Three Negatives Against Clinton

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:43


Here are three disturbing points to consider about Hillary Clinton, none of which touch on Iraq.

One, Clinton has a weird conservative religious streak, which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet of Mother Jones illustrate in their extremely interesting article about her allegiance to a far right-wing Christian cult of elites and Senators known as the Fellowship.  She has refused to answer questions about her work in the group, which includes mostly right-wing Senators.

Two, her habit of failure and enabling of conservative values for personal gain has a long history.  Brian Ross, Maddy Sauer, and Rhonda Schwarta of ABC News have an article about Clinton's ineffective time on the board of Walmart, when she refused to stand up against a corporate campaign to crush unions, and tried and failed to improve Walmart's record on women's rights and the environment.

And finally, with Chelsea Clinton in ads and on the campaign trail, I don't understand why no one is pointing out that she works at a hedge fund that specializes in distressed debt... [update] it's actually something of a family affair, with Bill making money for his foundation in interesting ways.

Anyway.  That's what's weighing on my mind today....

UPDATE: And yes, Obama has a serious Rezko problem.  These people are not on our side, they only align with us more than the Republicans do.

Matt Stoller :: Three Negatives Against Clinton

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Three Negatives Against Clinton | 45 comments
working at a hedge fund dealing with distressed debt (4.00 / 1)
is not an inherently evil thing. I don't know what the particulars are in this case, but plenty of investors in distressed debt are putting money into a risky situation with the hopes of reviving the company. They often become involved in helping clean up the failed business operations of the company as well. Its easy to use "Hedge Fund" as a substitute for evil, but that is just stereotyping. There are good Hedge Funds and bad ones.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Point out the obvious (4.00 / 1)
Chelsea isn't running for president so what does it matter who she works for?
[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, I see that as pretty much value-neutral.  In fact, without investment bankers willing to take a flier on distressed debt, a lot more companies would be going under.
[ Parent ]
I've actually been active (4.00 / 1)
in the Fellowship, and while they are secretive they are not a bunch of right-wing crazies.  What it is, is a place for Christians to get together and discuss stress that is fairly unique to there place in life... a place that very few understand.  A combination of High public scrutiny and Intense choices to make...  There are Bible studies in D.C. which ought to be troubling, and perhaps the Fellowship House is one of those.  But, Hell, even John Edwards was active when he was in D.C.

More troubling was today's NYT article on Bill.

and what do you make of Borat-gate? (0.00 / 0)
I assume you have not read the story in this mornings NYTimes about Bill, the Canadian mining mogul and the uranium deal? 
Bill's troubling involvement (0.00 / 0)
Most troubling is that there are a great number of foreign donors (like Saudi Arabia) to Bill Clinton's library and foundation, and he says in the Times article that he will continue to fundraise for his foundation if Hillary is elected.  This is just a covert way to accept unreportable donations to the family.  It is different from Papa Bush because Bill and Hillary are married and have community property or at least martial rights in each other's income and assets, and the relationship of husband and wife is closer and much more day-to-day than father-son.

I think this is perhaps the most troubling thing yet about his influence in the campaign.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
foreigners (0.00 / 0)
Ah yes, the dirty Arabs, how dare Bill Clinton raise money from them and other foreigners to fund AIDS, climate change, development and other global relief efforts.
[ Parent ]
Conflict of Interest (0.00 / 0)
I work for the federal government.  I can't even take honoraria from state Universities when I go and talk to them about my research - that is, when I participate in the community of my working peers.

While his dealings with foreign nationals that may have an interest in the issues that he and his organization are concerned with on a day-to-day basis is not a direct analogy to my situation, I sincerely doubt that I would be granted such wide-ranging benefit of the doubt.

The bottom-line on COI is that if it LOOKS bad - it is BAD.  At least, for peons like me.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
what interest? (0.00 / 0)
Bill Clinton is a private citizen, like all other former presidents he uses his public profile to raise money for good causes.

Secondly, this is a Van Natta article, Gerth's Whitewater partner. The unsourced statement that "Mr. Clinton has vowed to continue raising money for his foundation if Mrs. Clinton is elected president, maintaining his connections with a wide network of philanthropic partners" should be taken with a grain of salt.

[ Parent ]
Its also an open question whether (0.00 / 0)
the "First Man" is to be considered a "federal employee" - would he get a pay-check? 

