Monday morning, to the great joy of both Republicans and Democrats, Charles Ferguson announced the cancellation of his upcoming documentary on Hillary Clinton. Upon discovering that "nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film," Ferguson had no choice but to forgo the project. What is most concerning from his announcement is not that Republican leaders opposed the documentary, but rather that Clinton's staff pressured Ferguson and CNN to shut it down.
It makes complete sense that the Republican National Committee would desire to see the project shut down. As Shoshana Weissmann of PolicyMic notes, "positive or neutral airtime is the goal of every presidential candidate, as candidates need media exposure in order to be able to appeal to public." The documentary would at best be neutral and as such would give Clinton an advantage in the 2016 race for the presidency. Republicans, of course, would not want to face somebody with the name recognition of Hillary Clinton, especially after she was promoted not only by this documentary, but also by similar mini-series on NBC.
Democrats' resistance to the exposé is particularly concerning. If documentary were to be neutral, then it would have helped Clinton's imminent campaign. Granted, Clinton's staff couldn't guarantee its positivity, but if the documentary did offer a fair look at Clinton's life story, as Ferguson anticipated, there would be nothing to hide.
It turns out, Ferguson found reasons why Clinton might not want such fair treatment of her life to air.
Clinton spent six years on the Board of Directors for Walmart, which the Democratic party "has held up as a model of what is wrong with American business." Ferguson also notes that the government of Saudi Arabia was one of the largest donors to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and that the Clintons' net worth exceeds $200 million.
Admittedly, Hillary Clinton is a politician, and virtually all politicians have some questionable elements of their past. While it would be admirable for her to acknowledge a less-than-perfect track record, it would be akin to shooting herself in the foot before her 2016 campaign even kicks off. If she wants to win, agreeing to an exposé that would air her dirty laundry is possibly the worst idea.