I am currently reading Dough Henwood's hatchet job on Hillary.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Turn-Hillary-Clinton-Presidency-ebook/dp/B01B6GJQLA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454498287&sr=8-1&keywords=doug+henwood
Why do I do this? I like to know what the other side says as well.
Henwood's book-I'm close to half way done now-is best summed up in one word: uncharitable.
Indeed, he maybe says one thing nice about her-he says she swears like a sailor and he agrees that's a nice thing about her.
Actually I did find the anecdote he gave pretty charming: back in the 70s when she was on the Watergate Committee, a friend laughed at her saying Bill would become President and she answered 'He's going to be President of the United States, asshole!'
Henwood's book is over all impressionistic. It's case against her looks at many of the old bugaboos like Whitewater. the Rose Law firm, etc.
He talks a lot about her Wall St. contacts. He talks a lot about Clinton's Cash by the right wing consultant Peter Schweitzer.
He wants to argue that it's not fair for Clinton folks to simply dismiss CC because the author wrote a book for clear biased political motives-like the Benghazi Committee, to bring down her poll numbers.
While it's true that just because Schweitzer is clearly biased doesn't mean his account is wrong. But he has a history of inaccurate reporting so that you have to at least treat him with skepticism.
And at the end of the day, Henwood and Schweitzer both have to admit that they have no proof whatsoever that Hillary in anyway used her position as Secretary of State to advance the interests of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Henwood makes much of various wealthy people and interests who have donated to CGI and the number of foreigners.
But it is called a global initiative for a reason. He never even acknowledges that the CGI does a lot of great philanthropic work the world over. He focuses more on all the rick people donating, ignoring that this is how a charity like this works. You have rich people contribute to philanthropic ends.
Hendwood spends very little time on her time as Senator. According to him the only thing she did while there was vote for the Iraq War and get along with Republicans which show she's a Republican.
Her voting record doesn't show this.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
A big part of the book is documenting how rich HRC and Bill now are although he does admit that they weren't born wealthy unlike the Bushes-which is why the Clinton dynasty is at least merit based-my description obviously, not Henwood's.
He then mentions that Democratic Presidents have been richer on average than Republicans.
That's actually a good point. If Democratic Presidents tend to be richer, Republican Presidents advance the interests of the rich much more-tax cuts and deregulation.
FDR was as close as you get to American aristocracy, and obviously no one has a more impressive record than him.
Henwoo'd case against HRC then, is much more 'character based'-as attacks on the Clintons always are than issue based.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Turn-Hillary-Clinton-Presidency-ebook/dp/B01B6GJQLA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454498287&sr=8-1&keywords=doug+henwood
Why do I do this? I like to know what the other side says as well.
Henwood's book-I'm close to half way done now-is best summed up in one word: uncharitable.
Indeed, he maybe says one thing nice about her-he says she swears like a sailor and he agrees that's a nice thing about her.
Actually I did find the anecdote he gave pretty charming: back in the 70s when she was on the Watergate Committee, a friend laughed at her saying Bill would become President and she answered 'He's going to be President of the United States, asshole!'
Henwood's book is over all impressionistic. It's case against her looks at many of the old bugaboos like Whitewater. the Rose Law firm, etc.
He talks a lot about her Wall St. contacts. He talks a lot about Clinton's Cash by the right wing consultant Peter Schweitzer.
He wants to argue that it's not fair for Clinton folks to simply dismiss CC because the author wrote a book for clear biased political motives-like the Benghazi Committee, to bring down her poll numbers.
While it's true that just because Schweitzer is clearly biased doesn't mean his account is wrong. But he has a history of inaccurate reporting so that you have to at least treat him with skepticism.
And at the end of the day, Henwood and Schweitzer both have to admit that they have no proof whatsoever that Hillary in anyway used her position as Secretary of State to advance the interests of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Henwood makes much of various wealthy people and interests who have donated to CGI and the number of foreigners.
But it is called a global initiative for a reason. He never even acknowledges that the CGI does a lot of great philanthropic work the world over. He focuses more on all the rick people donating, ignoring that this is how a charity like this works. You have rich people contribute to philanthropic ends.
Hendwood spends very little time on her time as Senator. According to him the only thing she did while there was vote for the Iraq War and get along with Republicans which show she's a Republican.
Her voting record doesn't show this.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
A big part of the book is documenting how rich HRC and Bill now are although he does admit that they weren't born wealthy unlike the Bushes-which is why the Clinton dynasty is at least merit based-my description obviously, not Henwood's.
He then mentions that Democratic Presidents have been richer on average than Republicans.
That's actually a good point. If Democratic Presidents tend to be richer, Republican Presidents advance the interests of the rich much more-tax cuts and deregulation.
FDR was as close as you get to American aristocracy, and obviously no one has a more impressive record than him.
Henwoo'd case against HRC then, is much more 'character based'-as attacks on the Clintons always are than issue based.
No comments:
Post a Comment