My point is - some of us don't get "grains of salt" - we get the "letter of the law". 


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Wal-Mart most troubling (4.00 / 3)
I've got no issues with the Chelsea thing, and the Mother Jones article, while an interesting topic, is shoddy reporting. I almost stopped reading at the point where they talk about how religious philosophers were responsible for her being a Goldwater Girl (maybe her family also had something to do with it?), and where they selectively excerpt her letters from Wellesley. From my reading of them, if anything, the accounts of her slide into liberalism show her becoming more of a liberal than she'd later prove (while yes, keeping an element of incrementalism and nascent conservatism that I do think are illuminating).

But that does bring me to the Wal-Mart tapes, which I've thought hard about, fair as I'm trying to be amidst my fervent wishes for Obama over Clinton. And I do SEE the logic that she was a young woman in a male-dominated conservative culture, fighting for women and the environment (with limited success yes, but sometimes that really is meaningful), so she couldn't rock the boat, etc. etc. I don't envy her position. That said, her failure to say something when she had a chance and influence, does really say something about how she operates. Clearly, there was a calculation/tradeoff that her other aims on the board and her overall career (and Bill's by extension) were more important than workers' rights.

It's symptomatic of what I find most troubling about Clinton-- I think at the end of the day, she's more liberal than some would give credit for and WANTS to move in a progressive direction, but the way she operates and thinks, combined with her more conservative leanings, are holding her back. I really see where she's coming from, and she could still be a solid President under the right circumstances and choices, but I can't support it.

Let's give credit where credit is due (0.00 / 0)
I think people make way too much of the fact that she was on the Wal Mart board and what she was able to accomplish. You need to realize that she didn't have to take that position. She didn't need to. She was a very successful lawyer already and had worked on many progressive causes. Her whole reason to go there was to try to make some changes for the better, which she succeeded in doing, particularly with regard to women and environmental issues. She also got Sam Walton to back corporate taxes for improving schools, which no one else had been successful at. Let's give her some credit for some of the success she had there at very poor odds. How many other progressives have actually gone into the boards of any major corporations with the mission of trying to get some progressive change right at the source? Who else has had the courage to do that? So many progressives just want to sit around and complain about corporate greed/et al, without ever doing anything to take them on. Hillary at least tried. The fact that she didn't change them into a completely different entity is no knock on her. She was one women against a huge corporate boy network. The fact that she tried is to her credit, no matter if she failed to completely change them or not.
[ Parent ]
As a former Republican and Obama supporter (4.00 / 1)
I'm not too enamored of Hillary Clinton.

But attacking her daughter, for the line of work she's in ?

Not a good idea.

curious (0.00 / 0)
I am curious why it wouldn't be a good idea.  Do you think it would turn off potential voters (you can't attack her daughter!  or because it isn't that important?  or because it seems below the belt) 

Serious (no snark) I am debating within myself whether it should matter.

When I first heard about Chelsea's job it did upset me, because if I was raised by liberal parents with a lot of contacts & $$$ - I would totally take advantage of it and try to make some changes.  It made me question just how liberal their family is (something I am struggling with both candidates).  But then I thought - who really can control their adult children, its none of my business.

But then Chelsea was campaigning with Bill yesterday in Denver, so she is part of the campaign and her choice of work does seem relevant. 

[ Parent ]
Re: (0.00 / 0)
It's worth remembering that the Clintons really weren't filthy rich until they got out of the White House and Bill got to trade on his Presidential career.

There's definitely a lot of noble stuff Chelsea could be out there doing, but I don't really fault her for wanting to make her own way in the world instead of being a trust fund liberal.

[ Parent ]
I just finished reading Borat-gate (0.00 / 0)
It is damning of bigdog, but most people will find it hard to follow. Very bad editing job, and not well written.
Let's see how the tweety's spin it.
Maybe Olberman can make it easy for the general public to understand, he has a way of disecting the relevant points for consumption by the masses.
needles, meet haystack (4.00 / 2)
Sheesh.  Hillary Clinton has virtually a lifetime commitment to dozens of progressive causes.  To dwell on these issues as "disturbing" seems horribly out of proportion. 
Take religion out of it (4.00 / 4)
Funny, I was just thinking the other day that one of the things I like about Clinton is that I know almost nothing about her religious beliefs.  Your concern on that score does not make me change my mind.  I have not seen her endorse any public policy based on her membership in any religious group, and that is all that matters to me.

