Inside the Clinton Donor Network

November 20, 2015 4:05 PM

2 Clintons * 42 years * $3 Billion: A Washington Post investigation reveals how Bill and Hillary Clinton have methodically cultivated donors over 40 years, from Little Rock to Washington and then across the globe. Their fundraising methods have created a new blueprint for politicians and their donors.
posted by growabrain (66 comments total)

2 Clintons * 42 years = $3 Billion
1 Clinton = $195,694.72 / day
posted by Going To Maine at 4:41 PM on November 20, 2015 [7 favorites]

1 Cln²o = $195,694.72 / (dayℐ)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:45 PM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]

The "Clinton" as a unit of currency flow?

I like it.
posted by indubitable at 4:49 PM on November 20, 2015 [2 favorites]

2 Clintons * 42 years * $3 billion = 252 Billion ClintonDollarYears
posted by I-Write-Essays at 4:50 PM on November 20, 2015 [5 favorites]

Ken Silverstein, Harpers: Shaky Foundations - "The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:51 PM on November 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

So, like Uber, but for politics.
posted by briank at 5:00 PM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]

briank: "So, like Uber, but for politics."

Like Citizens United but for Democrats.
posted by boo_radley at 5:37 PM on November 20, 2015 [18 favorites]

I'll vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, but it won't be with any pleasure. That said, good for them for figuring out the system and finding ways to wring every cent from it. They didn't start as insiders (unlike Bush, say) but they clawed their way to the center.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:41 PM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]

I'll vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, but it won't be with any pleasure. That said, good for them for figuring out the system and finding ways to wring every cent from it. They didn't start as insiders (unlike Bush, say) but they clawed their way to the center.

WHEEEEE my thieving sociopaths have views closer to my own on the conservative-liberal axis so YAY FOR THEM
posted by lalochezia at 6:17 PM on November 20, 2015 [17 favorites]

I'll vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, but it won't be with any pleasure.

I've heard this from A LOT of Democrats recently.
posted by bstreep at 6:18 PM on November 20, 2015 [2 favorites]

Under the current system, anyone capable of getting elected to high office should automatically be disqualified.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:25 PM on November 20, 2015 [9 favorites]

Under the current system, anyone capable of getting elected to high office should automatically be disqualified.

Zaphod Beeblebrox 2016
A Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster in every pot
posted by BungaDunga at 6:35 PM on November 20, 2015 [16 favorites]

It does say that two billion was for the Clinton foundation and not for campaigns. And three billion divided by 42 x 365.25 x 2 is about 100000 a day, not 200000. And I suspect a lot of this was raising money for other candidates, since their campaigns ran in the tens of millions and not hundreds of millions.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:44 PM on November 20, 2015 [2 favorites]

And three billion divided by 42 x 365.25 x 2 is about 100000 a day, not 200000.

Argh! That .25, and the fact that I forgot that there is two of them. Revised:

Clinton = $97,780.36 / day
aCdln²oy √-1 = $97,780.36
posted by Going To Maine at 6:54 PM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

if you're lucky, you might measure your own cash flow in milliClintons (mCn)
posted by indubitable at 6:55 PM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]

And yet she (H) was claiming that they (H & B) were 'Dead Broke'.

I'm so fucking sick of these lying scumbags.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 7:13 PM on November 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

Yeah, I mean, I don't want Hillary either, but she's a whole hell of a lot better than anyone in the republican clown car. I really hope Bernie can pull it out, but I know that's the wishful thinking of someone old enough to remember Watergate, and thinking then that we could actually change the way politics is done in this two-ring circus. Watching Obama turn his back on the Left, and pander to the corporatists sort of put the final nail in my coffin of hope.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:20 PM on November 20, 2015 [2 favorites]

The sources for this post are 1) Charles Ortel, a contributor to Brietbart (who is not identified as such) and 2) an anonymous source (who naturally is not identified at all).

