The problem with bloggers is that they sometimes write posts that anticipate longer pieces you'll release later in the week. So that's tough. But for now, I'll say that I largely agree with Matt's initial take on the Clinton Global Initiative: It's a very good charity, but it's not a sufficient substitute for government action. And Bill Clinton, either through direct advocacy or his wife's campaign, could be doing much more to create national consensus for strong, collective action that's actually in proportion to the problems he's pointing out. It was, for instance, a bit weird to watch Clinton lauding five major business executives for pooling $2 million for six humanitarian airdrops into Chad and Sudan. I mean, that's great, but it's peanuts. Moreover, if Clinton decided to make the plight of the Sudanese his primary issue, and was constantly speaking out, pressuring American politicians, cajoling foreign leaders, and generally pushing the relevant parties, he's one of the few individuals in the world who'd stand a serious chance at hastening a settlement. The philanthropy is undoubtedly virtuous and worthwhile, but it's just not up to these tasks, and possibly not the best use of Clinton's unique role. --Ezra Klein
