Subject: Media Matters For America Completely Debunks Maureen Dowd
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:40:26 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

Today, Media Matters For America *completely debunked* Maureen Dowd's claim
that "there's something unseemly" about Chelsea Clinton's Charity
Speeches. MMFA
highlighted a handful of things that Maureen Dowd deceitfully left out of
her *New York Times *column, including the fact that "100 percent of the
fees" Chelsea receives are "remitted directly to the foundation." See Media
Matters For America's response below, and Dowd's unscrupulous column below
that.

*Media Matters For America: NYT's Maureen Dowd: "There's Something
Unseemly" About Chelsea Clinton Charity Speeches
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/13/nyts-maureen-dowd-theres-something-unseemly-abo/200086>*

By Timothy Johnson
July 13th, 2014

*New York Times* columnist Maureen Dowd posited that there is "something
unseemly" about recent reports Chelsea Clinton gives speeches that raise up
to $75,000 per appearance for the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
Foundation.

A July 9 article
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/us/politics/chelsea-clinton-follows-parents-lead-as-a-paid-speaker.html?ref=us&_r=0>
 in* The Times* discussed Clinton's foray into public speaking appearances
on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.*The Times *quoted a Clinton
spokesperson who explained that "100 percent of the fees" Clinton receives
are "remitted directly to the foundation," and that "the majority of
Chelsea's speeches are unpaid." According to *The Times*, "Ms. Clinton's
speeches focus on causes like eradicating waterborne diseases." (The
Clinton Foundation's website says its mission
<http://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-presidential-center/about/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation>
is
"to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and
wellness, and protect the environment.")

In a July 13 column
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-isnt-it-rich.html?_r=0>,
Dowd took issue with Clinton's speaking arrangements, writing that the
former first daughter is "acting out in a sense now, joining her parents in
cashing in to help feed the rapacious, gaping maw of Clinton Inc." Dowd
also suggested that Clinton's speaking fee means she has "open[ed] herself
up to criticism that she is gobbling whopping paychecks not commensurate
with her skills, experience or role in life."

"There's something unseemly about it," Dowd continued, "making one wonder:
Why on earth is she worth that much money? Why, given her dabbling in
management consulting, hedge-funding and coattail-riding, is an hour of her
time valued at an amount that most Americans her age don't make in a year?"

Dowd also criticized a series of speeches
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/04/hillary-clinton-says-she-donated-all-money-from-college-speeches/>
Hillary
Clinton is delivering at colleges and universities, writing, "Hillary
doesn't see the disconnect between expressing grave concern about mounting
student loan debt while scarfing six-figure sums from at least eight
colleges, and counting. She says now that she's passing the university
money to the foundation but, never Ms. Transparency, has refused to provide
documentation of that."

Even after paying Clinton's fee, which she has noted goes to the Clinton
Foundation
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-says-her-college-speaking-feeds-went-to-the-clinton-foundation/2014/07/04/d4234918-039f-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html>,
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Foundation expects to profit
<https://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/unlv-foundation-clinton-fee-pencils-out>
from
an upcoming Hillary Clinton speech. Dowd failed to mention that point, or
the fact that the evidence-free claim that Clinton has not been truthful
about the donation of the fees comes from America Rising PAC
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/clinton-foundation-disclosures-108631.html>,
a Republican-aligned
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/02/america-rising-pac-relaunches-as-news-site-183542.html>
opposition
research outfit.

Dowd's criticisms of Chelsea and Hillary Clinton over speaking fees that
are donated to a charitable foundation are largely in line with Dowd's take
on Hillary Clinton over the years.

According to a June 18 *Media Matters
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/18/the-numbers-behind-maureen-dowds-21-year-long-c/199752>*
 report
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/18/the-numbers-behind-maureen-dowds-21-year-long-c/199752>,
72 percent of 195 columns authored by Dowd about Hillary Clinton since
November 1993 had a negative bent. Among the repetitious tropes used by
Dowd, she often accused Clinton of being an enemy to or betraying feminism
(35 columns, 18 percent of those studied), power-hungry (51 columns, 26
percent), unlikeable (9 columns, 5 percent), or phony (34 columns, 17
percent).

