Subject: Correct The Record Friday July 11, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:46:16 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Friday July 11, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Douglas A. Smith in @ConMonitorNews:
Foreign tourism (and American jobs) got boost from @HillaryClinton:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/12709485-95/my-turn-foreign-tourism-got-boost-from-clinton
…
<http://t.co/CYspfuWrvB>[7/11/14, 10:53 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487610563535847424>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton worked to reform the
public education system in Arkansas #HRC365 http://nyti.ms/1dLeWwb
<http://t.co/ICLRqksGwA>[7/10/14, 5:03 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487341247594369024>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: #HardChoices spent more time at #1 in
its opening weeks than most other recent political memoirs:
http://correctrecord.org/hard-choices-a-success/ … <http://t.co/xAV5zbdaz0>
 [7/10/14, 4:35 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487334215097544704>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: $225k donation to @ClintonFdn for HRC
speech already brought in $353k for UNLV Foundation:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/unlv-foundation-clinton-fee-pencils-out …
<http://t.co/ddkqIjliQj> [7/10/14, 3:30 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487317877973061632>]

*Headlines:*

*Le Monde [accessed with Google Translate from French]: “Hillary Clinton:
‘The Americans are open to the idea of ​​a woman president’”
<https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2014/07/11/hillary-clinton-les-americains-sont-de-plus-en-plus-ouverts-a-l-idee-d-une-femme-presidente_4455460_3222.html&edit-text=&act=url>*

*“What is your greatest achievement?* This is undoubtedly the work I have
done to restore the image of America after eight years of the Bush
administration.”

*Politico: “Sen. Martin Heinrich backs Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/martin-heinrich-supports-hillary-clinton-new-mexico-108806.html?hp=l3>*

“Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) is adding his name to the roster of Senate
supporters backing Hillary Clinton, serving as a draw for a New Mexico
event for the super PAC ‘Ready for Hillary.’”

*New York Times: Sunday Book Review: “Editors’ Choice”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/books/review/editors-choice.html>*

“HARD CHOICES, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Simon & Schuster, $35.)
Clinton’s memoir of her time as secretary of state may not be personally
revealing, but it is sober and substantive.”

*Washington Post: “Christine Lagarde: ‘Don’t let the bastards get you’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-leadership/lagarde-on-leadership-its-about-encouraging-people/2014/07/11/4696f284-06b5-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html>*

*“Words that seem to regularly come up in describing you are ‘charismatic,’
‘presence,’ ‘ability to command a room.’ Do you have any advice on how to
cultivate those traits?* It’s a question of feeling confident about
yourself, being reconciled with your own identity — and your own body,
actually. I remember Hillary Clinton not long ago addressing the IMF staff
and saying, ‘Stop being obsessed about losing weight. Be okay with
yourself.’ I thought about what she’d said, and she’s right.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Ed Klein’s book is out-selling Hillary
Clinton. He will not beat her with the critics or fact-checkers.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/11/ed-klein-has-a-new-book-about-the-obamas-and-the-clinton-brace-yourself-for-the-reviews/>*

“The other defining characteristic of Klein's biographies, besides their
popularity with people who despise the subjects unpacked within, is that
the salacious details revealed often have a tenuous relationship with
reality -- as commentators of all ideological stripes have pointed out time
and time again.”

*Wall Street Journal: “For the Wealthy, Silence May Be Golden”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-the-wealthy-silence-may-be-golden-1405097920>*

“Those who coach the rich on what to say--and leave unsaid--about their
money see Hillary Clinton's controversial ‘dead broke’ comment as a big
mistake. And a common one.”

*Nonprofit Quarterly: “The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s
Huge Speaking Fees”
<https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/24491-the-philanthropic-problem-with-hillary-clinton-s-huge-speaking-fees.html?utm_source=NPQ+Newsletters&utm_campaign=b78531da89-Daily_Digest_11467_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0e1de52e53-b78531da89-11904309#.U8AVy19BBM4.twitter>*

“The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation may be doing
extraordinarily wonderful things for communities around the world, but
additional transparency is needed, especially now that Hillary Clinton is
just about guaranteed the Democratic nod for the presidency; her speaking
fees from nonprofit and public universities raise questions about what the
universities (or some of their well-healed donors) might want from the
Clintons.”

*Articles:*

*Le Monde [accessed with Google Translate from French]: “Hillary Clinton:
‘The Americans are open to the idea of ​​a woman president’”
<https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2014/07/11/hillary-clinton-les-americains-sont-de-plus-en-plus-ouverts-a-l-idee-d-une-femme-presidente_4455460_3222.html&edit-text=&act=url>*

By Christophe Ayad

July 11, 2014, 11:58

*What is your greatest achievement?*

This is undoubtedly the work I have done to restore the image of America
after eight years of the Bush administration. When we took office,
President Obama and I, the country was facing a serious economic crisis, we
were engaged in two wars, we lost the support of our European friends and
we had ignored our allies in Asia. There was a lot of concern about the
intention of the United States: we would pursue a policy unilaterally or
work with others?

President appointed me Secretary of State because he wanted to stay focused
on the economy. I worked hard to put out the concept of power informed
[smart power] in order to finish in finish with brute force [hard power]
and unilaterally that the Bush team had applied. I merged the development
and diplomacy to send the message that we would work otherwise.

*And if we go into detail records?*

The establishment of an international coalition to enforce sanctions on
Iran was hard work. There was no will the Russians, Chinese and even some
Europeans were against. I spent a year and a half to build a consensus,
which eventually bring the Iran to the negotiating table. I also negotiated
a cease-fire in Gaza which lasted from 20 November 2012 until recent days.

I created an opening with Burma , which has led to major reforms. I
deepened our relationship with China across different instances of
dialogue. And I drove the "reset" with Russia , which gave very good
results, including sanctions against Iran and a new disarmament treaty
nuclear , as Medvedev was president.

Finally, I reformed the State Department to make more agile, more flexible,
more responsive, even if it is less visible. I introduced new technologies
in an administration that had remained in the telegrams of the nineteenth
century. I promoted women in my department not to make pretty but because
where there are women, there is more stability, more democracy and less
conflict. It was a lot in four years.