Look, if it comes to believing shit about the Clintons, people will happily believe Robert Mugabe crossed with Jeffrey Dahlmer crossed with Ivan Boesky. It doesn't matter how dodgy the source is, if it's the Clintons, it's accepted without question.

I wish people would come out and admit they'd rather see Trump or Cruz get elected out of sheer spite rather than the woman they despise.
posted by happyroach at 7:31 PM on November 20, 2015 [11 favorites]

Guess there's no chance for a constitutional amendment prohibiting any direct relative from serving the same office? y'da thunk Argentina would have passed that by now.

What happyroach said: how to get Trump into office? Hillary.
posted by sammyo at 7:46 PM on November 20, 2015 [2 favorites]

Zaphod Beeblebrox 2016
A Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster in every pot

When a towel is what you actually need.
posted by srboisvert at 8:09 PM on November 20, 2015 [2 favorites]

I wish people would come out and admit they'd rather see Trump or Cruz get elected out of sheer spite rather than the woman they despise.

I remember the Republican hate-machine against the Clintons all too well. With Obama, they can afford to be lazy about it. They don't even need to string together sentences that make any sense; they just wharrrgarble and let it fly and the racism among their audience means it'll be accepted outright. (It also helps that we haven't had any personal scandals in his administration. Fast and Furious, sure, but no extramarital blowjobs.)

With the Clintons, it was all still bullshit, but it was crafted with enough care that you at least had to stop and say, "Wait, that doesn't hold up." And they've loathed Hillary for a long, long time. Say what you will about her being a hawk or Wall Street buddies or whatever -- a lot of women in politics (not all, sure) owe her a huge debt for blazing trails and suffering the attacks that came with it.

I have to wonder how much of the hostility against Hillary is genuinely about her positions or connections, and how much of it is the legacy of all those years of work from the hate-machine.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:18 PM on November 20, 2015 [12 favorites]

Isn't Trump's semi-stunt candidacy pretty much Zaphod Beeblebrox but with better taste in clothes and worse taste in booze? I'm willing to believe that there's a second head under the toupee.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:24 PM on November 20, 2015 [9 favorites]

Donald Trump looks like the villain in a movie where the hero is a dog.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:26 PM on November 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

What happyroach said: how to get Trump into office? Hillary.

Are you taking bets on this? Because I will gladly wager you a box of cookies that in a Clinton-Trump match-up, HRC comes out on top.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:28 PM on November 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

I am no Clinton booster, but that harper's piece is truly shit. PwC could go the way of Arthur Andersen? Never in a million years, and certainly not because of this audit of all things. Conspiracy tosh , can't believe he can write it with a straight face.

There may be questions to be asked about the charity ; they are not asked in that piece.
posted by smoke at 8:39 PM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

Yeah, Clinton's not likely to offer any significant challenges to the way the game is played, but she's definitely electable and as competent as anybody else who plays the game. And she's not really an outright monster, FFS. She never really ordered someone killed or any of that other nonsense that churns around on the fringes and occasionally captures the public imagination. She's just not a super inspiring candidate to anyone hoping to see a credible candidate with the integrity to advance fundamental changes in how politics are done in America. I think Sanders could carry a lot more independents and harder left Dems, and obviously, anarchists and socialists. He's not unelectable either, despite how much that gets thrown out there. But whatever. It feels like more aggressive foreign policy is in the cards with pretty much all the major contenders except Sanders, but more military conflicts and social unrest in the future are probably pretty much unavoidable at this point, given there are so many fundamental problems still going unaddressed while we're all so busy being awesome on Facebook and trying desperately not to end up eating cat food in our retirement years.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:48 PM on November 20, 2015 [5 favorites]

The sources for this post are 1) Charles Ortel, a contributor to Brietbart (who is not identified as such) and 2) an anonymous source (who naturally is not identified at all).

My favorite part of the post is when Silverstein discloses that he is a close personal friend of Sydney Leathers.

This needs to be re-said. I wish this could be edited into the post itself.
posted by Anonymous at 10:11 PM on November 20, 2015

Cthulhu '16! Why settle for a lesser evil?*

*I've made this joke before, I'll make it again; it wasn't mine - I stole it from a bumper sticker, a glorious glorious bumper sticker.
posted by el io at 10:28 PM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

Policy-wise, I favor Sanders over Clinton. However, given the alternatives and the fact that Hillary's eventual nomination is essentially inevitable, I'll be proud to help vote in America's first female president next year. It's about damn time.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:33 PM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]

the fact that Hillary's eventual nomination is essentially inevitable

Is this really what we've come to?
posted by Backslash at 10:55 PM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]

Great. I hope she uses that filthy lucre to bury the Republicans deep in the cold cold ground.
posted by dry white toast at 11:09 PM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]

BREAKING: New technology has provided insight into the thinking behind a politician's decision to run for President of the United States. Keep in mind that this technology is still new. The image can be viewed here.
posted by Fizz at 4:52 AM on November 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

"Ken Silverstein, Harpers: Shaky Foundations

This being from the same guy who was shamed by his fellow journalists for wild inaccuracies and horrible factchecking, and who also attacked Bernie Sanders recently...

"Mother Jones is clearly in the tank for one of Ms. Clinton’s rivals, Bernie Sanders. The magazine’s latest issue has a cover story titled, “Bernie?! Can a Wild-Haired Socialist from Vermont Change Politics For Good?” I haven’t read the article and have no intention of doing so... but I can tell you now that the answer to the question is “No,” and Mr. Sanders has no chance of winning anyway."

The guy's not so much a balanced investigative journalist as a professional troll.
posted by markkraft at 4:58 AM on November 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

As an example of how horrid a journalist Ken Silverstein is, here are a few sections from his article, rightly called "commentary" by his publisher, and not journalism, due to it's transparent editorializing.

"The new audit that was released yesterday was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a major accounting firm. I’ve been told ... that PwC was under tremendous outside pressure to turn in a truthful audit as opposed to the shoddy work performed by BKD. “The audit is the key, it’s far more important than the amended tax returns,” Charles Ortel, an independent financial expert, told me... If they certify that the Clinton Foundation is clean, when it is apparent it is not, PwC is done. "

So, who is Charles Ortel, this "independent financial expert", and the primary source -- and only public source -- for the entire article?

What Silverstein forgot to tell his incurious readers was that Ortel is not just an independent financial expert, but is, in fact, a columnist for the Washington Times, as well as the kind of guy who sources material from Rush Limbaugh and makes tasteless Hillary Clinton / Huma Abadein jokes. Ortel's claim of expertise is basically a ludicrous website with no known clients except for an incredulous Beltway media, who he has basically trolled.

Ortel was also the major source for nutty right wing swiftboater Jerome Corsi's prediction that Obama's 2012 reelection would trigger a huge economic collapse and a civil war, with people in the US fighting off Mexican immigrants.

“With no existing government or financial institution solvent enough, respected enough or feared enough to lead the required re-balancing... we believe the world will experience a painful re-calibration of economic strength and geo-political standing during 2012 in the midst of widespread civil insurrection and cross-border war.” - Charles Ortel

Seriously, anyone who takes Silverstein's article at face value is basically no better than a Limbaugh viewer regurgitating right wing talking points, because Silverstein has shown themselves to have absolutely no credibility -- or scruples -- in how he researches and sources his work.
posted by markkraft at 6:23 AM on November 21, 2015 [11 favorites]

And yet she (H) was claiming that they (H & B) were 'Dead Broke '.

Do you have any specific evidence that Clinton's statement that they were in debt at the end of B's presidency is false?

Because it is quite possible to have made boatloads of money at Point A and more boatloads at Point C, and yet have been "dead broke" at Point B in between the two. In fact that sort of thing is quite common among entrepreneurs and such.

