Federal Regulations. California leads in this effort, of course.
I mean, they want to burn less oil, and in so doing limit our dependence on foreign oil, and maybe at the same time preserve that life-sustaining precious resource known as breathable air.
And so the oil industry (mostly behind the facade of their co-dependent co-defendents, the automobile industry), they get their way in this matter of National Policy, despite 20 States (representing half of all registered motor vehicles in the U.S.) and a majority of the American People, caring more for their Health, and their dependence on oil, than for the revenues and profits of Exxon-Mobil and Chevron et al...
I wonder how much money was given here and there, to get the EPA on board like that, and defy (illogically) the efforts of those States?
I wonder how much money was given to Mr. Clinton's foundation in that effort... any?
At the risk of being scolded by the Clinton loyalists for not adhearing strictly to the "four corners" of this topc (as defined by Tex and Solon), let me just add that this topic is yet another reason the Democratic Party needs to choose someone besides Hillary for the '08 election.
With the Clintons it seems that there is always another distraction, evasion, or scandal to keep everyone busy covering up for Hillary or Bill. By the way, there was nothing really wrong with the NY Times article. I mean, MMFA's complaint was that the NYT's article didn't quote Bill Clinton's self-serving line about being uncorruptable by big money.
In other words, MMFA will not be happy until the Times (and every other paper) simply prints the Clinton's press releases verbatim on the front page without any editorial comment.
... No wonder Obama is looking more and more like the Democratic Party candidate!
Again with the BRAINWASHED BS about this being a Hillary site. Its just so stupid. I certainly HOPE someone other than Hillary is the Democratic contender. Not for THAT reason though. Most of the BS that comes from the press which YOU call a distraction is just propagandistic party line nonsense. The sound of her voice how she claps. The Democrats shouldnt let the press pick their candidate. You can internalize then regurgitate the hivemind talking points about MMFA till the cows come home they just make you look ridiculous. That said. Hillary is my LEAST favorite Dem candidate. I would vote for Gravel first.
By the way, there was nothing really wrong with the NY Times article.
AmotherAmerican: I actually thought it was nitpicking myself.
With the Clintons it seems that there is always another distraction, evasion, or scandal to keep everyone busy covering up for Hillary or Bill.
But this is where we disagree, and I can’t for the life of me figure it out. 95% of any distraction, evasion, or scandal regarding either of The Clintons has proved to be either exaggerated or fabricated by the right wing media – AND YOU PEOPLE JUST WON’T LET UP! (You, meaning Republicans and the right wing media)
I haven’t yet made up my mind on who I’m voting for, so this is not from someone already in the “Clinton camp”. All I know is that it seems like you are taking the American public for total fools. Do you really think that voters can’t see through your blatant lies and smears - Especially after all those years and taxpayer’s money wasted trying to “get” Bill? - And every one of those “evasions or scandals” (outside an adulterous relationship that ONLY YOU PERVERTS were interested in) was discredited? Do you really think it helps your cause to keep this up? This is going to backfire on them so badly, they’ll be sorry they ever started. More and more people will just turn off the rhetoric, “consider the source”, and get on with educating themselves about the important issues and what the candidates are really about. You people HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. Face it. Daily rants of newly fabricated scandals may titillate your base and add glee to the dismal outlook of the Republican campaign – but you are only preaching to the choir. Political junkies like myself might be outraged, but the average American voter isn’t even listening to your drivel. Get over it already - And start focusing your goals on getting your candidates elected instead of focusing on NOT getting Hillary elected, before confidence in your party dwindles to zilch.
Like I’ve said, I’m totally baffled by the extent of the whole phenomenon and the only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that you are as scared of Hillary as the devil – but why, I just don’t know.