by Andrew Zajac
The William J. Clinton Foundation this morning posted a list of donors who have given nearly $500 million to the ex-president's charity.
As expected, there are large dollops of money from China, India and various countries in the Middle East, setting the stage for further discusssion about whether Hillary Clinton can be an honest broker in global hot spots where one side or other has contributed to her husband's foundation.
Disclosure of foundation donors, long resisted by President Clinton, was among the conditions set by the incoming Obama administration for the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
Obama recognizes that Bill Clinton has collected millions of dollars from sources who might plausibly have an interest in influencing U.S. foreign policy, but he is betting that the disinfectant effects of sunlight will cancel out worries about conflicts of interest for Hillary Clinton in her duties as the nation's chief diplomat.
Comments
Will be interesting to see Hillary operate around this disclosure of funds, Obama may have to make a CHANGE.
Posted by: Inky | December 18, 2008 2:09 PM
Inky, in order for Hillary to be appointed, Bill had to agree to disclose these donors. He's complying with that agreement; it's not something new.
Posted by: mort | December 18, 2008 3:25 PM
Clinton has not one iota of foreign policy experience. She lacks basic diplomatic skills, is known for a violent temper, use of foul language when angry, and for berating those unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity when she
"loses it".
In a pitiful attempt to embellish her experience in foreign policy, Hillary was caught lying during the primaries, when she claimed to have come "under fire" on a visit to Bosnia in 1996... What happened to honesty and integrity as selection criteria?
Perhaps the biggest cause for concern is Hillary's judgement, which is warped by her thirst for power and control. This has created a tendency to be manipulative and Machiavellian in her dealings with others- is this the kind of person who should represent the United States with foreign governments?
The logical explanation for this choice is the fulfillment of a political deal... and Obama was not willing to let ethics or qualifications get in the way of a win-win deal.
Anyone who would expect Obama to put the country's interests before his own political security has not really taken a serious look at how he got this far in the first place.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Reaganite Republican Resistance | December 18, 2008 3:49 PM
The article infers, through omission of an explanation, that this money is somehow lining Clinton's pockets, when in fact the Foundation bearing his name has taken on some of the world's biggest problems and issues.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport ✌ | December 18, 2008 5:26 PM
Inky, in order for Hillary to be appointed, Bill had to agree to disclose these donors. He's complying with that agreement; it's not something new.
Posted by: mort | December 18, 2008 3:25
Understand you point well and good-
But Hillary is not good for the USA in Sec of St positision,
Posted by: Inky | December 18, 2008 5:36 PM
Why were they so secretive about the donors and related info during the primaries?????
If it's "charitable" why all the secrecy????
The name Blackwater on the list sort of answers it, no?
Blackwater needs govt. contracts the way fleas need dogs.
Is that why they like Bill so much?
BillC makes Blago look like a piker.
Posted by: ornery | December 18, 2008 6:48 PM
I think "Reaganite"--though he/she is already off subject-- should lay out for us all of the foreign policy President Reagan had before he took office. I'm sure that as an actor and Gov. of California, there was a lot.
Posted by: mort | December 18, 2008 8:11 PM
Did Marc Rich or any other recipient of a Clinton pardon happen to appear on the list?
Posted by: Pat H | December 18, 2008 8:25 PM