What's more, it's possible to have raised quite some mega-millions in Foundations and not be able to access any of it to pay your own personal debts or even all that much of it to pay yourself a salary. (You could probably pay yourself a competitive nonprofit administrator salary, which typically has several fewer zeros at the end of it than a similar position in Corporate America would.)

If you're going to make an accusation like this, you need specific detailed information, not just general blarga-blarga about the Clintons raised a bunch of money at one time or another.
posted by flug at 7:16 AM on November 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

The basic fact, obvious at this point, is that any Democrat elected to office will result in incoherent hate-fueled, white-hot rage by a large fraction of Republicans. Democrats are just not viewed as legitimate office holders. So while there is likely legitimate criticism out there of Clinton the source has to be pretty good for me to give any mind at all.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:49 AM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

I've been side-eyeing Harper's ever since they got into the AIDS denialism game (even as one HIV-positive denialist after another was dying off), and their embrace of Silverstein isn't helping much.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:52 AM on November 21, 2015

she's not really an outright monster

*sighs, desultorily waves "Vote Cthulhu: Still Not as Bad as Azathoth" flag*
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:56 AM on November 21, 2015

"it's possible to have raised quite some mega-millions in Foundations and not be able to access any of it to pay your own personal debts or even all that much of it to pay yourself a salary."

...especially when the charity has only an 11% overhead, and spends 89% of their money on their services.

The GOP have been targeting the Clinton Foundation extensively over the past two years, basically because they've got nothing, and it's easy to point a finger at a big global charity with complex finances and say "Aha! Corruption! People draw salaries, and fly around the world! And donations to a big, global charity = buying political influence!"

... but really, the only thing they haven't done is show the slightest bit of tangible, credible evidence to support their assertions. In truth, the organization is providing a rather thorough, extreme level of transparency in its taxes and expenditures, far in excess of what they are legally required to do.
posted by markkraft at 10:40 AM on November 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

May we all look resplendent in our jewel encrusted battle shorts in '16.
posted by 4ster at 10:55 AM on November 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

"And she's not really an outright monster, FFS."

Two years ago ( I was) asked ... to do... a reading... It was taken from transcripts, real testimony from real women activists around the world... I had no idea that the real women would be sitting in the audience while we portrayed them. ..

So I was so mortified when (the organizer), at the end of the play, invited the real women to come up on stage... Six of those seven women were with us in the theater that night. The seventh, Mukhtaran Bibi, couldn’t come because she couldn’t get out of Pakistan. You probably remember who she is. She’s the young woman who went to court because she was gang-raped by men in her village...
But that night in the theater two years ago, the other six brave women came up on the stage. Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:

"I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together."

"I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me."

"I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her."

I’m here today because of that... I never knew any of it. And I think everybody should know... the shadow diplomacy unheralded, uncelebrated — careful, constant work on behalf of women and girls that she has always conducted alongside everything else a First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State is obliged to do."
- Meryl Streep, 2012 Women in the World conference
posted by markkraft at 11:03 AM on November 21, 2015 [12 favorites]

"And she's not really an outright monster, FFS."

That's what I mean about the hate-machine I referenced above. God, I was only in my early 20s at the time, but I remember so well the blithering hatred from so many people against her. I'd hear otherwise rational people talk about her ordering Vince Foster's death and robbing the White House and she clearly has no soul because she stuck with her cheating man as if nobody else has ever gotten over marital infidelity.

That kind of hate has a serious impact. People will concede, "Okay, she's not my favorite" just to seem fair-minded or to avoid political confrontations with family at Thanksgiving. I can't believe I'm talking like I'm oldie oldster here, but I remember those days like they weren't that long ago, and really they never entirely went away. It doesn't just rile up the right-wing base. It really does have an impact on Democrats and progressives who hear it all the time, too.

Relevant: Hey Progressives, Hillary Isn't the Enemy.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:45 AM on November 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

The basic fact, obvious at this point, is that any Democrat elected to office will result in incoherent hate-fueled, white-hot rage by a large fraction of Republicans.

