Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary's Faulty Foundation?
Hillary's membership in "The Foundation" (or "The Family") is being brought to light on HuffPo today, and -- briefly -- it came to light on MSNBC, only to be snuffed out.
For now.
I don't know how to create a hyperlink in a word like other (younger) bloggers do, so forgive me for pasting a direct link to the first of at least three HuffPo blogs from today right here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-gans/a-new-divinely-ordained-p_b_93425.html
And please note that I commented to Lisa Gans that I find it very odd that:
Most other senatorial and representative leaders mentioned as being in this "Foundation" are Republicans.
Only two listed were Democrats.
One from Michigan.
One from Florida.
I find that fact to be almost as interesting as the "Foundation" itself.
Advertisement
Comments (12)
Lessee, the reason this organization is bad is because it's primarily men, and the reason we're hearing about it now is because Hillary's in it?
If she hopped across a stage pretending she was humping someone, would you then defend her?
Or was there supposed to be a point to this?
March 26, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No point that wouldn't be wasted on you.
You know, I was reflecting a bit about your post the other day and I realized something: You have as big a chip on your shoulder about sexism as Rev. Wright apparently does about racism. Maybe your problem with him isn't that he's got a chip on his shoulder so much as that it's the wrong chip.
Carry on.
March 26, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Desidero, it is tremendously important to know about these things.
After all, I want to know if I would have stay in that Fellowship of hers or if I would have left; if Coe would have been my spiritual mentor or not.
You don't choose your family, but you choose the people you pray with.
--------
The point is also to bring to light that she feels free to comment negatively on someone else's espiritual choices, yet refuses to answer questions about her own shady choices:
"Hillary Clinton has refused requests for interviews about her association with The Family."
To find out why "this organization is bad" read the full article slowly, for more clink on the links offered in the comments section.
March 26, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I told Jackie Robinson he shouldn't play with in the Majors - it's just a racist organization that doesn't allow blacks.
I told Thurgood Marshall he shouldn't join the Supreme Court - it's a racist group that never had any blacks on it.
Look, Washington is an old boys' club. Anything a woman has to do to work the power structure is fine by me unless she starts spouting Jerry Falwell lines as her own. As far as I'm concerned she's just business networking. If you're a minority member of Congress, you better find a way to talk to the majority if you want to accomplish something. When she starts going around saying how this group is her 2nd family, etc., call me. She did find long-term inspiration in a Methodist preacher from Chicago, Don Jones I believe. If you're interested in her spirituality, go poke around there. If you find the Fellowship or whatever really did something scandalous aside from oh-my-God-it-has-Republicans, call me. Otherwise I recommend a couple of Percocets and a whiskey shooter.
March 27, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is where you part company with the sane. I'm all for women in politics, but I can't condone supporting anyone at any cost. If the only way for women to get into politics is for them to ape the worst tendencies of those that are already power, then what's the point of getting them there? It's just affirmative action and it won't actually solve any problems. The country will still be just as screwed up, but with a different genitalia ratio in Washington. Sorry, but principles count and back-room theocracy is a hell of a lot more frightening than liberation theology.
March 27, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should also note that this line of reasoning is particularly ludicrous because there are some very respectable women in public service both in Washington and across the nation.
March 27, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
More whisper campaign to smear Sen. Clinton. Not surprising. Would love to hear someone from the Obama side here start posting something without reverting to form and bashing the crap out of Hillary.
March 26, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Louis,
We are hoping it goes beyond the whisper stage...
This is not about bashing Hillary; but the same scrutiny she pursues on others, shall follow her.
March 26, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here's a post that attacks neither - but is still quite useful - at least, I think it is. All Democrats can take pride in it.
March 26, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's no whisper campaign and it's no secret that she's been a part of these circles since coming to Washington in 1993. She's even given high praise to the current leader of the Fellowship, Douglas Coe. She also refuses to be interviewed about the topic. But these are facts and therefore none of your concern.
March 27, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, I believe that it is called the Fellowship. A guy by the name of Jeffrey Sharlet did a piece in Harper's about this a few years back:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
I think that anyone who has noticed Hillary Clinton's right-leaning tendencies and associations or who is concerned about the wider implications of back-room theocracy should be interested in this.
March 26, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, DF. I did get the name wrong. I also appreciate the new link (will read it right now) and your clear-headed comments.
March 27, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment