September 30, 2013

Charles Ferguson bails out of the planned documentary on on Hillary Clinton because "nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film."

"Not Democrats, not Republicans -- and certainly nobody who works with the Clintons, wants access to the Clintons, or dreams of a position in a Hillary Clinton administration."
Not even journalists who want access, which can easily be taken away. I even sensed potential difficulty in licensing archival footage from CBN (Pat Robertson) and from Fox. After approaching well over a hundred people, only two persons who had ever dealt with Mrs. Clinton would agree to an on-camera interview, and I suspected that even they would back out.
The most stunning passage in Ferguson's essay is his description of a private conversation with Bill Clinton:
I asked him about the financial crisis. He paused and then became even more soulful, thoughtful, passionate, and articulate. And then he proceeded to tell me the most amazing lies I've heard in quite a while....
Read the whole thing, but let me summarize: Ferguson pegs the Clintons as wealthy folks protecting their financial interests and nostalgizes about the 1990s, when the Clintons "attempted courageous reforms: allowing gays to serve in the military, a carbon tax, health care reform."

I can see where Ferguson wanted to go with his documentary — Good Clintons/Bad Clintons — and it's clear why neither Republicans nor Democrats trusted him to lay down the storyline in the run-up to the 2016 election. The Republicans were averse to Hillary hagiography. The Democrats were afraid of framing Hillary as good when she's skews left and bad when she's supportive of business and finance.

Ferguson was pleased with the full control and final cut authority he had over his film. He must understand that the Clintons don't want to cede any of their control over Hillary's campaign.

37 comments:

madAsHell said...

Maybe there was nothing to document. Kind of like dodging sniper bullets at the Kosovo airport.

Of course, I would like to know what happened in Benghazi.

Mountain Maven said...

Ann, you still thinking of voting for her?

YoungHegelian said...

My only question is: how could Mr. Ferguson the folks at CNN be so stupid & naive to think that it would be a slam-dunk to do a documentary on the leading Democratic contender for president in 2016? They seemed actually surprised by the reaction. But why? Everyone who has any real contact with HRC has a vested interesting in the outcome.

This is yet another reminder, as if we needed one, of just how clueless the media is now, even on a topic as well investigated as the ways of the Clinton Machine. It's scary, I tell ya.

EDH said...

Will America be looking for a liberal control freak with long tentacles to occupy the White House in 2016?

Ambrose said...

"...He paused and then became even more soulful, thoughtful, passionate, and articulate. And then he proceeded to tell me the most amazing lies I've heard in quite a while..."

It would be hard to come up with two other sentences that said more about Hollywood and Bill Clinton.

Scott M said...

I've always admitted to a knee-jerk dislike of Hillary Clinton. That exists alongside my more thoughtful reasons for disliking her policy positions and history of "public" service.

This article kinda scared the crap out of me.

Matthew Sablan said...

Would this have been an issue if Republicans hadn't made it one? When the movie had the veneer of "for art" instead of "for politics," it sounds like he got better responses. Or, is that just an appearance due the rough chronology appearing here? Or, is the chronology right, but not cause/effect?

David-2 said...

"It was not always thus. When Bill Clinton became President, he and Hillary initially attempted courageous reforms: ..."

I guess welfare reform wasn't a courageous enough reform to make this list. (Welfare reform was after Ken Starr was appointed independent counsel but before Lewinsky and impeachment.)

But maybe that also tells you a bit about his politics ...

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann, you still thinking of voting for her?"

I will vote, and at this point I don't know who will be her opponent (even assuming that she makes it to the end). I'll decide between the candidates when it is known.

I don't see how anyone can be sure they won't vote for her at this point.

I don't give money to any politicians, so I don't have to decide early.

My interest is in following the campaigns on this blog, and taking sides isn't good for that.

MadisonMan said...

Ann, you still thinking of voting for her?

Doesn't that depend on the opponent?

I could see myself voting for her, for example, if the alternative was just absolutely horrific -- Santorum, for example. Of course, that means she gets through the Primaries. I'd vote for Clinton ahead of Elizabeth Warren in the Primaries.