*What are your regrets?*

The Syria of course. What is happening now is what we feared and Assad,
Iran and Russia wanted to see happen . From the beginning of the Syrian
uprising, Assad has not fought the terrorists, but terrorists called
peaceful demonstrators calling for more freedom legitimately. And now,
Assad is still in power , jihadists hold portions of territory, and the
moderate opposition, it was forgotten. She did not receive the help and
support she deserved.

My other regret is Benghazi, where Christopher Stevens was killed [11
September 2012]. This is a great personal loss. It was I who had sent in
Benghazi during the Libyan revolution. I suggested as ambassador after the
revolution. We were intensely engaged with Libyans to help to overcome
forty-two years of bad governance. There was nothing left after Gaddafi.
And yet, good elections were held. And then there was this huge problem
posed by militias. Our ambassador, another diplomat and two other Americans
were killed, alas.

*After the chemical bombing on the outskirts of Damascus, August 21, 2013,
President Obama has given up commit military action in Syria as Bashar
Al-Assad had crossed the "red line" that he had drawn. This has he
undermined the credit of America in the world?*

I was no longer in office but I supported President Obama's decision to
consult Congress. What was the problem? The use of chemical weapons in 2013
in violation of the rules set by the international community since the
First World War.

If the president had launched a military operation, it is likely that some
sites of chemical weapons have been destroyed, but not all. He would then
have had to face the consequences. When the Russians have proposed a plan
to dismantle the Syrian chemical arsenal, I spoke with the president and I
argued. Finally, the desired result was obtained chemical weapons have been
dismantled in Syria. But it is true that this sequence was not clearly
enough explained, people have not always understood the reasoning.

*About the Iraq , you voted for the war in 2003. In 2011, it is you who
have implemented the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Did you not correct a
mistake with another mistake?*

I have said and written that give the green light to President Bush's war
in Iraq was a mistake. I tried later to correct this error. During his
campaign, President Obama made ​​a promise: all troops should have left
Iraq in late 2011, unless the Iraqi government demanded that they remain.

We worked for two years (2009-2011) to find a solution to a number of
soldiers remain in Iraq. But Maliki did not want an American presence. He
wanted to oppress the Sunnis and the Kurds, purge the army and deny its
promises without being held accountable. The United States does not
stationed military force without an agreement of the host country. This was
not the case in Iraq.

*What is the greatest threat to the United States? The emergence of the
Islamic state, the aggressiveness of Vladimir Putin or the ambitions of
China?*

The most immediate threat is posed by terrorists seeking to obtain a
nuclear or radioactive device. They never abandoned the desire to inflict
the greatest possible losses to Westerners. At this very moment, a credible
threat is the airlines operating to the United States.

Then all "rogue state" that accesses nuclear weapons, as North Korea is a
threat. If Iran or any other country managed to acquire the atomic bomb, it
would destabilize the world and lead to an arms race. It would be a tragic
mistake. The Pakistan is a perfect example: nuclear warheads are pointed
towards the India and it is at war with terrorist groups seeking to s'
possession of these weapons.

Finally, there are long-term threats such as hazardous Putin's desire to go
up over time, dominate its neighbors and create a sphere of influence in
which it can intimidate other countries. China shows its muscles by
investing heavily in its arm ed and claims sovereignty over the South and
East China Sea, causing potential conflicts with Japan , the Vietnam and
the Philippines . This instability can affect eventual global growth.
Against Russia and China, we have put in place long-term strategies with
our partners in Europe and Asia.

*You doubted you that Putin was going to be as aggressive after his
reelection in 2012?*

Yes, I thought so. I sent two reports to President Obama about it. He had
already invaded and annexed part of Georgia in 2008. It was increasingly
clear that the experience of "democracy in the margins," he was allowed to
develop , would not last . When tens of thousands of Russians took to the
streets in late 2011 to protest against fraud in parliamentary elections,
he was shocked. He could not believe that the Russians could demonstrate
against him. He held me responsible, probably to forget his unpopularity.

Once elected, or rather crowned president, he asked a lot of problem. I
will not say that I expected to destabilize the Ukraine and invade the
Crimea. But I knew he would hate it because it could make oil stain in
Russia.

*Obama is often accused of being weak, indecisive, without leadership. What
is your opinion?*

This is not fair. The president was very clear he was elected to end the
war in Iraq, and win more successful Afghanistan . The two are not of his
making. In his recent speech at West Point, he made ​​it clear he wanted
other approaches to treat problems that pointing the finger tap on the
table and speak harsh language. This is a thoughtful project. It may be
that it takes time for it to be done, but that's not to say he is wrong.
Maybe he has need to explain his method more than the rest of the world
understands it better.

*How to explain this paradox: you are very popular in the United States
when you deal with foreign policy, but as soon as you think you are going
to present to the presidential criticism rained?*

American politics is like football , a sports battle. I'm not surprised:
the political debate is so polarized in our country that we achieve nothing
Congress. This is unfortunate because we face two crises. The first is
economic: our economy is not creating enough jobs, growth is inadequate,
excessive inequality.

We also have a crisis of democracy: we can not take some difficult
decisions because, among Republicans, think that compromise is a dirty
word. They do not want to cooperate . I am a woman who is honest, who has
his opinions, which expresses. This raises comments.

*The United States is prepared to have a president?*

I hope, be it me or another. Now, more Americans are open to the idea of ​​a
female president. They are aware that we have not yet definitively broken
the glass ceiling while 49 countries have already done.

*Who inspires you in politics?*

This is Nelson Mandela . I learned well know , he was a friend. I am amazed
by the way, to his release from prison he was put at the service of
forgiveness, reconciliation and unity. It was not easy. It is my polar star.

*Politico: “Sen. Martin Heinrich backs Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/martin-heinrich-supports-hillary-clinton-new-mexico-108806.html?hp=l3>*

By Maggie Haberman

July 11, 2014, 12:09 p.m. EDT

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) is adding his name to the roster of Senate
supporters backing Hillary Clinton, serving as a draw for a New Mexico
event for the super PAC “Ready for Hillary.”

According to an invitation obtained by POLITICO, Heinrich and Rep. Michelle
Lujan Grisham (D-NM) are headlining an event this Saturday evening
Albuquerque.

