The Clinton Foundation’s new job postings for Bill and Hillary Clinton’s offices have drawn sharp criticism over requirements for “discretion,” with commentators pointing to the Clintons’ past scandals and warning applicants to “say no.”
The Clinton Foundation is advertising two positions: a paid “special projects associate” in former President Bill Clinton’s office and an unpaid intern role in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office. Both job listings include language emphasizing the need for discretion and professionalism, but it is the explicit call for a “high level of professionalism and discretion” in Hillary Clinton’s intern listing, and a similar demand for “using discretion in scheduling” for Bill Clinton’s staffer, that has reignited old controversies and prompted a wave of mocking responses online.
While the foundation did not respond to requests for comment, Fox News Digital reported that conservative commentators swiftly seized on the connection between the word “intern” and Bill Clinton’s well-documented history, including the infamous Monica Lewinsky scandal. The unpaid intern position in Hillary Clinton’s office involves research, preparing briefing memos, scheduling, and event support, while Bill Clinton’s paid associate role requires a bachelor’s degree and covers executive support and communications.
Commentators wasted no time drawing a line from the job postings to the Clintons’ legacy. James Laverty, rapid response director for Senator Ted Cruz, remarked, “Love how it’s the same job but for Bill Clinton they couldn’t call it an ‘internship.’” Steve Guest, a conservative commentator, was more blunt: “If Bill Clinton asks you to do a special project, say no.” He added, “my gosh.” Michael Knowles quipped, “Why, was there some sort of controversy involving Bill Clinton and an intern or something.” Even the color of Hillary Clinton’s clothing was not immune, as Charles Correll III commented, “Bold of HilDawg to be in Monica Blue.”
The reference to “discretion” in the listings is not lost on critics who recall the events of the late 1990s. Monica Lewinsky, who was a 22-year-old White House intern when her relationship with President Clinton began in 1995, later turned over a navy blue dress to the Starr Office of Independent Counsel. As detailed in the same Fox News report, FBI testing linked Bill Clinton to evidence found on the dress, and the affair dominated headlines when it became public in 1998. The Clinton Foundation’s silence on the current job listings does little to dispel the shadow these events still cast.
Jonathan Turley referenced the television show “Hogan’s Heroes,” joking on social media, “Where is Sgt. Hans Schultz when you need him? Hillary Clinton is seeking an intern ‘with a high level’ of ‘discretion’ to work for free. Applicants might want to Google this one.” The pointed humor comes as no surprise, given the Clintons’ high public profile and the enduring memory of their White House years.
The distinction between Bill Clinton’s paid associate position and Hillary Clinton’s unpaid internship has also raised eyebrows. Critics noted the stark difference in compensation and titles despite the similarity in duties, with Laverty highlighting that “for Bill Clinton they couldn’t call it an ‘internship.’” Both jobs demand significant trust and confidentiality, but the language choice in each listing appears to reflect a careful, and very public, calculation.
These job ads are surfacing at a time when the political world remains sharply divided over the Clintons’ legacy, as seen in controversies surrounding the Russia investigation and intelligence community shakeups that followed the 2016 election. For readers following Clinton-era fallout, our coverage of the FBI’s probe of Trump as a Russian asset and the ongoing impact on Washington’s power centers put these new headlines in broader context.
For many, the Clinton Foundation’s language about “discretion” is more than just a routine job requirement. It is a reminder of the risks that come with working in proximity to political dynasties with checkered pasts. Bill Clinton’s name remains synonymous with one of the most infamous scandals in modern American history, a fact that no amount of carefully worded job postings can erase. For young professionals weighing whether to accept an unpaid internship or a staff position in such high-profile offices, the warnings from conservative commentators are as pointed as ever.
As Washington continues to reckon with the consequences of past leadership and the revolving door of political appointments, recent changes in the intelligence community, including staff cuts at the intelligence office, underscore how institutional culture and public trust remain front and center. Calls for discretion are hardly unique to the Clintons, but the baggage that comes with their name ensures those calls will always draw scrutiny.
In the end, when it comes to the Clintons and the word “intern,” Americans have long memories, and candidates for these jobs would do well to remember that not all special projects are created equal.
