Perhaps this may be a question that ends up in GD, but I’ll leave it to the mods to decide. I wanted to elicit some** factual evidence** that may shed light on the views the general U.S. population regarding the William J. Clinton Foundation. What I am looking for is poll information, commentaries, and awards/recognitions that may shed light on the reception of this foundation by both political parties. The stated focus areas of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) are the following: 1.) Energy and Climate Change, 2.) Global Public Health 3.) Poverty Alleviation, 4.) Mitigating Religious and Ethnic Conflict. With the exception of the first focus area, it seems like there would be little political controversy over what appears to be genuine humanitarian efforts by Mr. Hillary Clinton’s foundation. It appears from the Wikipedia entry for the foundation that Laura Bush has worked with this group, and the work that GHW Bush and Bill Clinton (and his foundation) did with tsunami relief were genuinely apolitical efforts. Contrast the post-Administration work of Clinton with that of Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth is widely criticized for being politically-charged and would be a significant talking point were he ever to run for political office again. It appears highly likely that Hillary will be on the Democratic ticket in '08. So my questions are: 1.) Does the American public have any opinion on the WJC Foundation whatsoever? Specifically, do conservatives regard the foundation’s work as being worthwhile and worthy of support and recognition? 2.) Are there any endeavors that the WJC Foundation has embarked upon that are controversial to the point that they may be political liabilities for Hillary? Energy and Climate Change maybe? 3.) Will American’s opinion of the WJC Foundation have any bearing on Hillary’s run at all? I want this discussion to focus on the work of the foundation itself, not the man Bill Clinton, and to provide a median characterisation of the foundation, if one exists. I fully expect that Hillary will draw upon the work that the foundation has been involved with in her stump speeches, and I’d like to tease out the political implications of her doing so. Thank you, and I apologize if this has already been discussed in detail.
This one is certainly gonna be a Great Debate, but you can get your factual answers there as well as General Questions. Moved.
samclem GQ moderator
What the hell, I’ll say “asset”.
I don’t think the general public has much knowledge or interest in the WJC Foundation. So that would be an eh.
He has a foundation?
At the moment, I would tend to agree — I had barely heard of the organization, and I’m probably far more politically aware than most of the Teeming Millions.
I think whether it becomes an asset or liability to Hillary Clinton (assuming she is part of the next election cycle) will depend on who first brings it into the TM’s consciousness. Whoever does that will get to define it to the public; and like it or not, for the past I-don’t-know-how-long (at least since 1968), the GOP has been wiping the Democrats’ floor when it comes to “definitions.”
Actually, it’s been in the news a lot recently: every time Bill does something about AIDS, it’s involving this foundation. He’s recently been doing something to try to help with drug costs in third world nations.
I have heard of that.
I’ve also heard of the Global Initiative, there was a meeting in NYC last summerish. Course, that’s mostly cause I think Richard Branson is made of pure awesomesauce.
And, of course, the whole Tsunami Relief thing him and HW did.
But that’s his work. Not Hillary’s.
How could those be political liabilities for Hillary? No climate-change skeptic would vote for her anyway.
It’s been all over the shortwave news (yeah, I know, who listens to that? Expats in African villages apparently). He’s negoiated for cheaper “tier 2” AIDS drugs for developing nations. I don’t know much about the details, but it seems like a pretty big deal for the people involved.
Ditto. I’m a Dem and a political junkie, and I’m only barely aware that the WJC Foundation exists; I know nothing about what it’s said/done/published/etc.
Mostly an “eh.” I’d read an article about the Foundation a year or two ago but hadn’t thought much about it since. Since I think it’s mostly about hitting up big-name donors for good works around the globe, it’s off the radar screen of the average American and both political parties. The only way I can see it making a splash is if it makes a grant to a controversial NGO, which in turn causes some problems for Hillary’s presidential campaign. Seems unlikely, though.