Clinton has gotten a number of endorsements from her former Senate
colleagues, primarily through “Ready for Hillary,” a low-dollar super PAC.

*New York Times: Sunday Book Review: “Editors’ Choice”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/books/review/editors-choice.html>*

[“A version of this list appears in print on July 13, 2014”]

July 11, 2014

FOURTH OF JULY CREEK, by Smith Henderson. (Ecco/HarperCollins, $26.99.) In
Henderson’s deeply impressive novel, an overburdened social worker becomes
involved with a near-feral boy and his survivalist father in 1980 Montana.

HARD CHOICES, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Simon & Schuster, $35.) Clinton’s
memoir of her time as secretary of state may not be personally revealing,
but it is sober and substantive.

FRIDAYS AT ENRICO’S, by Don Carpenter. Finished by Jonathan Lethem.
(Counterpoint, $25.) Carpenter’s eccentric posthumous novel follows four
aspiring writers in the heady days of the Beats.

OUR DECLARATION: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of
Equality, by Danielle Allen. (Liveright, $27.95.) Scrutinizing our founding
document, a political theorist sees it as a clarion call for equality.

UNCERTAIN JUSTICE: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, by Laurence
Tribe and Joshua Matz. (Holt, $32.) A portrait of the current Supreme Court
in its surprisingly messy complexity.

SCALIA: A Court of One, by Bruce Allen Murphy. (Simon & Schuster, $35.)
Murphy’s book is skeptical, often critical, of its subject, but it takes
his ideas seriously and is free of snark.

A MOST IMPERFECT UNION: A Contrarian History of the United States, by Ilan
Stavans. Illustrated by Lalo Alcaraz. (Basic Books, $26.99.) Even the ugly
side is delivered with comics-style humor.

THE BOOK OF UNKNOWN AMERICANS, by Cristina Henríquez. (Knopf, $24.95.)
Latino immigrant characters face the challenges of assimilation.

ELIZABETH IS MISSING, by Emma Healey. (Harper, $25.99.) A woman slipping
into dementia turns detective in this spellbinding first novel.

*Washington Post: “Christine Lagarde: ‘Don’t let the bastards get you’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-leadership/lagarde-on-leadership-its-about-encouraging-people/2014/07/11/4696f284-06b5-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html>*

By Lillian Cunningham

July 11, 2014, 10:12 a.m. EDT

This July marks Christine Lagarde’s third anniversary as head of the
International Monetary Fund. When she took the post, she faced a collapsing
euro zone and an institution that itself was in something of a free fall
following the resignation of its previous leader, Dominique Strauss-Kahn,
over allegations of a sexual assault. It was, to put it simply, an
interesting time to be the first woman and the first non-economist to lead
the organization.

In the three years since, Largarde has helped cool the financial flames in
such countries as Greece and Ireland. She has also, though perhaps with
less notice, begun to reposition the IMF’s work. Climate change, income
inequality and gender participation in the workforce — issues that only a
decade ago would have hardly surfaced at the fund — have now become a focus
of its analysis.

Yet while the organization has started to loosen its necktie in regard to
its areas of research and the rigid internal hierarchy of economists, it
still wrestles with a number of management challenges. Among them, Lagarde
says, are difficulties in getting Congress to ratify a reform measure that
would give emerging countries better representation and in getting more
women — any women, in fact — onto the IMF’s board.

In this interview, which has been edited lightly for length and clarity,
Lagarde speaks about these management hurdles. She also reflects on the
leadership lessons she’s learned over a career in which she has headed
international law firm Baker & McKenzie and France’s Finance Ministry.

Her final words of advice: “Don’t let the bastards get you.”

*How do you define leadership?*

To me, leadership is about encouraging people. It’s about stimulating them.
It’s about enabling them to achieve what they can achieve — and to do that
with a purpose. Others would call it “a vision,” but I’d rather use
“purpose” because I think that everybody has a purpose in life, and that
when collectively people work together, or practice sport together, they
have a joint purpose.

*What do you want to be your main achievement at the IMF?*

I really want the institution to continue to be relevant, and to be
regarded by its members — also its clients — as a place where they can
receive the best possible advice, the most honest assessment of the
situation, and where they can seek support and technical assistance. I sort
of gather that under the word “relevance,” because I think that’s the most
important service we can provide to the membership.

*When you took over, your job was basically one of crisis management. Now
perhaps there’s more time to think about your vision of how to make the
fund relevant into the future. How have you transitioned between managing
short-term and long-term challenges? Do you think you’re better at one or
the other?*

When I started, which was exactly three years ago, there were two crises.
One was the internal situation at the IMF, because my predecessor had left
under very dramatic circumstances, which had created anxiety, concern and
complete lack of motivation on the part of many of the staff. The other
crisis was outside, because many countries of the euro area were in great
difficulties. Greece was one, but Ireland was another, Portugal was
another, and soon Cyprus, and so on and so forth — and that was only in
that part of the world. There were other countries elsewhere that were
suffering and were seeking advice and financial support.

On both accounts, it was a question of making sure that everybody was on
deck, prepared to deal with the issues, and completely motivated by the
mission of the fund — which is to make sure that we put all our expertise,
our money, our technical assistance and our ability to advise together, to
fight the crisis and to procure some stability for the membership.

I have a theory that women are generally given space and appointed to jobs
when the situation is tough. I’ve observed that in many instances. In times
of crisis, women eventually are called upon to sort out the mess, face the
difficult issues and be completely focused on restoring the situation.

Has the crisis abated, are the flames down? I wish that was the case.
Obviously there is recovery in the air, but it is neither very strong nor
very balanced, and there are still many countries that need support and
advice. While it’s not as burning and obvious as it was three years ago,
we’re not just doing maintenance at the moment. We are also doing some
crisis management as well. It’s in a way the vocation of the IMF to face
crises, whether they are very high on the world agenda or rather low on the
radar screen.

*Have you learned anything about your own leadership skills, or weaknesses,
from leading during a time of crisis?*

I learned that you can constantly improve, and that you should not be shy
about your views, and about the direction that you believe is right. I also
learn constantly about how much people can achieve; how much they can give;
how much they can go beyond themselves, step out of their comfort zone and
give a lot more than they ever thought they would, or that you ever
expected them to do. And it’s a constant process to learn how much you
should step in after having listened, and how much the team you work with
can exceed your expectations.

*I know your father passed away when you were young. I wonder in what ways
that has shaped your character and your leadership development.*

My father passed away after three years of debilitating disease, which
transformed a very strong and bright man into a real wreck. And that is
hard. You have to get out of that stronger, if you can, which I was lucky
to be able to. I was the eldest of the family, and I had to support my
mother and help my brothers. So there was an element of empowerment that
resulted from his passing away, and an element of terrible sorrow and
grief, which never goes away.

*Words that seem to regularly come up in describing you are “charismatic,”
“presence,” “ability to command a room.” Do you have any advice on how to
cultivate those traits?*

It’s a question of feeling confident about yourself, being reconciled with
your own identity — and your own body, actually. I remember Hillary Clinton
not long ago addressing the IMF staff and saying, “Stop being obsessed
about losing weight. Be okay with yourself.” I thought about what she’d
said, and she’s right. You have to first of all be okay with yourself,
accept who you are, and not fight against yourself all the time. It’s hard,
but I think being reconciled with your body and your identity is step one.
The second step is about being honest and telling the truth, not covering
up and pretending you are somebody that you are not deep down inside.

*What’s the one thing that you would like to see change the most about the
internal culture of the IMF?*

I would very much like it if there were more women on the board. At the
moment I have a board where all the executive directors are male, and I
think that is wrong. There’s not much I can do about it other than say it
loudly and clearly. Member states of the IMF designate the executive
directors, and I happen to have 24 male executive directors and not a
single woman.

As a second change, I would very much appreciate if the United States of
America would ratify the reform that they themselves engineered about four
years ago, which would give better representation to the emerging and
developing countries, which are gaining ground, which are expanding and
which must be given a bigger say at the international table of the IMF.
Those are really two key components that would help the culture of the
institution.

Other than that, I would like the culture to be as focused on quality and
excellence as it is, but maybe a little less rigid in terms of attitude and
willingness to let diverging views and dissenting opinions be expressed.
That’s something that we’re working on. It’s not always obvious.

*Let’s talk more about the quota reform. From a leadership perspective,
what do you do when your biggest shareholder, the United States, is not
supporting the reform you think you need?*

Well, first of all, the IMF has to continue doing its job. Second, we have
to acknowledge and deliver on the changes taking place in the world, by
having a more diverse staff, by having a more diverse management, by
welcoming representatives from China and other emerging markets, and making
sure that we have more women, of course. That’s what we have to continue
doing no matter what.

We are making collectively all the efforts we can to convince members of
Congress that it is worth it to reform the institution, as was intended in
the first place by all authorities but with a strong leadership from the
United States of America. It’s a big letdown not to actually deliver on it,
given that pretty much all members have now delivered and have ratified the
reform.

*The fund hasn’t really grown in the past five years or so, and it’s a
place without high turnover. The result seems to be that a lot of good
people can’t move up the ladder quickly, and that you can’t get women into
senior positions at fast as you would like. As their leader, how are you
wrestling with these personnel issues?*

We have two major constraints: our demographics, which we can’t deal with
except by natural departure over time, and the limited territory. When you
lead a corporate institution, you can expand. And whether you grow the
bottom line or the top line, you have incentives at both ends and you can
manage those.

At an institution like the IMF, our vocation is not to grow. Our vocation
is to continue to provide the best possible services within the parameters
of the mandate. So in the leadership position I’m in, I have to identify
what makes people click, what motivates them. And it’s not necessarily
going to be promotion, as you said, so there have to be other ways to
incentivize people.

I soon realized that people are motivated by the pride they take in the
intellectual work they produce, and that’s an important driver. A second
important driver is the pride they take in serving the public good. That’s
another very strong engine to actually lead the institution and motivate
people.

*How long do you want to be there? What would you like to do after?*

I know people doubt me when I say it, but I have never, never had a career
plan. And maybe that was the wrong idea, but I never had a career plan. My
career, which I know is successful and regarded as such, has been the
result of circumstances, of meeting people, of being called, of being
drafted, of taking on the job and rising to the circumstances when it was
needed. So I have no idea, honestly, what I will do in two years’ time,
which is the end of my term. What I know is that I will do my term, because
you have to finish what you started. But after that, I don’t have a clue. I
might be still here, I might be somewhere else. I might be doing something
that I have no idea about.

*What’s the best piece of leadership advice anyone’s given you?*

Well there’s one encouragement that I was given once by my American father,
in the family I stayed with when I was 17. Whenever I had tough times, he
would send me a little note or give me a call and he would say, “Don’t let
the bastards get you.” And I know this is not very polite. This is not very
proper language. “Don’t let the bastards get you” means: “Hang on with the
work that you are doing, and just don’t give up. Stand up.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Ed Klein’s book is out-selling Hillary
Clinton. He will not beat her with the critics or fact-checkers.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/11/ed-klein-has-a-new-book-about-the-obamas-and-the-clinton-brace-yourself-for-the-reviews/>*

By Jaime Fuller

July 11, 2014, 11:13 a.m. EDT

News broke late Thursday that Ed Klein's book about the Obamas and the
Clintons, "Blood Feud," is actually out-selling Hillary Clinton's own
memoir, "Hard Choices." Given that surprising turn of events, we figured we
would re-surface this post from a couple weeks ago looking at just who
Klein is and what literary critics think of his work (hint: there is no
love lost -- if it ever existed).

Ed Klein's new book, "Blood Feud: The Clintons v. the Obamas" is going to
sell many copies. That is one fact about the book that will be hard to
dispute. Klein's last book on President Obama, "The Amateur," displaced the
latest volume in Robert Caro's Lyndon B. Johnson series in the number one
slot on the New York Times bestseller list. His book, "The Truth about
Hillary," sold about 200,000 copies.

You should probably fact-check anything else you hear about the book. The
other defining characteristic of Klein's biographies, besides their
popularity with people who despise the subjects unpacked within, is that
the salacious details revealed often have a tenuous relationship with
reality -- as commentators of all ideological stripes have pointed out time
and time again.

The reviews of Klein's work, filled with contempt and adventurous
adjectives, often mirror the gossipy edges of the books they describe. The
reviewers may not believe all of Klein's reporting, but they are more than
happy to borrow his skillful hatchet job techniques, if only to use it
against him.

In anticipation of the reviews that are bound to follow the tabloid-y book
excerpts featuring Michelle Obama's supposed nickname for Hillary
("Hildebeest") and new (and questionable) "revelations" about Hillary's
response to the Benghazi attacks, here is a retrospective of Ed Klein book
reviews. Only one features a septic tank metaphor.

*The Amateur*

“The Amateur” by Edward Klein is a book about an inept, arrogant ideologue
who maintains an absurdly high opinion of his own talents even as he
blatantly fails to achieve his goals. Oh, and President Obama is in this
book too.

Of course Mr. Klein does not see himself as the amateur of his title. As he
announces in the very first sentence, “This is a reporter’s book.” It is
based on “dozens of four-inch-thick three-ring notebooks” that detail
interviews with “nearly 200 people,” some of whom even allowed Mr. Klein to
mention their names in print.

-- Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“It’s an excellent read and very insightful.”

-- Donald Trump, The New York Post

“Ed Klein has a proven history of reckless fabrication in order to sell
books. Nobody in their right mind would believe the nonsense in this one.”

-- White House spokesperson Eric Schultz

*The Truth About Hillary*

The book is poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced and full of the
kind of loaded language that is appropriate to a polemic but not an
investigative work.

-- Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal

This is one of the most sordid volumes I’ve ever waded through. Thirty
pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to
be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes
through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.

-- John Podhoretz, The New York Post

The book is so far out there with lurid allegations that I'm beginning to
suspect that Mr. Klein is a double agent, pretending to be objective but in
reality hoping to drum up visions of a vast right-wing conspiracy to do in
poor Mrs. Clinton.

-- Alicia Colon, The New York Sun

Consider the arrival, last month, of an aggressively unflattering
biography, "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and
How Far She'll Go to Become President," by Ed Klein, which climbed the
best-seller lists despite condemnatory reviews. Senator Clinton didn't read
it, but Mr. Reines did.

He had to. It was up to him to provide the news media with an informed --
if uppity -- response from the Clinton camp: "This is a book full of
blatant and vicious fabrications contrived by someone who writes trash for
cash." Catchy. Mr. Reines now adds this: "His 15 minutes of fame are up.
I'm looking forward to his biography: 'The Truth About Ed Klein: He Writes
Trash for Cash.' "

-- Robin Finn, The New York Times

But Senator Clinton cannot become President of the United States. The
reason, as her latest pornographer, Edward Klein, makes plain, is the
lesbian situation. It is entirely possible, Klein allows, that the junior
senator from New York is not herself a Sapphic practitioner. But she
imbibed the “culture of lesbianism” as an undergraduate at Wellesley
College in the nineteen-sixties; she has certainly known a few lesbians in
her time (many names are unearthed); she definitely read a Methodist
magazine called motive that published, among others, Rita Mae Brown, the
author of a “lesbian novel”; and once, at a White House reunion of her
Wellesley classmates, she rubbed the “butch cut” hairdo of one Nancy
Wanderer, remarking, lesbianically, “Maybe I’ll get a haircut like this and
really shock everyone.”

Reading “The Truth About Hillary,” one can easily envision Klein’s
well-appointed desk in mid-composition, an antique lamp casting a lambent
beam on his files of political smut.

-- David Remnick, The New Yorker

There are lots of reasons to distrust or even dislike Mrs Clinton. She
exudes an overpowering whiff of entitlement. She seems to believe that
successful career women like herself are morally superior to women who stay
at home and bake cookies. She was responsible, with Hillarycare, for one of
the greatest political debacles of recent years. And, most infuriating of
all, she tries to play both the victim and the strong woman. But Mr. Klein
has succeeded in doing the near impossible: he has written a book that will
make all but fire-breathing conservatives sympathetic to her cause.

-- The Economist

Unfortunately, The Truth About Hillary fails even as pornography. It's
about as arousing as footage from a hidden camera in the bathroom of a
highway truck stop.

-- John F. Harris, The New York Observer

Christians should repudiate this book and determine to take no pleasure in
it.

-- Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

If I were a right-winger, I would be offended by both Klein and[Karl] Rove.
But I am not a conservative, and so I can only wonder at their gullibility.
Right-wingers are the useful idiots of our times and while they have their
occasional left-wing counterparts, the lefties will not buy essentially the
same book over and over again -- if only because they lack the funds. Maybe
Klein has taken this as far as it will go. I hope not. My book on Hillary's
romp with Paris Hilton will be out soon. It's hot.

-- Richard Cohen, The Washington Post

It's hard to believe that these voices on the right are part of a vast
left-wing conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton. Here is a far more
believable explanation for the treatment of the anti-Hillary book: The
networks decided -- correctly in my opinion -- that this piece of junk
journalism did not deserve free publicity.

-- Paul Janensch, The Hartford Courant

He focuses overmuch on Hillary's alleged lesbianism, for instance (she
didn't shave her legs and underarms at Wellesley!), and even writes that
Chelsea was conceived one night when Bill raped Hillary. Only the fringiest
Clinton-haters could find pleasure with that level of prurient tabloiding
of a former U.S. president and a present-day U.S. senator. After a few
paragraphs, you find yourself reaching for the Brillo.

-- Kathleen Parker, The Chicago Tribune

There's a danger when you throw together rumor, innuendo, mind reading, and
unsubstantiated blind quotes from sources who overtly hate your subject.
And it's not just the risk of looking (as Edward Klein does) like an author
devoid of credibility.

-- Nina J. Easton, The Boston Globe

The latest assault is by Edward Klein, whose name commonly appears in print
these days in close proximity to words like smarmy and sleazy.

-- Clyde Haberman, The New York Times

This book is the literary equivalent of a backed-up septic tank.

-- Larry Cox, The Tuscon Citizen

What I am saying is that if Klein purposely set out to write the sleaziest,
most derivative, most despicable political biography ever, he has failed
both himself and his readers miserably. ''The Truth About Hillary'' is only
about the 16th sleaziest book I have ever read. Though, in fairness to the
author, reading creepy, cut-and-paste books is my hobby.

-- Joe Queenan, The New York Times

*Katie: The Real Story*

Well, by now, you get the general flavor of Edward Klein's unauthorized
biography, which seeks to portray its subject as a little bullet fired into
the heart of the fourth estate. You may wonder why making that point was
worth a book. You may also wonder if the same book would have been written
about a male broadcaster. Finally, you may wonder why you should expect
anything very serious from the author of "The Kennedy Curse," which
describes the late Carolyn Bessette Kennedy as "sprawled on the floor in
front of a sofa, disheveled and hollow-eyed, snorting cocaine with a gaggle
of gay fashionistas."

It takes a tough man to write a phrase like "gaggle of gay fashionistas,"
and, in fact, Klein has made a second career of leaving knuckle prints on
famous women.

-- Louis Bayard, The Washington Post

*All Too Human: The Love Story of Jack and Jackie Kennedy*

Ed Klein as every legal right to author a book like this one. St. Martin's
Press has every right to publish it.

But neither one of them should feel especially proud today.

-- Ellis Henican, Newsday

*Wall Street Journal: “For the Wealthy, Silence May Be Golden”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-the-wealthy-silence-may-be-golden-1405097920>*

By Daisy Maxey

July 11, 2014, 12:58 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Those who've risen from humble beginnings may not see
themselves as wealthy

Those who coach the rich on what to say--and leave unsaid--about their
money see Hillary Clinton's controversial "dead broke" comment as a big
mistake. And a common one.

"She doesn't feel she's defined by her financial wealth," notes Katherine
Lintz, founder of Matter Family Office.

Her firm, with offices in Clayton, Mo., and in Denver, handles about 150
families with fortunes that range from $3 million to $1 billion. Many built
their own businesses and came from humble beginnings, and they "don't think
of themselves as one of the 1%," she says.

"They're head-down, working," she says. "Their vision of themselves is no
different than it was when they were 25 years old hiring their first
employee."

Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton's much-criticized reference to her and her
husband's indebtedness in 2001, which she made in an ABC interview in June,
broke a cardinal rule that Ms. Lintz and other advisers to the wealthy
often stress: Be circumspect.

"The smartest thing for the wealthy person to do is not to say anything
about their wealth," says Robert Dilenschneider, who leads Dilenschneider
Group Inc., a New York public-relations firm that does coaching work for
some family offices and also works directly with many executives.

Comments about financial status that are incorrect, misunderstood or too
revealing can prove troublesome for anyone. But for the very wealthy, these
can harm their public image or career, attract Internal Revenue Service
scrutiny or--in a worst-case scenario--put them in danger.

Of course, politicians with lots of money can't avoid discussing their
finances, which are often a matter of record. Athletes and celebrities,
whose big-money contracts also often become public knowledge, face the
issue, too, as do a lot of moneyed individuals who go through
headline-making divorces, Mr. Dilenschneider notes.

At that point, "it stretches credibility" to play down one's financial
status too much, he says. And "to say, 'I'm poor' is a big mistake. It
offends poor people." Mrs. Clinton herself, in retrospect, called her word
choice "inartful."

Like Ms. Lintz, Mr. Dilenschneider deals with some clients who are very
rich but don't feel it. He recalls one who was worth $13 billion--and
complained about the cost of an English muffin at a Times Square breakfast
spot.

On the other hand, some wealthy people make a very different kind of
mistake when discussing their money: They brag about it.

Ms. Lintz has counseled some clients who, after making a big charitable
donation, "may have boasted too much about it." Even if their philanthropic
urge was genuine, this can set them up for criticism--and also make them a
target for con-men or other criminals.

She asks clients to ponder this question: "Who's going to pick up the paper
today that you really want to know your financial business, and then act on
it?" She adds, "I don't know really what the upside is of that."

She encourages her clients, when speaking publicly, to focus on their
experiences--the mistakes they've made in life, the lessons they've
learned--rather than their finances.

"All communication in the public eye just needs to be real and honest," Ms.
Lintz says. Being too boastful or overly humble "is just not attractive."

*Nonprofit Quarterly: “The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s
Huge Speaking Fees”
<https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/24491-the-philanthropic-problem-with-hillary-clinton-s-huge-speaking-fees.html?utm_source=NPQ+Newsletters&utm_campaign=b78531da89-Daily_Digest_11467_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0e1de52e53-b78531da89-11904309#.U8AVy19BBM4.twitter>*

By Rick Cohen

July 11, 2014, 14:16

If you have spent any time with Bill or Hillary Clinton in person, as this
writer has, you’ll get this point: Whether you like or hate their politics,
you cannot deny their brilliance. The former president is a phenomenal,
freewheeling thinker, able to integrate knowledge from multiple sources
with insight that puts him a level above the crowd. His spouse, the former
senator and Secretary of State and probable presidential candidate,
possesses a steely, directed brilliance that is in sharp contrast with her
more extemporaneous husband. Even on their individual merits, were they not
the most powerful political couple in the United States, you would want to
hear them talk—and maybe even pay them to do so.

But speaking fees for Bill and Hillary Clinton—and now their daughter
Chelsea as well—are a cause for nonprofit and philanthropic concern,
particularly with nonprofit entities that pay huge sums, six- and
seven-figure fees to bring the Clintons to the dais. The news reports about
the speaking fees and related political blowback regarding the Clintons
have been increasing geometrically:

Between January 2001, when he left office, and January 2013, when Hillary
Clinton left her position as Secretary of State, the former president has
received $104.9 million in fees for delivering 542 speeches. The largest
source of his speaking gigs? Wall Street banks and other financial services
firms, which recruited the former president for 102 speeches and paid him
$19.6 million.

In some cases, the former president’s speaking fees have been astronomical.
Last year, the Jewish National Fund, the Israeli organization that owns or
controls a significant part of that nation’s actual real estate, offered to
pay President Clinton $500,000 in return for the president’s speaking at
Israeli President Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday celebration. After an outcry
in Israel and in the U.S., the JNF withdrew its half-million-dollar offer.
That sum, though, is a quarter-million lower than the highest fee
reportedly paid to President Clinton: $750,000 for an address to the
telecom company Ericsson in Hong Kong.

The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker reports that Hillary Clinton’s average
speaking fee tops $200,000, with the former Secretary of State accepting
lower fees or waiving them on occasion for black-tie society gigs.

For a speech earlier this year to students and faculty at the University of
California at Los Angeles, Hillary Clinton was paid $300,000, the money
coming from a private trust established by Scope Industries CEO Meyer
Luskin to fund a lecture series at the school. Two years ago, the UCLA paid
Bill Clinton $250,000 for a speech.

The Post further reported that Hillary Clinton has scored at least $1
million this year in speaking fees for speeches at the University at
Buffalo, Colgate University, and Hamilton College in New York, as well as
Simmons College in Boston and the University of Miami in Florida—each
declining to reveal how much they paid the former Secretary of State-- plus
$251,250 from a donor fund for a speech the University of Connecticut and
the $300,000 for the UCLA gig.

At the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, the UNLV is paying Hillary Clinton
$225,000 for speaking at its annual fundraising dinner, scheduled for October
13th. The foundation is charging people to hear the former Secretary of
State as much as $20,000 for some tables ($18,000 of that cost tax
deductible) and has sold $353,000 in “high dollar seats.” This would give
UNLV a profit from Clinton’s speech notwithstanding the high fee, though
lower than the $250,000 it paid the former President in 2012 to speak to
992 guests. UNLV student government leaders have split on this issue, with
some calling for Hillary Clinton to donate her fee to the university as a
charitable gesture.

In the wake of questions regarding Hillary Clinton’s self-acknowledged less
than artful contention that she and Bill left the White House “dead broke,”
family spokespersons revealed that daughter Chelsea Clinton, in addition to
earning $600,000 a year as a special correspondent for NBC News, where she
is rarely ever seen on camera, takes in as much as $75,000 for her speeches.

The Clintons are able to command speaking fees that are close to
unparalleled among politicians and celebrities. After leaving office,
former Vice President Al Gore got $156,000 for a half-hour lecture in
London. Former President George W. Bush’s typical speaking fee is
apparently $110,000. Dick Cheney’s fee per address is about $75,000 and his
daughter Liz’s around $20,000. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney
makes between $40,000 and $60,000 for his appearances. In general, the
Clinton fees on the political celebrity speaking circuit are like “max
contracts” for players in the NBA; everyone else can only hope someday to
see those numbers.

The criticism of the Clinton speeches, particularly Hillary Clinton’s, is
that she is taking in huge sums as she marches toward her all but
inevitable presidential campaign, and that many of these huge fees are
coming from colleges and universities which generate their income through
charitable donations and tax revenues. Because Clinton is not yet an
official candidate, her income from these speeches and her use of the fees
does not have to be declared in the financial disclosure reports that are
required of candidates.

Hillary Clinton defended her fees in an interview with ABC’s Ann Compton.
All of her speaking fees (and apparently Chelsea’s as well) are turned over
to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the public charity that
the family controls and operates. The high-profile foundation has a
laudable mission: “to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote
health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships
among governments, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
private citizens to turn good intentions into measurable results.” Among
its programs are the Clinton Global Initiative; the Clinton Guistra
Enterprise Partnership, geared to creating, scaling, and replicating social
enterprises in the developing world—a special interest of Canadian
financier Frank Giustra, who very controversially used his connection to
President Clinton (helped by a $100 million donation to the CGI) to land
face time with Kazakhstan’s brutal dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to
negotiate a lucrative uranium mining deal; the Clinton Foundation in Haiti;
many international health initiatives; the Clinton Climate Initiative “to
create and advance solutions to root causes of climate change”; and the
Clinton Presidential Center.

ABC reports, however, that it has been unable to get Hillary Clinton to
provide documentation attesting to the donation of her speaking fees to the
foundation. A review of the Clinton Foundation’s Form 990s for several of
the past years reveals no disclosure of the names of major donors and
therefore no information as to whether Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton,
for that matter) has been donating speaking fees to their philanthropy.
However, Hillary Clinton’s commitment to donate the speaking fees may be a
decision of somewhat recent vintage, to be revealed in future 990s. (The
most recent Clinton Foundation 990 available to the public on GuideStar or
the Foundation Center’s online directory is from tax year 2012.)

Because the foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity, however, it is not
required to reveal the names of its donors and the amount they are giving
the Clinton Foundation. For Hillary Clinton to fulfill her pledge of
transparency, the foundation would have to take a step that it is typically
not required to do. In light of the political backdrop of the Clinton
Foundation, this additional voluntary transparency is very important.
Disclosure of donations to charities and foundations controlled by powerful
political figures should be done as a matter of course, whether they are
the Clintons’ speaking fees or the six- and seven-figure contributions of
corporate and other donors who might have expectations of something in the
future.

One issue may be the ultimate sources of the payments for the Clinton
speaking fees, who might be anticipating a good word, a positive reaction,
or a business-world endorsement from the most powerful political couple in
the nation. But there is another issue: These donations to Hillary
Clinton’s income that are then transferred to her family foundation are not
simply private contributions. In many cases, and particularly the most
recent, these mammoth speaking fees are not from individual (or corporate)
charitable donors, but from universities. Hillary Clinton defended the
dynamic:

“I have been very excited to speak to many universities during the last
year and a half, and all of the fees have been donated to the Clinton
Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and lifesaving work,”
Clinton told ABC. “So it goes from a Foundation at a university to another
foundation.”

In other words, through her speeches, Hillary Clinton is in a way
“repurposing” the donations others are making—or taxpayers are making—to
these colleges and universities. The universities, like UNLV, take pains to
suggest that, according to Michael Wixom, a member of the Nevada Board of
Regents, “no student funds, no tuition funds, no state dollars are being
used in any way to pay her fee,” but that only works in cases like UNLV’s
where the venue is a fundraiser at which moneyed interests pay big sums,
partially tax-deductible, for the honor of hearing Clinton’s speech. In
other instances, the universities point to privately funded endowments or
trusts that pay for Clinton and perhaps other speakers as well—or in many
cases, they don’t even reveal how much they are paying or where the money
for the speaking fees comes from.

Nonetheless, the optics aren’t good. Money is largely fungible. Students
and their parents are hard-pressed by tuition increases—a four-year
increase of 17 percent in the Nevada higher education system, a 6.5 percent
increase announced this year for the University of Connecticut, the
imposition of “student success fees” at many University of California
system campuses as substitutes for formal tuition increases—making the
Clintons’ speaking fees look problematic. Universities have squirmed under
Congressional scrutiny but largely left unchanged such policies as
amazingly high salaries for university presidents (41 of whom had
compensation packages of more than $1 million as of 2011) and very low
spending rates despite huge growth in their endowments in many cases, an
issue constantly raised by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, pressing
universities, much like foundations, to spend more from their endowments.

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation may be doing extraordinarily
wonderful things for communities around the world, but additional
transparency is needed, especially now that Hillary Clinton is just about
guaranteed the Democratic nod for the presidency; her speaking fees from
nonprofit and public universities raise questions about what the
universities (or some of their well-healed donors) might want from the
Clintons.

In the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton, their intersection with nonprofits
and foundations is hardly superficial. In her pre-candidacy days, Hillary
Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. She
was the first woman chairperson of the board of the national Legal Services
Corporation and also chaired the Children’s Defense Fund, founded and run
by civil rights activist Marion Wright Edelman. In philanthropy, she was a
board member and one-time chair of the New World Foundation, a prominent
funder of politically progressive of left-wing causes, and served on the
board of the Wal-Mart corporation, whose corporate practices and
philanthropic giving, generally the largest year upon year among all
corporations, have been subjected to sometimes sharp criticism from
political liberals.

In 1999, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton co-hosted the first-ever White
House conference on philanthropy, with an accompanying report that called
on foundations to do more for poor people and on wealthy people to give
more, particularly in comparison to the charitable generosity of American’s
poor and working classes. It was notable—and not just a bit humorous—when
President Clinton called for the wealthy classes, as a result of a huge
run-up in the stock market, to increase their charitable giving by at least
one percent of their income:

“As we’ve had this phenomenal increase in wealth in our country, I would
feel even better if the percentage of our national income devoted to
charitable giving had gone up just a little bit. You heard Hillary say what
we could do if we could just increase it by 1 percent,” the President said
at the program. “But going from 2 to 3 percent is a huge increase. We've
been sort of stuck at 2 percent. Now, when the stock market triples, 2
percent is a lot more than it used to be. That's not real pocket change;
it’s real money.”

We doubt that the irony of the president calling for a one-percent increase
in charitable giving with the backdrop of progressive foundations—like New
World—campaigning in conjunction with the National Network of Grantmakers
was due to a simple slip of the tongue on his part. He might have seemed to
be simply riffing, but having watched him before and after, we would
suggest that he knew exactly what he was doing. Ten years later, when
Clinton spoke at a Council of Foundations-sponsored program on rural
philanthropy and called out “foundation activity in rural America has been
woefully inadequate,” he knew exactly what he was saying then as well. In
both instances, the uncomfortable reactions of foundation CEOs in the room
were fun to watch, even if private foundations haven’t budged on their
defense of a five percent foundation payout (including related
administrative expenses) or appreciably increased their grantmaking to
rural America.

Now in charge of a very large foundation that is able to convene rich
people from around the world and tally up their commitments to Clinton
Foundation initiatives, both for international aid and for their domestic
and presidential library program priorities, Bill and Hillary Clinton know
their way around nonprofits and foundations to a degree probably unlike any
other White House occupants. Probably only the Obamas, given President
Obama’s past service on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago and First
Lady Michelle Obama’s numerous nonprofit connections, from the Chicago
office of Public Allies to her work as a vice president for the University
of Chicago hospital, compare in their personal nonprofit and philanthropic
engagements prior to Barack Obama’s election as president.

Bill and Hillary Clinton know nonprofits and foundations better than almost
any politician you will encounter. Their political advisors are dealing
with the controversial political optics of the massive speaking fees by
emphasizing the deposit of the fees to the Clinton’s family foundation as
opposed to the Clintons’ own pockets. But the concern about the Clintons’
speaking fees isn’t one of political image. It is more than, as some in the
press have intimated, a concern that the Clintons have become well
ensconced in the top one percent of the nation’s socio-economic elite,
aided and abetted by income from speaking fees.

The issue is that the philanthropic beneficiary of the speeches is a
foundation, structured as a public foundation but clearly synonymous with
and controlled by the Clinton family. Bill Clinton is arguably the most
powerful and influential political figure in the nation, in or out of
office. Unless her campaign tanks as it did in 2008, Hillary Clinton has an
awfully good shot of becoming President of the United States. Donors and
institutions that are paying them and their daughter huge sums for their
speeches may very well be buying recognition and face time with powerful
political leaders who they hope will be able to deliver political favors in
the future.

It is troubling when corporate donors give to political charities with a
more or less obvious expectation that softer and gentler treatment will
ensue in the future. It is also troubling when some of the payers are
public or nonprofit entities themselves such as colleges and universities,
converting taxpayer funds and tax-exempt donations into signals that could
end up in positive treatment when these institutions are themselves seeking
access and favors, even if it is only a good word put in by one of the
Clintons to a federal agency providing funding or to a regulator who might
be taking a critical look at university tuitions and endowment payouts. It
would be terribly disappointing to imagine that the colleges and
universities paying the Clintons these sums might be fronting, hopefully
unknowingly, for individual donors supporting these colleges’ lecture
series, but individually have personal or political agendas that would
benefit from being associated with an institution of higher education that
pays Bill or Hillary Clinton a couple of hundred thousand for a speech—even
if the money ends up in the Clintons’ family foundation.

In her 2008 Democratic primary campaign against Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton was resistant to calls to release the names of donors to the
Clinton Foundation. Obama got a leg up against her as the “transparency
candidate,” even go so far as to reveal, unlike Clinton, his senatorial
earmarks, including two that went to Public Allies and one that was a
request for $1 million for the University of Chicago hospital. In the
presidential arena, transparency and disclosure always helps. In 2014—and
as the presidential campaign for 2016 looms—Hillary Clinton should be doing
the same and, given some of the legitimate criticisms, thinking seriously
about the practice of taking large speaking fees from colleges and
universities and repurposing them for her family foundation.