The Economist: Bill and Hillary Inc.
“An obvious question is what ancillary benefits donors thought they were getting, and here the Clintons’ sloppy approach to conflicts of interest is evident, with the three pillars of their activities—public, private and charitable—colliding. Donors to the foundation attempted to get, and on occasion may have got, favours from Mrs Clinton while she was secretary of state. Most of these requests appear to have been for meetings with her. There was a flow of communication between donors, aides and Mrs Clinton’s government office.” I’ll note that The Economist basically endorses Hillary as the only choice this election. But they’re keeping their eye on her, as evidenced by this article. Hillary supporters won’t like it, but they cannot call it misogynist (the overuse of which, I should mention, is not changing behaviors but quietly and productively driving male voters over to Trump). I don’t fault her for making speeches - I know the industry. Make hay while the sun shines. But that last sentence in the pullquote above bothers me, and I’ve made no bones about it. The Clintons are supposedly smart people. The only conclusion I can draw is, they never really seriously planned for Hillary to do a national run. They experimented all along the way, to see where the roadblocks would occur, and never changed their other long-range plans laid down after Bill left office. Now they have to do the fast-shuffle. “Nothing to see here, just move along!” isn’t going to work.