Subject: Correct The Record Monday February 23, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:07:58 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday February 23, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> was an original co-sponsor of the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-fighter-for-equal-pay/ …
<http://t.co/VtaG1Gs8sy> cc @FreeBeacon <https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon>
 [2/23/15, 12:52 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569917619433639936>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act
in 2005 and 2007:
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-fighter-for-equal-pay/ …
<http://t.co/VtaG1GaxB0> cc @FreeBeacon <https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon>
 [2/23/15, 12:34 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569913095314919424>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: #ICYMI
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ICYMI?src=hash> .@ATBarnhill
<https://twitter.com/ATBarnhill>: "Clinton’s message resonates with
millennials"
http://www.hpenews.com/opinion/x1707095788/Guest-Column-Clinton-s-message-resonates-with-millennials
…
<http://t.co/jClpK4mEAI> via @HPenterpriseESP
<https://twitter.com/HPenterpriseESP> [2/23/15, 9:07 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569861023634563073>]

*Headlines:*

*The Week column: Marc Ambinder, editor-at-large: “Hillary doesn't need the
press the way the press needs Hillary”
<http://theweek.com/articles/540552/hillary-doesnt-need-press-way-press-needs-hillary>*

“Here's what I predict: The Clinton campaign will use the press
instrumentally. This will frustrate them.”

*U.S. News & World Report column: columnist Jamie Stiehm: “Clinton and
Streep, Still at the Top”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-stiehm/2015/02/23/hillary-clinton-and-meryl-streep-still-at-the-top-of-their-game>*

[Subtitle:] “The potential presidential hopeful and the actress are both
revolutionary and show no signs of stopping.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Why Voters Don’t Want the ‘New
Hillary’ or the ‘New Jeb’”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/23/why-voters-dont-want-the-new-hillary-or-the-new-jeb/>*

“The two candidates most mentioned for 2016, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush,
have solid credentials in this area–but that is not what they are
communicating.”

*Great Falls Tribune: “Movies, Schweitzer, Jeb versus Hillary”
<http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/opinion/tribune-editorials/2015/02/21/movies-schweitzer-jeb-versus-hillary/23786253/>*

“Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has been mentioned in the national
media as a possible Democratic candidate for president in 2016. But he told
the Tribune this week he has no plans to run for the nation’s highest
office.”

*Washington Times: “Hillary Clinton, as senator, paid women 72 cents on
every dollar paid to men: report”
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/23/hillary-clinton-as-senator-paid-women-72-cents-on-/>*

“During her time as senator of New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton paid her
female staffers 72 cents for every dollar she paid men, according to a new
Washington Free Beacon report.”

*MassLive: In past, Senator Warren sent fundraising email on behalf of
Clinton Foundation
<http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/senator-elect_elizabeth_warren_3.html>*

“Earlier this month, Warren sent out a fundraising email on behalf of the
Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic foundation run by former President
Bill Clinton. Clinton sent an email and recorded robo-calls on Warren’s
behalf during the campaign.” [12/24/12]

*New York Times: First Draft: “Republican ‘Super PAC’ Takes Aim at Hillary
Clinton”
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/23/republican-super-pac-takes-aim-at-hillary-clinton/>*

"Ms. Warren has been featured in Crossroads videos before, although
normally in a more negative context. In June, the group called her
'President Obama’s biggest fan' and a 'war on coal enthusiast' in an attack
ad against Alison Lundergan Grimes, a Senate candidate in Kentucky."

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “How Elizabeth Warren might be Republicans’
best weapon against Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/23/its-hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-in-a-new-conservative-ad/?tid=sm_tw_pp>*

“An actual Elizabeth Warren versus Hillary Clinton match-up seems unlikely,
but a new web ad by the conservative super PAC American Crossroads proves
that Warren might just be a potent Republican weapon against Clinton come
2016.”

*CNN: “GOP seeks to make Clinton Foundation a 2016 headache”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/23/politics/clinton-foundation-2016-trouble/>*

"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a major Clinton surrogate and early backer,
said in an interview with the Washington Post this weekend that the
negative press surrounding foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation
wasn't a very big problem for the potential presidential contender. 'If the
biggest attack on Hillary's going to be that she raised too much money for
her charity, okay, I'll take that,' he said. 'No one's alleging anything
beyond that she raised money and people gave her money and foreign
governments gave her money. At the end of the day, that's fine. It went to
a charity. It helped a lot of people.'"

*Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board: “Hillary’s ethics: Clinton
foundation should return foreign gifts”
<http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/02/23/Hillary-s-ethics-Clinton-foundation-should-return-foreign-gifts/stories/201502280040>*

"The Arkansas-based foundation has done nothing illegal by accepting
millions of dollars from countries that include Germany, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar and Oman, and it touts its “integrity” and “transparency” in
disclosing its donors on its website. Ms. Clinton also has not formally
declared her candidacy."

*Articles:*

*The Week column: Marc Ambinder, editor-at-large: “Hillary doesn't need the
press the way the press needs Hillary”
<http://theweek.com/articles/540552/hillary-doesnt-need-press-way-press-needs-hillary>*

By Marc Ambinder

February 23, 2015

Until the Republicans decide on their nominee, Hillary Clinton's most
dogged critics will be the detachment of top reporters covering her
campaign. They include the indefatigable Maggie Haberman of The New York
Times, Anne Gearan of The Washington Post, and an army of rapid scribes at
Buzzfeed. Soon, they'll be joined by campaign reporters for the big five TV
news networks, and details from every publication that can get away with
the expense of following a candidate around.

The tenor of Clinton's interaction with this relatively small group of
people will determine how the outer atmospheres of the media ecosystem
cover the story. So it stands to reason that Clinton, who has never had
comfortable relations with the media, will have to somehow open herself up.

I don't think that's the right way to look at her strategy, though.

As someone who has already crossed the presidential qualification threshold
for most Americans, been through two decades of battle testing, and
survived some of the most embarrassing public humiliations one can endure,
Clinton has one fairly simple goal for the next year and a quarter: keep
tight control of her public brand. Suffice it to say, other than the
(admittedly important and healthy) principle of transparency, Clinton has
no reason to run a campaign that directly affords reporters any significant
access to her campaign and her brain.

The political press has already bared fangs. They're goading her to be more
inclusive of their interests. This is a hard sell.

Clinton, as Glenn Thrush noted, has a "pessimistic resignation" about the
presence and function of the campaign press corps. She does not at all
believe that political reporters, per se, are essential. She will not give
them the satisfaction of dehumanizing her, as she herself put it, once
again. Becoming John McCain in 2000 would not serve the interests of
Clinton at all. Clinton doesn't need the press to build her up or
communicate with voters — she'll do that on her own, with ads, videos, and
SuperPACs, and has done that, by being a national figure for so long — but
as a way to influence the stories concocted by the larger influencers, the
commentators, analysts, pundits, and humorists, who often, in turn, seed
the writers at the late night show with jokes, and then give Saturday Night
Live ideas for sketches. Scott Walker needs the press for oxygen; Clinton,
for an anti-oxidant boost every once in a while.

Here's what I predict:

The Clinton campaign will use the press instrumentally. This will frustrate
them. First, she'll close up. There will be protests and articles about
Clinton's penchant for secrecy and her alleged lack of authenticity. So,
under the guise of improving press relations, there will come a point where
Clinton seems to give more press conferences, or she lets the cameras come
closer, but this will be for show; it will be for the reporters' own
benefit, so they can write stories about how Clinton became more accessible.

Good news for us, though: The reporters covering Clinton are going to find
ways to draw her out anyway, because they're really good, they'll give her
no quarter, and they'll provide a good source of accountability tension
until Walker (or whomever) emerges from the maelstrom.

*U.S. News & World Report column: columnist Jamie Stiehm: “Clinton and
Streep, Still at the Top”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-stiehm/2015/02/23/hillary-clinton-and-meryl-streep-still-at-the-top-of-their-game>*

By Jamie Stiehm

February 23, 2015, 11:05 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The potential presidential hopeful and the actress are both
revolutionary and show no signs of stopping.

Hearing my Bostonian friend on Hillary Clinton gave me pause. “She
energizes the base,” he said. “The Republican base.”

But the Academy Awards gave me a flash of female intuition: Clinton will
yet win the leading role at the end of the day – or night – of 2016. Trust
me. Better yet, consider this.

Hillary Clinton and Meryl Streep are almost the same person. Almost the
same age. Clinton went to Wellesley and Streep went to Vassar in the same
generation in the 1960s. They each stood out in their classes, and the
young Hillary Rodham gave the class of ’69 commencement speech, a call to
arms for new ways of seeing and shaping society. The Seven Sisters College
graduates then went to highly competitive – and male – Yale for law school
and drama school.

Here’s the thing: Clinton and Streep belonged to the first wave to directly
benefit from the women’s movement that took hold in the earth-shaking years
of the '60s. As gifted as they are, they stood on the shoulders of that
movement. Gates opened in higher education, employment and the law of the
land. If there is any rhyme and reason in the American story, theirs is the
revolutionary generation that will produce the first woman president.

In their mid-60s, Clinton and Streep are still the creme de la creme of
their professions and remain at the peak of their tremendous talents. They
never lost their determination and they kept showing up, building a body of
work. They each played the most amazing and revolutionary roles on their
chosen stages.

Performance art is part of Clinton’s skill set, too, as first lady under
duress and as secretary of state paying good-will calls 'round the world
for the president who beat her in a close race. Give her this: She’s a
sport.

Patience becomes both leading ladies. After “Sophie’s Choice,” Streep
waited for years, even decades, to win her second major Oscar, for the next
century to come along. At last, she was recently recognized for her
portrayal of “The Iron Lady.” (The actress was nominated for her supporting
role in “Into the Woods” last night, but did not win.)

My reply to my Bostonian friend is to say that everything Clinton has done
in her life, she has done well, from Wellesley to Little Rock to the Senate
and so on. Contrary to the assertions of pundits like George Will, the
Clinton marriage has stayed together, unlike the moralizing Gores. She does
have one stain on her Senate record, though. Clinton’s short-sighted vote
for the Iraq War authorization hurt and cut against her in running for
president in 2008. She took several years to admit she got it wrong.
Apologizing does not come easily to her, nor to most of us.

But Clinton, like Streep, has prepared so well for the ultimate role. She
knows her lines. She knows all the players on the world stage. Her
character is no mystery, like President Barack Obama’s was when he ran in
2008. We’ve been watching her like a hawk since 1992, through so many
dramas and hairdos. No doubt, she's battle-tested and ready for the job in
the Oval Office.

The question is whether we the people are ready to welcome a strong woman
into the pantheon of presidents.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Why Voters Don’t Want the ‘New
Hillary’ or the ‘New Jeb’”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/23/why-voters-dont-want-the-new-hillary-or-the-new-jeb/>*

By Peter D. Hart, founder of Peter D. Hart Research Associates, helps
conduct the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll

February 23, 2015, 12:46 p.m. EST

By my reading of polls and other reporting, the public is looking for
elected officials and leaders of industry to find compromise and make
things work. The two candidates most mentioned for 2016, Hillary Clinton
and Jeb Bush, have solid credentials in this area–but that is not what they
are communicating.

As each attempts to “climb to the top of the greasy pole,” they should be
conveying the essence of who they are rather than creating a personage they
think the public wants. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated in her work as
secretary of state and as a U.S. senator that she knows how to forge
consensus with foreign leaders and with politicians on both sides of the
aisle. Mr. Bush, too, seems adept at working across the aisle and looking
around the corner on public policy issues.

Yet as they approach whether to officially run in 2016, both are moving
toward convenient posturing: telling the public what they think people want
to hear instead of what they are actually about. For Mr. Bush, this
includes trotting out faces of the GOP foreign policy past to give him
credentials for the foreign policy of tomorrow. For Mrs. Clinton, it
involves hiring two sensational marketing professionals to capture her
“authenticity.”

During focus groups and poll research, I hear voters’ cry for leaders to
break away from the “old” Washington and to create something different. In
the food world, the preference is growing to replace artificiality with
natural products. The political world will not be far behind. Voters don’t
want the “New Hillary” or “New Jeb”–they want the real thing. Consensus and
compromise are key, not artifice and affectation.

*Great Falls Tribune: “Movies, Schweitzer, Jeb versus Hillary”
<http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/opinion/tribune-editorials/2015/02/21/movies-schweitzer-jeb-versus-hillary/23786253/>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

February 20, 2015, 10:22 p.m. MST

Motion pictures had no banner year in 2014, but there was still plenty of
money to be made in the film industry — even at drive-in movie theaters.

This month, the U.S. Census Bureau provided For example, the United States’
motion picture and video industry receipts totaled $81 billion in 2012.

Indoor movie theaters numbered 4,561 in 2012, with 129,533 employees and a
payroll of $1.4 billion,. At the same time, the country surprisingly
retained 254 drive-in theaters, with a mere 1,449 employees. Drive-ins
peaked in the country in 1958 with about 3,750 outdoor theaters.

Fewer than 10 percent of the indoor movie theaters showed a foreign film in
2012, the Census Bureau said.

To be sure, movies remain big business. But money isn’t everything. Some
critics have bemoaned the lack of great films in recent years and a
plethora of movies based upon comic books. But then along comes a bitingly
clever “Birdman” or a unique flick, “Boyhood,” filmed over more than a
decade, to make movie-goers and critics feel better.

The Academy Awards will take place tomorrow night, when the best films and
performances of the year are honored.

Bumper Snicker

“Minds are like parachutes

They only function when open”

— Seen on a white Subaru legacy with Cascade County plates at Van’s IGA on
10th Avenue South

He’s not running

Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has been mentioned in the national
media as a possible Democratic candidate for president in 2016. But he told
the Tribune this week he has no plans to run for the nation’s highest
office. Schweitzer still has plenty of opinions, however. He wrote an
op-ed, published Friday on the Two Cents page, slamming the group Americans
for Prosperity for its stand against Medicaid expansion.

Matchup in 2016

Tribune Viewpoints Editor Rich Ecke offers this prediction for 2016, based
upon recent polls: Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for
president, and Jeb Bush will gain the Republican nod. That’s right: It will
be Clinton versus Bush again.

And the election result? Clinton will win, Ecke adds, because the public
won’t be able to resist electing the first woman as president, just as they
couldn’t resist electing Barack Obama as the first black president.

You heard it here first.

Coming up

Watch the Two Cents page on Sunday, March 1, for information about a
reorganization of the Tribune’s news staff. There will be new beats for
reporters, new titles for editors and a greater emphasis on the Tribune’s
24-hour website, www.gftrib.com. Publisher and Editor Jim Strauss will
outline the changes in an accompanying column.

*Washington Times: “Hillary Clinton, as senator, paid women 72 cents on
every dollar paid to men: report”
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/23/hillary-clinton-as-senator-paid-women-72-cents-on-/>*

By Jessica Chasmer

February 23, 2015

During her time as senator of New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton paid her
female staffers 72 cents for every dollar she paid men, according to a new
Washington Free Beacon report.

From 2002 to 2008, the median annual salary for Mrs. Clinton’s female
staffers was $15,708.38 less than what was paid to men, the report said.
Women earned a slightly higher median salary than men in 2005, coming in at
$1.04. But in 2006, they earned 65 cents for each dollar men earned, and in
2008, they earned only 63 cents on the dollar, The Free Beacon reported.

The paper’s analysis excluded the salaries of employees who were not part
of Mrs. Clinton’s office for a full fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 toSept.
30, and Mrs. Clinton’s first year as senator, which began Jan. 3, 2001, was
also not included for that reason.

Mrs. Clinton has spoken against wage inequality in the past. In April, she
ironically tweeted that “20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to
men. Today it’s still just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay
#NoCeilings.”

*MassLive: In past, Senator Warren sent fundraising email on behalf of
Clinton Foundation
<http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/senator-elect_elizabeth_warren_3.html>*

“Earlier this month, Warren sent out a fundraising email on behalf of the
Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic foundation run by former President
Bill Clinton. Clinton sent an email and recorded robo-calls on Warren’s
behalf during the campaign.” [12/24/12]

*New York Times: First Draft: “Republican ‘Super PAC’ Takes Aim at Hillary
Clinton”
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/23/republican-super-pac-takes-aim-at-hillary-clinton/>*

By Nick Corasaniti

February 23, 2015, 11:10 a.m. EST

Republican groups are not waiting for Hillary Rodham Clinton to announce
her campaign for president to begin attacking it.

The latest example: a cut-for-television ad from American Crossroads, the
Republican “super PAC,” criticizing the Clinton Foundation for taking money
from foreign governments, after an article in The Wall Street Journal
raised questions about the practice.

[VIDEO]

The voice in the ad reads statements made by Senator Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts, who has said repeatedly that she will not run for president
in 2016. Yet, as some on the left still try to draft Ms. Warren into the
race, Republicans are also delighting in the possibility, real or imagined,
of a challenge to Mrs. Clinton from the party’s more liberal wing.

Ms. Warren has been featured in Crossroads videos before, although normally
in a more negative context. In June, the group called her “President
Obama’s biggest fan” and a “war on coal enthusiast” in an attack ad against
Alison Lundergan Grimes, a Senate candidate in Kentucky.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “How Elizabeth Warren might be Republicans’
best weapon against Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/23/its-hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-in-a-new-conservative-ad/?tid=sm_tw_pp>*

By Nia-Malika Henderson

February 23, 2015 11:28 a.m. EST

An actual Elizabeth Warren versus Hillary Clinton match-up seems unlikely,
but a new web ad by the conservative super PAC American Crossroads proves
that Warren might just be a potent Republican weapon against Clinton come
2016.

Called "Rigged," the ad uses Warren's voice to criticize Clinton for taking
money from foreign governments for her family foundation. “Powerful
interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their
favor. The power of well-funded special interests tilts our democracy away
from the people and toward the powerful,” Warren says, as images of Clinton
meeting with Middle Eastern leaders appear on screen. "The power of
well-funded special interests tilt our democracy away from the people and
toward the powerful." Ominous music is included, natch.

What makes the ad so effective is Warren's voice; nobody on the political
scene right now is better at populist messaging than Warren, which is why
progressives are so eager to see her run.

It's a smart way to turn Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and her
charity work into a liability, which will be central to the Republican
strategy against Clinton.  I've written before about how Clinton's vast
record is both an opportunity and a challenge, and this ad speaks to that
in some ways--she wears a few hats in the ad as government official, head
of a charitable organization and enemy of progressives.

So, does who does it help and hurt most?  Well, it certainly helps Warren
as it crystallizes her role as the best person to make the case against
Clinton, even if she does it just from her Senate seat.  Of course, Clinton
is working like heck to keep tjat criticism to a minimum including a huddle
at her house late last year.

Aside from Warren, framing Clinton as in the pocket of foreign interests is
a win for Republicans  -- if they can make it stick.  It muddles her record
at State, hurting her experience argument. Progressives won't likely jump
ship and vote for the Republican nominee, of course, but showing Clinton as
just another politician blunts her claim to being a different kind of
candidate with a different kind of resume. Rather than being someone who
has taken on the old-boys network, she comes across as overly political,
the image of her that is the least appealing to the 2016 electorate.

[Video]

*CNN: “GOP seeks to make Clinton Foundation a 2016 headache”
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/23/politics/clinton-foundation-2016-trouble/>*

By Alexandra Jaffe

February 23, 2015, 11:08 a.m. EST

Hillary Clinton's allies are insisting controversial donations to her
eponymous foundation won't be an issue for her probable presidential bid —
but Republicans are already working to prove them wrong.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a major Clinton surrogate and early backer,
said in an interview with the Washington Post this weekend that the
negative press surrounding foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation
wasn't a very big problem for the potential presidential contender.

"If the biggest attack on Hillary's going to be that she raised too much
money for her charity, okay, I'll take that," he said. "No one's alleging
anything beyond that she raised money and people gave her money and foreign
governments gave her money. At the end of the day, that's fine. It went to
a charity. It helped a lot of people."

Over the past two weeks, multiple media outlets have shined a spotlight on
the Clinton Foundation's fundraising activities, noting that the
foundation's contributions from foreign governments increased after Clinton
left her position as secretary of State and a ban on such contributions was
lifted.

And though McAuliffe insists they won't impact her likely campaign,
Republicans wasted no time in turning the reports into a hard-hitting
attack video that contrasted Clinton with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth
Warren — the preferred presidential contender of the liberal left.

The video, from GOP outside group American Crossroads, features shots of
Clinton with foreign leaders — mostly from the Middle East — along with
headlines from press reports about foreign contributions to the foundation.

"Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in
their favor. The power of well-funded special interests tilts our democracy
away from the people and towards the powerful," Warren's voiceover declares.

The voiceover concludes: "Action is required to defend our great Democracy
against those that would see it perverted into one more rigged game where
the rich and the powerful always win."

Neither Clinton's nor Warren's office responded to request for comment on
the Crossroads video. The Clinton Foundation declined to comment.

While Warren has repeatedly said she won't run for president, progressives
remain dissatisfied with Clinton for her close ties to Wall Street, and the
Clinton Foundation press is likely to contribute to their unease with the
probable candidate. They hold out hope that if they continue to nudge her
into the race, she'll eventually change her mind.

Still, Clinton retains a huge double-digit lead of the Democratic field in
every survey of the race, and no credible Democratic primary challengers
have yet stepped up to the plate.

*Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board: “Hillary’s ethics: Clinton
foundation should return foreign gifts”
<http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/02/23/Hillary-s-ethics-Clinton-foundation-should-return-foreign-gifts/stories/201502280040>*

By The Editorial Board

February 23, 2015, 12:00 a.m. EST

Donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation include Hollywood
stars, Farmers Insurance and the H.J. Heinz Co. Foundation. They also
include the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates, creating a sticky
ethical bog for Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democrat considers a possible
run for president in 2016.

The Arkansas-based foundation has done nothing illegal by accepting
millions of dollars from countries that include Germany, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar and Oman, and it touts its “integrity” and “transparency” in
disclosing its donors on its website. Ms. Clinton also has not formally
declared her candidacy.

But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right, and Ms. Clinton
treads too close to a dangerous line if she does intend to run. After a
Wall Street Journal report last week, the foundation says it is
“rethinking” foreign donations. Thirty seconds of thinking is too much. The
foundation should not accept donations from foreign countries, and it
should return the millions it received from governments in 2014.

The Clintons themselves acknowledged the potential for compromised ethics
when they stopped accepting such contributions in 2009 when Ms. Clinton
became secretary of state. At that time, the foundation didn’t even bear
her name. It added Ms. Clinton and her daughter — and again began to accept
money from other nations — after Ms. Clinton left the State Department in
2013.

Hillary Clinton and her favor may not be for sale, but when the number of
foreign governments donating to a potential presidential candidate’s
foundation doubles as the U.S. primary season approaches, the good that the
organization does can be obscured by the frantically waving red flags that
the Clintons pretend not to see. That lousy vision is troubling in itself.