*NYT: Maureen Dowd: Isn’t It Rich?
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-isnt-it-rich.html>*

By Maureen Dowd

July 12th, 2014

WASHINGTON — CHELSEA CLINTON never acted out during the eight years she
came of age as America’s first daughter.

No ditching of her Secret Service detail. No fake IDs for underage
tippling. No drug scandal. No court appearance in tank top and toe ring.
Not even any dirty dancing.

Despite a tough role as the go-between in the highly public and
embarrassing marital contretemps of her parents, Chelsea stayed classy.

So it’s strange to see her acting out in a sense now, joining her parents
in cashing in to help feed the rapacious, gaping maw of Clinton Inc.

With her 1 percenter mother under fire for disingenuously calling herself
“dead broke” when she left the White House, why would Chelsea want to open
herself up to criticism that she is gobbling whopping paychecks not
commensurate with her skills, experience or role in life?

As the 34-year-old tries to wean some of the cronies from the Clinton
Foundation — which is, like the Clintons themselves, well-intended,
wasteful and disorganized — Chelsea is making speeches that go into
foundation coffers. She is commanding, as The Times’s Amy Chozick reported,
up to $75,000 per appearance.

Chozick wrote: “Ms. Clinton’s speeches focus on causes like eradicating
waterborne diseases. (‘I’m obsessed with diarrhea’ is a favorite line.)”

There’s something unseemly about it, making one wonder: Why on earth is she
worth that much money? Why, given her dabbling in management consulting,
hedge-funding and coattail-riding, is an hour of her time valued at an
amount that most Americans her age don’t make in a year? (Median household
income in the United States is $53,046.)

If she really wants to be altruistic, let her contribute the money to some
independent charity not designed to burnish the Clinton name as her mother
ramps up to return to the White House and as she herself drops a
handkerchief about getting into politics.

Or let her speak for free. After all, she is in effect going to candidate
school. No need to get paid for it, too.

There was disgust over Politico’s revelation that before she switched to a
month-to-month contract, Chelsea was getting wildly overpaid at $600,000
annually — or over $25,000 per minute on air — for a nepotistic job as a
soft-focus correspondent for NBC News.

Chelsea is still learning the answer to a question she asked when she
interviewed the Geico gecko: “Is there a downside to all this fame?”

The Clintons keep acting as though all they care about is selfless public
service. So why does it keep coming back to gross money grabs? It’s gone
from two-for-the-price-of-one to three-for-the-price-of-20.

Hillary’s book — which feels like something she got at Ikea and had someone
put together — is drooping because it was more about the estimated $13
million advance and the campaign ramp-up than the sort of intriguing
self-examination and political excavations found in the memoirs of Timothy
Geithner and Bob Gates. If she had had something to say, the book might
have been shorter.

Hillary doesn’t see the disconnect between expressing grave concern about
mounting student loan debt while scarfing six-figure sums from at least
eight colleges, and counting. She says now that she’s passing the
university money to the foundation but, never Ms. Transparency, has refused
to provide documentation of that. (She’s still pocketing other huge fees
for speeches like her April talk in Las Vegas to the Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries.)

Chozick estimated that the lucrative family speechmaking business has
generated more than $100 million for the former president and first lady,
whose fees range from $200,000 to $700,000 per appearance. Bill alone
earned $17 million last year doing what he likes to do best — talking.

“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,” Rick Cohen writes in The National
Philanthropy Quarterly, adding: “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.”

The Clintons were fiercely protective of Chelsea when she was a teenager,
insisting on respect from the media and getting it. They need to protect
their daughter again, this time from their wanton acquisitiveness.