So, in the likelihood that the alternative is Elizabeth Warren and then Rick Santorum, then I say Hillary 2016!!!

Oso Negro said...

"Only two out of a hundred people who ever dealt with her were willing to talk on camera." What a sentence! The average Mafia capo would kill for that level of obedience. Well actually, he wouldn't have to.

Terry said...

The Clinton lie (from the article):
For example, Mr. Clinton sorrowfully lamented his inability to stop the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned all regulation of private (OTC) derivatives trading, and thereby greatly worsened the crisis. Mr. Clinton said that he and Larry Summers had argued with Alan Greenspan, but couldn't budge him, and then Congress passed the law by a veto-proof supermajority, tying his hands. Well, actually, the reason that the law passed by that overwhelming margin was because of the Clinton Administration's strong advocacy, including Congressional testimony by Larry Summers and harsh public and private attacks on advocates of regulation by Summers and Robert Rubin.
Most liberals, and some conservatives, blame the bubble economy of the early 2000's on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall 'firewall' between banks and investment houses. The repeal was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill passed in 1999 by large, bipartisan majorities in the house and the senate, lobbied for by Clinton. Clinton's praise for the passage of the bill was effusive, to say the least.

Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.
Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial services firms will be able to diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue. They will also be better equipped to compete in global financial markets.

Although the Act grants financial services firms greater latitude to innovate, it also contains important safety and soundness protections. While the Act allows common ownership of banking, securities, and insurance firms, it still requires those activities to be conducted separately within an organization, subject to functional regulation and funding limitations.



http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922#ixzz2gOr58hee

Hagar said...

Ambrose said...
"...He paused and then became even more soulful, thoughtful, passionate, and articulate. And then he proceeded to tell me the most amazing lies I've heard in quite a while..."

It would be hard to come up with two other sentences that said more about Hollywood and Bill Clinton.


Second that, but it should be "... Bill and Hillary! Clinton."

SteveR said...

I think it's very much in doubt that Hillary has the charm to pull off the bullshit that her husband has always been so good at, nor the story line and stage presence that Obama used. She does have the MSM and the Republicans knack for self destruction working for her. The details of all things Clinton, as this little story suggests, will make the 2016 coronation another bad chapter in the American Story.

Mountain Maven said...

Ann,
Nice dodge J
I am positive that I will not vote for HRC. If the GOP nominated someone even more character deficient than her I would write in someone or not vote. On top of the fact that I disagree with her on everything value and policy-wise.

AJ Lynch said...

So why did the Clintons embargo info from the filmmaker? Perhaps they realized there were few if any big accomplishments by Hillary save being the first womyn yada yada yada and she would not exactly look like much compared to real heroes like a Lech Walasa or a Pope John Paul or a Reagan staring down the commies.

FleetUSA said...

They all remember Vince Foster's fate.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't see how anyone can be sure they won't vote for her at this point.

Actually, it is quite easy. Highly unlikely that a Republican could get the nomination with even half the baggage she is carrying, and another 4 years of the Dems controlling the Executive Branch, including the military, as well as judicial nominations is highly unlikely to be good for the country.

I frankly don't think that she would have been as bad is President as Obama has for the country. Sure, she is probably an order of magnitude more corrupt than he, but a lot of that is fairly venal corruption - money, etc. But letting the Clinton's walk away with another couple hundred million dollars would be cheap in an era where trillion dollar deficits are now considered normal. And she would never have had the reservoir of good will that Obama has had due to his race, etc. And while she is a reformer, I think that her greed has always been more of a motivating factor for her. In any case, she is charisma impaired enough that reelection would have been more problematic, which means too that the Senate may have flipped parties last year.

I do understand though how a 60+ year old academic in the People's Republic of Madison might be more willing than many here to vote for an even older woman, nearing 70 in 3 years. Not clear though why that many post-Baby Boomers would vote for someone who is more a pre-Baby Boomer, esp with as much baggage as she has.

Lem said...

I remember James Stewart saying he came across the same problem when he was writing Blood Sport.

Michael K said...

When do we get to see "The Path to 9/11?" Remember that ?

Lem said...

I also remember, when David Brock (of Media Matters) was right wing, before his conversion, he had been tapped to write a hit book on Hillary.

When Brock couldn't deliver, apparently nobody would talk to him, he couldn't get the goods on her, he conveniently developed a 'conscience'. It turned out Brock was a closeted gay. Brock dramatically apologized to the Clintons and went to become a hatchet man for George Soros.

What I'm saying is, this is nothing new. If you want to assure complete and utter failure at something, just say you want to write about Hillary Clinton.

Humperdink said...

"I don't see how anyone can be sure they won't vote for her at this point."

I am assuming that is satire. If not, then I am "anyone". And there are millions more out there. Sheesh, did you not learn anything from your seismic error in 2008?

David said...

The Clintons are liars and cheats. That has been amply demonstrated numerous times. They are surrounded by people of their choosing, and none of their close associates have demonstrated integrity as a principal characteristic. They are very interested in money, and have acquired a lot of it because many people rightly fear them. They will destroy anyone who crosses them.

All of this can be documented without any further interviews. So tell me again why this person can not make a documentary?

AJ Lynch said...

It's a bubble people - remember Madison, WI is a librul bubble - hence the two quibbling responses by two of its educator residents.

Illuninati said...

"I asked him about the financial crisis. He paused and then became even more soulful, thoughtful, passionate, and articulate. And then he proceeded to tell me the most amazing lies I've heard in quite a while...."

I'm shocked that Ferguson cares that Clinton lied to him. I didn't know that CNN still has an independent News Department. I thought they had already merged with the propaganda wing of the Democrat party.

Kirk Parker said...

"No one left to lie to".

Where's Hitchens when we need him???

PB Reader said...

It's not that they weren't interested, they were afraid.

Paul said...

If he could document anything maybe he could tell us where Hillary was when Benghazi when down.

Nah... that will never happen.

richard mcenroe said...

It's a mark of a true champion of the people that folks are frightened to even talk about her, good or bad. I understand Caligula, Capone and ceaucescu had much of the same quality.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


The Clintons should wake up every morning, get down on their knees, and thank god they are not in prison for their crimes.

I can't take away their ill-gotten gains, but I can fervently wish them all ill health.

cubanbob said...

Successful conmen have to be charming. Hillary isn't in the least bit charming. She has all of her husband's political vices and none of his political 'virtues" or skills. She is an ideologue like her true political soul mate Barack Obama. And like him, inflexible in both ideological terms and in governing terms. Still a county foolish enough to elect twice a Barack Obama is capable of electing a Hillary Clinton.

Unless the republicans manage to put a Neo-Nazi or an escapee from an insane asylum as their candidate in 2016 there is no chance I would vote for Hillary. It's hard to imagine how even the republicans could screw that campaign up to the point of loosing. I suppose anything is possible but to screw up that badly and lose to Hillary would look suspiciously like throwing the game.

Mountain Maven said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

I don't get the "the RNC is at fault" attitude he keeps throwing out. What the hell does the RNC have to do with it?

Kirk Parker said...

AJ,

"Perhaps they realized there were few if any big accomplishments by Hillary save being the first womyn yada yada yada..."

Oh, come one! She's the first failed female Secretary of State! [Mumbled words from offstage...] What? Madeline Albright, you say? Ok, nevermind.

Someone,

"The Clintons should wake up every morning, get down on their knees, and thank god they are not in prison for their crimes"

How do you know they don't? (And then get back to work committing more...)

Paul said...

"The Clintons should wake up every morning, get down on their knees, and thank god they are not in prison for their crimes"

Bill sure won't. He usually has someone else on their knees in front of him, Monica style.

R. Duke said...

What, exactly, have the Clintons done to accrue 200 million dollars?? (I couldn't say earned) I thought these people were against those evil fat cat rich.

Hagar said...

Anyone thinking about writing or filming stories about the Clintons probably should first consider how confident they are they know all there is to know about the death of Vince Foster.