Your second concern troubles me most, and I share it.

Regarding Chelsea's job and Bill's foundation, I agree that there are probably more pure ways to make money, but since I work in the defense industry I can't throw stones at them. 

All in all I'm sure if I looked at Obama the same way you are looking at the Clintons I could find at least at much troubling information. Glad you acknowledged Rezko.  I can imagine the waves in the blogosphere if we found out a donor bought the land next to Hillary's Washington townhouse for her use.

Shocking imperfections? (0.00 / 0)
Dear Matt,

I, too, am simply shocked to hear that neither Hillary or Obama is absolutely perfect!

Imagine that Hillary's family works for a firm that makes money. (My great-grandfather refused the cigar making concession for all of New York because he would not make money off of other mens' labor.)

Imagine that Obama's donor (one of millions of donors that he must approach to begin to pay for this expensive campaign) may have done something illegal.

Thankfully, the Republicans will offer St. McCain or Mr. Model Romney, who are 100% perfect in any way, and do not have to account for any funds they raise or earn.

If only Ralph Nader (or Jesus) would run. Then we could hope for a perfect candidate.

Sincerely yours,
Another dissatisfied voter

PS This is sarcastic. I am sorry to hear that Hillary and Obama have demerits that will make Republican attacks easier. I do not feel that what you have described is in any way "bad" or reflects badly on the Democratic candidates.

The Fellowship (4.00 / 6)
This comment about the fellowship seems to come dangerously close to calling Clinton out on her personal religious beliefs. I mean, obviously, if this were Focus on the Family, that'd be one thing. But is the Fellowship connected to policy in any way? Is there any suggestion that Clinton has ever carried water for the Christianist agenda?

I'm as secular as the next, um, secularist - but/and that's precisely why judgments on candidates based on their personal religious beliefs or practices leave a bitter taste in my mouth.

Please read the background on The Fellowship - see Digby (0.00 / 0)
Digby  on The Fellowship

I know this is currently tristero's beat, but way back when this blog was just a little blogbaby, I discussed Jeff Sharlet's fascinating expose in Harper's called "Jesus Plus Nothing: Undercover among America's secret theocrats." It remains to this day one of the more chilling articles I've ever read about the intersection of politics and religion in this country. The facts in the article are true but they are so bizarre that I think people discounted it because it's almost impossible to believe.

Or was. Now that we know about the little theocratic "sleeper cells" that have been implanted throughout the government during Bush's reign, it doesn't seem all that bizarre at all.

As a group that believes - and acts on the belief - that "Jesus plus nothing" should control public policy, this is more complicated than simply nosiness about who prays where.

[ Parent ]
here's what's weighing on me (4.00 / 2)
Why would you do this?  Your other commenters have done a fine job pushing back against your "3 negatives," which are frankly pretty lame.  This is not a strong bill of particulars against HRC. 

You, and Open Left, are powerful opinion shapers and this kind of thing is beneath you.  And counterproductive, too, imo.

In your MoveOn post below, you make an important distinction between the netroots and the political establishment and you go to pains to emphasize that they are at odds.  You know, that's a fair point and something we should remember. 

But frankly, right now I feel at odds with the netroots itself. 

HRC has never been a netroots favorite, but some of us quietly support her nonetheless.  And the more screeds I read against her, so many of which are unhinged or in this case just specious, the less I feel moved to support the other actions and candidates being promoted by my so-called fellow progressives.

I unsubscribed yesterday when I got Markos's blogpac email, when in the past I would have of course ponied up.  All across the liberal blogs, there's fundraising going on for Donna Edwards' campaign.  A month ago, I would have donated, but I haven't yet.  I rely on you [and kos &c.] to bring worthy campaigns to my attention; I've never not donated to all or most of them.

But I no longer feel like we're allies.  Maybe I'm the only one.  But I can't believe that there aren't a lot of people who feel as disappointed and angry and alienated as I do.

I say all of this with a truly heavy heart.  Is this really any way to build an effective progressive movement?

R/b/n McM/ll/n

Me two (4.00 / 2)
Klio, I have felt the same way.  People are of course entitled to speak up and support whomever they choose, but the outright ridicule of Hillary Clinton in the so-called liberal blogosphere and radio has been hard to take.  And there is no reason for it. Obama is a great candidate and he may have been able to beat her on his own merits without his supporters resorting to these demeaning attacks.

You may hate the Clintons, but without them we'd already have a totally right wing supreme court and the Dems would still be saddled with the tax and spend label, having never proved they can balance a budget.  The Clintons deserve respect however grudgingly granted.

I have also donated a lot of money in the last year because I respected the opinion of Kos and others.  If they can't respect my opinion, I am going to think twice next time.

[ Parent ]
To clarify... (0.00 / 0)
I do not include this post by Stoller to be a demeaning attack.  It is one of the most thoughtful I have seen.  I was just reacting to the recent general tone on Kos, Young Turks, Ed Shultz, commenters on TPM, commenters on Digby before she had to shut down comments, and others.  I know what to expect when I watch Chris Matthews.  I never expected to get the same crap from my own side.
[ Parent ]
The argument can also be made that (0.00 / 0)
the Clintons were the catalyst for the emergence of FOX News and ultimately the entire smear machine that the GOP has constructed, hence empowering the right more than they otherwise would have been. 

And Clinton's balanced budget of the 90's means nothing - the Dems ARE STILL being saddled with the tax and spend label!  Results are irrelevant if they can be spun and believed by a majority.  Republicans figured that much out long ago; how else could they continue to run on fiscal responsibility and national security without being laughed right out of the country?

[ Parent ]
you're not alone (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Alignment (0.00 / 0)
'These people are not on our side, they only align with us more than the Republicans do.'

That's the bottom line, which makes it pretty bad for us.

Wow... (0.00 / 0)
I wonder who Stoller supports...
Wow... (4.00 / 2)
You don't need to wonder, because he's written (and published! For free! On this blog!) dozens of pages explaining his evolving thinking on the candidates based on a wide variety of criteria, and reaching different conclusions at different times...

Oh, I get it, you were just trying to insinuate bias instead of addressing the points he brings up.  Never mind.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
The Fellowship... (0.00 / 0)
Well, I suppose if I had to choose between the Fellowship and Donnie McClurkin....

I'll just go hang myself now, then, shall I?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

Please remember these words! (4.00 / 2)
"These people are not on our side, they only align with us more than the Republicans do."

If we're lucky enough to have a Democratic president in 2009, we will all do well to keep these words in mind. This is one reason, I think, why I slightly prefer Clinton over Obama. I fear that Obama is such a beloved figure to so many liberals, that they will not be inclined to hold his feet to the fire in a way that they would with Clinton. I worry that there's going to be a legion of Obama apologists who, having become convinced of his personal greatness, will make it harder to pressure Obama from the left, which is something that will be absolutely vital (no matter who is elected).

Re: Please remember these words! (0.00 / 0)
Judging by the bitterness and spiraling irrationality of the debate between the most fervent Obama and Hillary supporters, I think your fear is probably applicable to whichever candidate achieves the presidency.
[ Parent ]
Appearances (0.00 / 0)
No matter how benign the hedge fund in question, Hillary's daughter working for one cognitively dissonates.

In fact, on the surface, it's worse than having a son who hangs dogs.

Religion and Children (0.00 / 0)
I have always admired Hillary's silence on the subject of religion; I know she is a committed Christian. The left has to guard against the tendency to come across as anti-religion. Since my Catholic/Episcopal background has shaped my lifelong commitment to social justice and my anti-war advocacy, I have always disliked such stereotyping.

As the mother of four grown daughters, I only claim responsibility for my daughters' career choices when they resemble mine:) Hillary seems like good parents. Give Chelsea a break.

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"

 Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

That isn't the question (0.00 / 0)
The question is, does Senator Clinton spend time behind closed doors with hard right conservative politicians in an atmosphere specifically designed to create group bonding?  It seems fairly clear to me that the long-range plan of the Radical Right includes not only pushing the range of acceptable discourse so far to the right as to break the meter but to cement it there by, among other tactics, rendering Democrats internally helpless to object.  Neither Democrats nor progressives (nor, I would argue, the nation), whether personally religious (the majority) or not-personally religious but respectful of those who are (95% of the remainder) need Democratic politicians developing Stockholm Syndrome with the Radical Right.  I am sure there are Quaker, Church of the Brethren, and similar Bible study groups that those Democrats who desire such things can attend and which don't involve absorbing radical right propaganda and frames (e.g. "Democrats disrespect the religious" - no, they don't) along the way.

sPh

[ Parent ]
Cheap shot (4.00 / 1)
I'm an Obama supporter, but this just seems misguided.  I know younger people can't remember back to when there was more comity in the Senate and even the House, but the idea that people from one party can't, for example, worship, study, play tennis or cards or just drink after hours with someone of the other party (let alone write a book, as even Ron Dellums did) because that is "bonding with the enemy" is just plain crazy.  People are much more than their political/ideological beliefs, and the ability to get along with a wide variety of people is generally considered to be a strength. 