The thing is, with Hillary there's a portion of alleged Democrats and Liberals who react with incoherent, white-hot fury. Who would rather have Trump or Carson elected than her. Hell, they'd rather see one of those two get us into a nuclear war than see her in office. It not anything rational, they just viscerally hate her.

I mean seriously, I'm half-expecting to see blood libel claims made against her. By self-avowed Democrats.
posted by happyroach at 12:36 PM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

> The thing is, with Hillary there's a portion of alleged Democrats and Liberals who react with incoherent, white-hot fury.

For me it's simple - no one who supported the Iraq War should be allowed in politics again. The Iraq War was based on obvious transparent lies - and it's not like we didn't all know it was lies at the time, you can read us talking about it here on Metafilter FFS. But even if was just a ghastly, terrible mistake, it is a mistake of such enormity that it should automatically disqualify anyone who supported it from public office.

And Hillary didn't just vote for the Iraq War - she made speeches for it and then proceeded to push it for many years. Only this year did she finally admit it might have been a mistake. This mistake killed easily a hundred thousand people. It killed more Americans than 9/11! The final cost will probably be close to $2 trillion dollars... that's $2 million million dollars. It was the obvious cause of Daesh and the horrors that that has engendered. (And it completely distracted us from pursuing Bin Laden, who was able to live in suburban comfort for a decade more - I'm a New Yorker, and Ms. Clinton was at the time a Senator from New York, so even though this is I suppose petty, it bothers me personally.)

As I said, this is an error of such magnitude that it is inconceivable than anyone with integrity could support any of this crew ever again.

And I could go on. I could talk about her role in the growth of the incarceration state, both at its birth and up until the present day. Ditto about the deregulation of Wall Street. The best you can say about emailgate is that it probably wasn't illegal - just really dodgy. Libya also comes to mind in the category of "massive foreign policy screwups".

Perhaps what you read as "incoherence" is simply an abundance of evidence that Ms. Clinton is unfit for higher office?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:24 PM on November 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

nd it's not like we didn't all know it was lies at the time, you can read us talking about it here on Metafilter FFS.

What “we”? Relitigating the war is silly, but I question the notion that, because the highly-biased commenters on MetaFilter decided something is false, it would be self-evident to a savvy politician that it was false.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:37 PM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

If they did an IPO; I'd buy into it big time. :/
posted by buzzman at 1:47 PM on November 21, 2015

> Relitigating the war is silly, but I question the notion that, because the highly-biased commenters on MetaFilter decided something is false, it would be self-evident to a savvy politician that it was false.

At the time, the UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq. These were men of unimpeachable integrity who had done this job successfully numerous times in the past. They released long, detailed reports showing that none of these weapons of mass destruction existed and the Bush administration and lawmakers, including Ms. Clinton, basically ignored them.

But you missed the entire point of my posting - which was: "But even if was just a ghastly, terrible mistake, it is a mistake of such enormity that it should automatically disqualify anyone who supported it from public office."

Let's look at just one detail here: the cost. The Bush Administration estimated that the Iraq War would cost $50 to $60 billion dollars and take a few months - even firing someone who claimed that it might take as much as $200 billion.

Now, almost no lawmakers questioned this at the time. No one said, "Wait, we're basing all of this on wildly optimistic assumptions!" You didn't need hindsight to see this was wildly irrational - all sorts of people pointed this out at the time.

And this wasn't just a little mistake. The Iraq War has already cost 30 times as much as their largest estimate and we still haven't finished paying for it.

And it's not just economics. We broke the region. What a surprise - destabilize the largest and most stable secular government, and havoc ensues! As Bernie Sanders said in 2002, "I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists?"


I understand that there are two different responses to this.

I look at this massive unparalleled fuckup and say, "It was totally obvious this was going to happen. I told you this at the time, hundreds of newspaper headlines told you, all sorts of smart people told you, and instead you all chose to accept the most unrealistic, least-solid evaluations possible, and then doubled down on that fuckup over and over again for a decade at an incredible cost in human life and human health and cash money."

I say, "This was a complete fuckup, and anyone who had any role in this should never work for me (i.e. as a public servant) again."

There's a second response and that's the following. "Why should we punish these brilliant people for this catastrophe that no one could have foreseen? Everyone agreed that the Iraq War would cost less than $60 billion and take a few months except some marginalized cranks, so how could anyone have known? Everyone knew this would stabilize the region and lead to democracy flowering in the Middle East, all the Serious Sensible people agreed, except those weirdos, and why would anyone take them seriously anyway? It was all an unavoidable mistake, and certainly no one's career should suffer in the slightest for their involvement in this little inconvenience."

I think that's a loser attitude. I think this is why the US gets crappy governance.

Our leaders become wealthy and respected because they are supposed to be doing the best job possible. When they screw up, we should ruthlessly throw them out and get better ones.

How can Americans accept such a massive failure with such equanimity? If just baffles me. The same Serious, Sensible People who lead the country into such a massive failure are still in charge, the same marginalized people who predicted accurately and in great detail as to how the war would really go are still marginalized.

America, you wouldn't accept this poor performance in your sports teams - why do accept this in your public servants year after year?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:16 PM on November 21, 2015 [15 favorites]

"But even if was just a ghastly, terrible mistake, it is a mistake of such enormity that it should automatically disqualify anyone who supported it from public office."

Ah! I didn't mention that point because I don't particularly disagree. If people want to use the vote on the Iraq war, or on choice issues, or guns or whatever, that's fine by me. In terms of litmus tests, the war seems like a fine one. I focused where I did because I find the idea that comments on metafilter necessarily represent the best or truest understanding of something to be ridiculous.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:14 PM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Yes, but saying "I question the notion" is about as useful as Michael Scott "declaring" bankruptcy. On what basis do you question it? Marshal your own evidence.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 3:39 PM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Mod note: One deleted; whether MeFites were right about the Iraq War is really getting far afield from the article about the Clintons' fundraising these days, let's leave that.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:53 PM on November 21, 2015

US Presidential betting odds 2016 (each number is the return on a one dollar bet).
posted by Brian B. at 5:31 PM on November 21, 2015

Maybe I misremember, but I recall the AUMF called for the President to first allow weapons inspectors to do their job, and only allowed for military involvement following non-cooperation on the part of Iraq with said inspections. While it certainly was foreseeable that the Cheney administration would ignore the first part in favor of immediately going with the invasion option, that wasn't what Congress instructed or what Clinton or anyone else voted for.

At the time it was early enough in the Bush years that it wasn't unreasonable to think that there would at least be a fig leaf of an attempt to comply with the actual resolution passed by Congress.
posted by wierdo at 5:55 PM on November 21, 2015

I'm not a Hillary supporter but damn, I still say "raise as much filthy lucre as you can woman." The opposition is getting fed millions by a handful of billionaires and we need to meet fire with fire. Sure, Hillary might be a little cozy with Wall St, voted for the war, a little too hawkish, etc. But ask yourself, who would you rather have making appointments to the Supreme Court, Rudio (or Trump, or Cruz) or Hillary? Think about it. I'll wait.

OK. Get the picture. All the sins of the Clintons are forgivable if we manage to avoid another Alito or Roberts.
posted by Ber at 6:09 PM on November 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

"Only this year did she finally admit it might have been a mistake."

Actually, no.

"[M]any Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake become more painful. . . I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

Hillary Clinton, "Hard Choices", the lion's share of which was written in Spring-Fall 2013.

So yeah, not this year. And prior to that in 2007, if not before, she said that if she knew that the intel they received from the government was not credible, she wouldn't have voted for it.

"this is an error of such magnitude that..."

...almost every politician made it, not knowing that it was the intent of the Bush administration to go to war, with a vote most Democrats cast with the intent not to authorize war, but to give negotiations teeth, and a chance to succeed.

"I could talk about her role in the growth of the incarceration state, both at its birth and up until the present day. Ditto about the deregulation of Wall Street."

... but you won't, because to criticize a First Lady for the votes of her husband would be monumentally unfair, right?!

"The best you can say about emailgate is that it probably wasn't illegal - just really dodgy."

...or absolutely not illegal at all, and just a continuation of a perfectly legal, pre-existing server setup Clinton had installed during her 2008 presidential campaign, with the full knowledge of the government. You can say that, right?!

It's interesting to see how many people on the left don't factcheck the things that they actually say. My theory is that they have been emotionally poisoned on the issue by the media -- oftentimes, the right wing media -- and how they *feel* overrides their attention to the actual evidence at hand.
posted by markkraft at 8:50 PM on November 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

I liked how she called out the Saudis and Qataris (big CF donors) on funding terrorism. Maybe she doesn't need their money anymore? I'm always incredulous when someone in power utters even a meager criticism of them.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:30 PM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

"I liked how she called out the Saudis and Qataris (big CF donors) on funding terrorism. Maybe she doesn't need their money anymore?"

...or maybe she never got their money in the first place, even though the Clinton Global Initiative might have.

Maybe the Clinton Global Initiative is essentially a big, worldwide NGO that has essentially nothing to do with politics, with the possible exception that it creates situations where -- by definition -- influential people are likely to meet and get to know each other.
posted by markkraft at 11:17 PM on November 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

It's interesting to see how many people on the left don't factcheck the things that they actually say. My theory is that they have been emotionally poisoned on the issue by the media -- oftentimes, the right wing media -- and how they *feel* overrides their attention to the actual evidence at hand.

I think it's worse than that they don't bother to fact check- they don't WANT to fact check. They will happily go along with the Republican narrative, or any narrative as long as it's anti-Hillary. No matter what their claimed justifications, it's not because of any particular vote or position, but because Hillary is a Clinton, and Clintons were NOT the way Democrats were supposed to act.
posted by happyroach at 1:00 AM on November 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

Maybe the Clinton Global Initiative is essentially a big, worldwide NGO that has essentially nothing to do with politics,

And I have a bridge you might be interested in, too.

The thing is, with Hillary there's a portion of alleged Democrats and Liberals who react with incoherent, white-hot fury. Who would rather have Trump or Carson elected than her. Hell, they'd rather see one of those two get us into a nuclear war than see her in office. It not anything rational, they just viscerally hate her.

I'm sure those people exist but I've never met any of them. I do know a lot of committed Democrats who see her as the inevitable but very unappealing candidate and though unhappy about that will vote for her because the GOP candidate is guaranteed to be a million times worse on every front. Personally I worry a lot about going into an election with a candidate who is so polarizing, but the clown car mayhem on the Republican side gives me some hope.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:42 AM on November 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

US Presidential betting odds 2016 (each number is the return on a one dollar bet).

Apparently, Andrew Basiago is favored over Kasich and Fiorina. Andrew Basiago is lobbying the US government to disclose its "teleportation secret."
posted by krinklyfig at 10:27 AM on November 22, 2015

BTW, Greg Proops has been ferociously and righteously championing Clinton's campaign on many recent episodes of his Smartest Man in the World podcast, mostly from a feminist perspective. I have a special place in my heart for Sanders' relentless cause, but I do think there is a positive progressive case for Clinton that is often drowned out by the rumors and negative messaging originating mostly in right-wing strategist sources.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:35 AM on November 22, 2015

Apparently, Andrew Basiago is favored over Kasich and Fiorina. Andrew Basiago is lobbying the US government to disclose its "teleportation secret."

