Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Clinton Global Initiative

  1. Sep 18, 2005 #1
    He's not done making change! Good for him!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/18/AR2005091800441.html [Broken]

    In his closing remarks Saturday the first annual Clinton Global Initiative, the former president promised progress reports on the more than 190 initiatives.

    Clinton told participants _ including heads of state and business leaders _ to remember the impact their work can have on future generations, saying "we are so arrogant because we are obsessed with the present."

    The three-day event, which coincided with a world summit at the United Nations, included a series of workshops on topics including religious conflict, poverty and the environment.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 18, 2005 #2
    I'm actually rather disgruntled with one of Clinton's efforts to effect change. Some of his comments at the seminar in question are rather strong on opinion. yet it seems he failed to present any real argument or evidence to back his position:

    Is anyone aware of how Clinton might back that claim?
  4. Sep 18, 2005 #3
    I visited your link. The exchanges (Blair, Murdoch, Clinton) sound conversational. They also give with what I was hearing on the BBC boards in the past weeks - much Bush bashing, little understanding that there is state responsibility as well as federal responsibility, etc.

    If Clinton said there was nothing factually inaccurate, I would tend to agree with that - I am aware of very few factual inaccuracies. How would you like him to "back that up?" I would rather expect that Bush (or whoever has an interest in the opposing view) would say "X, Y, and Z are innaccurate."

    The problem is the spin on the issue, and selective reporting.

    In Houston, for example, there was (1) expectation of increased crime when all those New Orleans folks came over and (2) a headline expressing surprise when crime was unaffected. There is some "hate" there. There is certainly selective reporting! But it is also probably factually accurate - crime has probably remained constant.

    Bottom line, I don't really understand your position. Clinton could easily make a list of factual accuracies. If someone thinks there are inaccuracies, they should point them out, and no doubt these exist somewhere.
  5. Sep 18, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Some excerpts from CNN LARRY KING LIVE - Interview With Bill Clinton - Aired September 16, 2005


    Here is a little comment that caught my eye:

    CLINTON: "...if two smart people are thinking, they're never going to agree all the time."

    Some good advice, and I suspect lack of this contributes to problems with the current administration.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2005
  6. Sep 18, 2005 #5
    I'm at a loss to understand your postilion. How do you feel that "Clinton could easily make a list of factual accuracies" when in fact he claimed there were none?

    My trouble is with his accusation that the BBC reporting was designed "almost exclusively" to criticize the Administration's response. Best I can tell he failed to substantiate the claim with any evidence and his I question the accuracy of the claim as well as his motivations for making it.
  7. Sep 18, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Clinton's Global Initative Website -

    http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/home.nsf/pt_home [Broken]

    It will take some time to study it, but it seems there are/have been already such initiatives.

    At $15,000 admission to his meeting, that certainly excludes a lot of people.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Sep 18, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm sure it's not a completely novel idea. And personally I believe he shows that a Democrat can and does take action and doesn't just whimper in the background. In the interview, a lot of the views he expresses are in line with the Dems platform, and no doubt assisting Hillary in getting the message out.

    As for the price of admission, I say targeting the top 5-1% of the wealth is great--and both sides of the aisle. Others are included, per the interview:

    CLINTON: "...And then, we charge a membership fee to the people who can afford to pay it. And with people who shouldn't have paid, we let a lot of people in, you know, gratis, the advocates and the people that are out there trying to change the world. So that's how we funded it."
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Sep 18, 2005 #8
    Why did Clinton deside to have his "Global Initiative" the exact same time as the UN was meeting ? ? ? ?

    I hope the democrats (ex or present) have more regard for the UN than Bush did, or it doesnt bode well for its (and our) Future..
  10. Sep 18, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I see your point. In the interview Clinton said the UN meeting was a great time to have additional meetings because members are already in NY at that time. He made it clear he supports the UN (actually he used the word "loves" the UN). However, I also suspect it is another avenue for international cooperation. Neocons want the UN dismantled--In the meantime, Bush and Bolton are trying to subvert any power the UN has had. IMO Clinton and others want to maintain international relations until Bush can be replaced.
  11. Sep 18, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I don't understand your position. Clinton's project is not at all in competition with the UN. And one good reason to have his meeting when the UN was in opening session was that he would have all of those heads of state in NYC where they could come to it.
  12. Sep 18, 2005 #11
    :uhh: Read what Clinton said again.

  13. Sep 18, 2005 #12
    You might try reading that in the context of the article; the report Blair was referring to, and Clinton respectively, is the BBC report in question.
  14. Sep 18, 2005 #13
    OK well what are the inaccuracies?
  15. Sep 18, 2005 #14
  16. Sep 18, 2005 #15
    He claimed there were no inaccuracies. Thus he could easily make a list of accuracies.
  17. Sep 18, 2005 #16
    Yep. I think you hit the nail on the head.
  18. Sep 18, 2005 #17
    Carter used his presidency in a similar fashion to promote democratic values. He continues to do this. Habitat for Humanity is his baby, isn't it?
  19. Sep 18, 2005 #18
    Doh, it seems I mentally I added an "in" to "accuracies" in your statement which I c/p'ed. I apologize for the creating that confusion. :blushing:
    Regardless, my point remains:

  20. Sep 18, 2005 #19
    Carter has used his status as ex-president to promote humanitarian causes more than any other president in history to my knowledge. Clinton could do a lot worse than to follow in his footsteps.
  21. Sep 18, 2005 #20
    I agree 100%. I expect he realizes this - and I think SOS 2008 makes an excellent point that he may be trying to offset damage of the current president.

    What other living democratic ex-presidents are there? I don't think there are any others....
  22. Sep 18, 2005 #21
    I didn't get that from my reading of the link. If I get a chance in a bit I'll re-read it and see if it seems that way with your interpretation in mind. It sounded to me like a conversational tone between Clinton and Murdoch in which Clinton said "There were no innaccuracies in the reports" .... not a statement that the BBC was out to get Bush. I can imagine conversations where such a statement would seem more like the former, and conversations where such statements would seem more like the latter.
  23. Sep 18, 2005 #22
    It is acutally right there in the second line of what I orignally quoted. Here is another report with more quoting from Clinton which should clarify his postion:

    Edit: I realize how I quoted an article that was quoting an article that was quoting Clinton, so I figure it would be best to add a link to the original article:
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2005
  24. Sep 18, 2005 #23
    OK -- THanks -- I am still unclear with what your concern is. Are you saying that Clinton should have spent more time pointing out the state-level failures or the city-level failures, and how the BBC didn't report those?

    Maybe you are of the opinion that the BBC reporting was fair and balanced?

    As an American who converses with brits fairly regularly on the BBC forums, I will definitely say that my impression is that brits think Bush failed the country big time. This does not represent my opinion. As an American and having some understanding of the idea of "United States," I think Bush failed and louisiana failed and New Orleans failed. My British friends were sending me emails about how much Bush had failed in this disaster - and I kept thinking "Yeah, but so did other people."

    I guess since Clinton's comments reflect my own opinion (to the extent that I understand his comments) , and having seen ZERO criticism in the BBC reporting against ANYONE except Bush, --- I guess because of that I don't understand your concern. What sort of back up would you like Clinton to provide?
  25. Sep 18, 2005 #24


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are the only two living Democratic ex-presidents (US).
  26. Sep 18, 2005 #25
    PattyLou, I didn't follow the BBC reporting of the situation, but when someone makes a claim I generally like to see empirical evidence to back it. Without that, I cannot help but be left questioning both the validity of the claim and motivations behind it.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook