If no-one will make documentaries about possible candidates a full 3 years before the election they might run in, then when can documentaries ever be made? An Oscar-winning documentary producer, and the Clinton machine can shut down all his access? Disgraceful.
The cancellation of this documentary (these documentaries?) are the worst thing I have ever heard about Secretary Clinton. It is the move of a campaign that should not be let near the presidency.
For those who didn't follow the links to Ferguson's piece:
Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton
...
When Brock published his letter about my film, I got in touch with several prominent Democrats who knew Hillary Clinton. I told them that this campaign against the film and against CNN was counterproductive. They conveyed this message to Mrs. Clinton personally, along with my request to speak with her. The answer that came back was, basically, over my dead body.
...
It was not always thus. When Bill Clinton became President, he and Hillary initially attempted courageous reforms: allowing gays to serve in the military, a carbon tax, health care reform. But they got their heads handed to them: Colin Powell went on television telling America that if gays served in the military, morale would suffer. And the Clintons also learned about money, because back then they had none. When they were mercilessly hounded by Kenneth Starr and Congressional Republicans, culminating in impeachment, their legal bills soared and the Clintons fell many millions of dollars into debt. (To be sure, Bill Clinton poured gasoline on the fire by lying.) It is very clear that the Clintons then decided never to be at anyone's mercy again. And since Bill Clinton first became Governor of Arkansas, the cost of Presidential campaigns has gone from $66 million (both parties combined, in 1976) to an estimated $5 billion for 2016, when Hillary will run. So more than ever, the Clintons need money and the people who supply it.
I would have loved to explore all this. But when I approached people for interviews, I discovered that 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.
This, of course, was the real consequence, and probably the real intent, of the announcements by the RNC, Philippe Reines, and David Brock. Neither political party wanted the film made. After painful reflection, I decided that I couldn't make a film of which I would be proud. And so I'm cancelling. (Not because of any pressure from CNN -- quite the contrary.) It's a victory for the Clintons, and for the money machines that both political parties have now become. But I don't think that it's a victory for the media, or for the American people. I still believe that Mrs. Clinton has many virtues including great intelligence, fortitude, and a deep commitment to bettering the lives of women and children worldwide. But this is not her finest hour.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-ferguson/hillary-clinton-documentary_b_4014792.html?utm_hp_ref=mediaWise words from Charles Pierce:
Not A Good Omen
In 2008, it seemed to me, that the biggest problem with Hillary Clinton's campaign for president -- at least the biggest problem that was not wearing Mark Penn's underwear -- was that it was cumbersome and entirely predictable and that, therefore, when confronted by a wild-card like the Obama campaign, the Clinton effort continually found itself, as the tennis coaches say, wrong-footed. The Clinton campaign seemed conventional in an era in which all the old conventions became instantly obsolete In addition, there was a tangible sense of entitlement that hung on the Clinton campaign until it was washed away in a tsunami of public flop sweat. Because of all of this, from the start, the Clinton campaign seemed to be playing the whole campaign not to lose. These are lessons that were learned the hard way.
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.
This is craven, and politically tone-deaf. Hillary Clinton had a real chance to develop a populist persona here. She could have distanced herself from a couple of the worst policy mistakes of her husband's presidency, which are explained in detail by Charles Ferguson in the essay to which I have linked. I'd have invited Ferguson in, made him tea, and told him how much I loved Inside Job, his brilliant documentary on the looting of the world economy, and maybe bad-mouthed Larry Summers a little, just for the pure hell of it. I'd have sat for 10 hours on interviews, and I'd have answered any question he had. If I had to be critical of the previous President Clinton, well, that's the way it goes. What I wouldn't have done is stonewalled the project. That's Hillary '08 all over again. No risk. Make no mistakes, until you start making them all the time.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/hillary-clinton-documentary-093013
= new reply since forum marked as read