I had never even heard of this guy, yet Huffington Post has a long article about him, and he claims to be in a Lincoln photo thanks to being teleported by the US Government. Getting 80 to 1 odds from someone means that the existence of government teleportation is more likely to them than Rand Paul being elected president in 2016, across the board.
posted by Brian B. at 2:50 PM on November 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

Donald Trump embraces open racism (via)

But Republican front-runner Donald Trump doesn’t do dog whistles. He specializes in train whistles. Consider the tweet he just sent out with bogus statistics on crime. According to the tweet, 81 percent of murdered whites are killed by blacks. In fact, that’s the reverse of the truth. Most people are killed by members of their own race because crime is motivated by proximity and opportunity. As the Huffington Post notes, “According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, 84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites.” 

We Found Where Donald Trump’s “Black Crimes” Graphic Came From

So there you have it. Donald Trump is posting racist imagery that comes directly from neo-Nazis.

I hope you’re not surprised that a guy like Donald Trump, who continually spouts fascist rhetoric, is attracted to fascist memes posted by neo-Nazis. This is where the right wing has ended up in 2015.

posted by tonycpsu at 9:31 PM on November 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

... but you won't, because to criticize a First Lady for the votes of her husband would be monumentally unfair, right?!

To all accounts, Mrs. Clinton had more power and influence than any First Lady before and since, and she was clearly one of the reasons why her husband was such a successful President.

No president ever had a partner quite like Hillary Rodham Clinton. She attended campaign strategy meetings in Little Rock, Ark., and later became the first (and so far only) first lady with an office in the West Wing. She would bring his meandering meetings to a close. She plotted out his defense against scandal.

“The thing he lacks is discipline, both in his personal life and his intellectual or decision-making life, unless he’s rescued by somebody,” observed Alice M. Rivlin, who served as White House budget director. “I think for a good part of his career, he was probably rescued by Hillary by her being a more decisive, more disciplined kind of person who kept things moving.”

She was an independent force within the White House, single-handedly pushing health care onto the agenda and intimidating into silence those who thought she might be mishandling it. She was prone to bouts of anger and nursed deep resentment toward Washington. She endured a terribly complicated relationship with her philandering husband. And yet she was the one who often channeled his energies, steered him toward success and saved him from himself.

“She may have been critical from time to time with temper tantrums and things like that,” said Mr. Nussbaum, who went on to become Mr. Clinton’s first White House counsel. “But she was very strong, and he needed her desperately. He would not have been president, I don’t think, without her.”

Mrs. Clinton created her own team in the White House that came to be called Hillaryland, and “they were a little island unto themselves,” as Betty Currie, the president’s secretary, put it. She inspired more loyalty from them than the president did from his own team, said Roger Altman, who was deputy treasury secretary, probably because she was not as purely political. “She wears her heart on her sleeve much more than he does,” he said.

...

He depended on her more than any other figure in his world. It blinded him to trouble, some advisers concluded, most notably about her ill-fated drive to remake the health care system.

But he rarely overruled her, at least not in ways that staff members could detect. “I can’t think of any issue of any importance at all where they were in disagreement and she didn’t win out,” recalled Abner Mikva, who served as White House counsel.

I'm a fan. I'm almost certainly going to vote for her for President, something I was not able to do in 2008. Personally, I think it's disrespectful to try to dismiss the influence she wielded, the way you're doing here.
posted by zarq at 10:36 AM on November 23, 2015

It is also disrespectful to insinuate that Bill and Hillary are not each their own people. A Hillary Clinton presidency will not be Bill Clinton redux. They have different approaches to many things, and while there are some similarities and they do complement each other, they are separate people who have their own individual approaches to issues and leadership both.
posted by wierdo at 11:17 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Agreed.
posted by zarq at 11:32 AM on November 23, 2015

I don't disagree with Hillary Clinton being a powerful and admirable First Lady, but one thing she wasn't was responsible for the final decisions of the President of the United States.

"The buck stops here."
posted by markkraft at 3:55 PM on November 23, 2015