Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

I think the Republicans will do everything in their power to sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidency.

Quote:

I think the Republicans will do everything in their power to sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidency.

The R's did not make the Clintons run their charity poorly.

You are like a rabid dog, your brain no longer works.

.and I am not entirely sure the Clintons did run their charity poorly.

Quote:

.and I am not entirely sure the Clintons did run their charity poorly.

You do know that they are busy redoing several years of tax statement after journalists pointed out that they failed to mention several large donations from governments not the USA, Right?

The Clintons are always in a hurry, they dont think that the rules apply to them, and they are sloppy.

THis is going to be a problem re the Charity....FOR. SURE.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me turn you to something else closer to home, but very much in the news this week, David, and that is the stories yesterday in your newspaper, The New York Times, and other news organizations about the Clinton Foundation, about money going to the foundation, about a uranium mining company, a Canadian company with donations, again, the head of the company giving money to the foundation, and then that company needing an OK from the U.S. government for the Russians to buy controlling interest.

What are we learning here about the Clinton Foundation and the charities they run?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, it’s way more egregious than I expected.

I thought there were donations and people were giving money. But there were probably people giving money for the noblest of reasons to the foundation, some people not — apparently giving money not for the noblest of reasons. And this uranium story, where there’s a connection, where the secretary of state nominally sits on this government body which gives OKs to mergers with national security implications, and then a company deeply involved in that kind of merger giving lots of money in the opportune money to the Clinton Foundation, according to my newspaper, the foundation not reporting it really adequately, that’s reasonably stark.

Now, the defense is, she didn’t know, she wasn’t directly involved. Well, that’s completely plausible. But the fact is, you’re sitting on — as secretary of state, or you’re Bill Clinton running the foundation, and somebody’s giving you all this money and you know it has government implications, and that doesn’t ring all sorts of alarm bells?

Where’s the self-protection there? Where is the self-censorship or the self-thing, no, this is not right? And so I’m sort of stunned by it. I’m surprised by it. And, you know, the paradox of it right now is for Hillary Clinton’s president — or candidacy is, people think she’s a strong leader.

But the latest Quinnipiac poll suggests they don’t trust her, they don’t think she’s honest. They have these two thoughts in their minds at the same time. And it just seems, with the Clinton family, there’s going to be a lot of competence and a lot of great political talent and governmental talent, but you’re going to have a run of low-level scandals throughout the whole deal…

But the thing they don’t know is why people gave them the money. A lot of people were giving them millions of dollars. And some people did it probably because they believe in the foundation work, and they did it for beautiful reasons. A lot of people give money to these things and to presidential candidates because they want to be near the flame of power. They just want to be in the room.

They can go home and say, oh, I chatted with Bill Clinton. But some people give it because they are imagining a quid pro quo. I doubt there’s an actual quid pro quo. Mitt Romney said today it looked like bribery. I think that’s — there’s no evidence of that.

A passage from Ernest  Hemingway fits the moment. In “The Sun Also  Rises,” one character asks,  “How did you go bankrupt?” and another responds: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
The exchange captures Hillary Clinton’s red alert. She’s been going politically bankrupt for a long time, and now faces the prospect of sudden collapse.
If she’s got a winning defense, she better be quick about it. The ghosts of scandals past are gaining on her and time is not on her side.
The compelling claims that she and Bill Clinton sold favors while she was secretary of state for tens of millions of dollars for themselves and their foundation don’t need to meet the legal standard for bribery. She’s on political trial in a country where Clinton Fatigue alone could be a fatal verdict.

Her best hope is that a missing ­ingredient remains missing — a Democrat who could take the nomination from her, the way Barack Obama did in 2008. None of those already in the race or committed to it — Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, even Joe Biden — comes close to measuring up.
The only possible rival who does is Elizabeth Warren, the fire-breathing senator from Massachusetts. Gender aside, she is everything Hillary isn’t — an anti-Wall Street conviction populist with a record to match her rhetoric.
A movement to draft her started before Hillary hit the fan, so Warren would begin with a built-in constituency. So far, though, she insists she’s not running.
Then again, that also could change suddenly.

I don't think the Dem's have anywhere near the problems in the presidential race as you do, Hawk...and I STRONGLY suspect you don't think they do either.

The past is never dead,” William Faulkner wrote. “It’s not even past.” Faulkner wasn’t writing about Hillary Clinton, but he might as well have been.

The former first lady, senator and secretary of state — who has spent a political career trying to use her immense talent between constant bouts of controversy — woke up to these headlines this past week: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company” (New York Times); “For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity” (Washington Post); and “Hillary Clinton struggles to contain media barrage on foreign cash” (Politico).

At issue are the complicated donation practices of the massive foundation run by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. All of the stories touched on questions of quid pro quos — or the appearance of such — tied to whom the Clinton Foundation took money from and why.

Like the semi-scandals of the 1990s and 2000s, none of the pieces was the sort of death blow that could end or even badly hamstring Clinton’s presidential candidacy. But taken together, they remind people — even people who are favorably inclined toward the Clinton family — of all the baggage that goes along with electing them to any office.

Remember that when it comes to Hillary Clinton, America already holds two contradictory ideas in its collective head. On the one hand, a majority (62 percent in a recent Quinnipiac University poll) believe she would be a strong leader. On the other, more than half of the public (54 percent in that same poll) believes she is neither “honest” nor “trustworthy.”

Hillary Clinton, for playing to type long after you should have known better, you had the worst week in Washington. Congrats, or something.

We don't evaluate Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Why not? We have determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.

Although we don’t have a rating, you can still find information about Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation on our site here.

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.

"As Mrs. Clinton herself observed earlier this week, voluntary disclosure is not enough," said Common Cause President Miles Rapoport. "A report in Thursday's New York Times indicates that the Clinton Foundation violated an agreement to identify all of its donors. The foundation's omissions create significant gaps in the information that voters need to make informed decisions at the polls."

To ensure that the audit is complete, Rapoport said the foundation should enter into a contractual agreement with auditors to open its books fully and to make public the complete report of their review.