It is this kind of thinking that Obama is trying to get away from, IMHO.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
So was Grover Norqust "kidding" or not? (0.00 / 0)
So when Grover Norquist "kidding" as he later claimed, or not, when he stated that his goal was to castrate all Democratic politicians?  Before answering, consider that Norquist at the time controlled a slush fund estimated at $2 billion and was the behind-the-scenes political enforcer for the Radical Right. 

sPh

[ Parent ]
Up until she started campaigning, agreed (0.00 / 0)
> As the mother of four grown daughters, I only
> claim responsibility for my daughters' career
> choices when they resemble mine:) Hillary seems
> like good parents. Give Chelsea a break.

I was in 101% agreement with you - until Chelsea started campaigning with Senator Clinton.  At that point, in my opinion, she lost the shield around her personal life.  Otherwise we get into the Dick Cheney situation.

sPh

[ Parent ]
No Proof Needed (0.00 / 0)
I guess Matt does not need any proof to charge a candidate with something illegal.

So when will you be showing us the evidence that Obama did anything illegal with Rezko.  Funny.  I live in Chicago and every paper has been covering this for years. Yet to see one charge of anything illegal done by Obama.

He took money.  Never showed theier was any payback. And he has given the money to charity.

So I guess you know more then those actually investigating.

See any diffence between this and what Karl Rove did to get Bush elected.  I sure don't.

Did I miss the part (0.00 / 0)
...where someone accused Obama of illegal activity?
[ Parent ]
Interesting... (4.00 / 1)
I quite the atheist myself, but have become increasingly itnerested in the differing ways the Democratic candidates use/talk about their religions.

Clinton's involvement with the Fellowship has been relatively quiet (I don't hear her talking about faith on the campaign trail nearly as much as Obama or even as much as Edwards) but clearly is both a lifelong commitment and more insidery.

Obama has been much more open about his faith, in part because he needs to counteract the crypto-Muslim smears and probably in part because of the nature of bing a later-in-life convert.

In many ways, the campaigning styles of both mirror their religious styles (I do not think that the inverse, where their religious rhetoric or connections mirror the campaign strategy is true, since it appears that these religious connections significantly pre-date either of their Presidential runs).

Personally, I long for the day when we get stop talking about Presidential candidate's faith, but that does not seem likely to happen any time soon.

The Clinton Code (0.00 / 0)

She has refused to answer questions about her work in the group, which includes mostly right-wing Senators.

Dan Brown should get on this stat!

Seriously, WTF?  She is deeply religious but keeps it private.  Kerry kept his Catholicism private in 04, even as the Bushies were trying to get him excommunicated for his pro-choice policies.

The Walmart account is the most troubling.  OTOH if you've held positions in high-level management, you know that you get things done by being a team player while you try to win people over to your side, not by screaming and jumping on the table.  If you're a woman, that just gets you the label of "bitch."

Hillary Clinton, WRONG on UNIONS, WRONG on CHILD LABOR.... (0.00 / 0)
...and WRONG for AMERICA

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions

Hillary Clinton has no problem reinventing and reversing herself, whenever it is politically or financially expedient for her to do so. 

  While Barack Obama was serving the people of Illinois, Clinton was serving on the board of Wal-Mart, helping to suppress unions and undermined American workers by bringing sweatshop manufactured clothing from Bangladesh using child labor.

And of course she makes no mention of this in her official biography, nor will she address these criticisms directly, other than to say that she's changed her position, and that she didn't know that Wal-Mart was buying its clothing from child labor operations.  Yet she was a significant shareholder and board member for Wal-Mart at the time, but she didn't know how her company was conducting business.  Does anyone really believe that?

Hillary Rodham Clinton, wrong on unions, wrong on child labor, wrong on Iraq, and wrong for America.

Three Negatives Against Clinton | 45 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox