.
January 14th, 2009
05:01 PM ET

Should Bill Clinton’s Financial Affairs Prevent Hillary’s Secretary of State Confirmation?

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Senator Hillary Clinton intervened 6 times in government issues that directly affected companies or individuals who became donors to her husband's foundation, according to the Associated Press.

Should the Clinton Foundation's ties to foreigners affect Hillary Clinton's nomination?

This raises obvious questions about the potential for ethical conflicts that could arise in her official business as Secretary of State. Christopher Hitchens at Slate.com calls into question whether Hillary Clinton should have been nominated for the post at all.

The article points out that everyone around the world knows that you can get the former president's attention through his foundation. Not a problem in itself but when you factor in that he's the confidant to the would-be Secretary of State, someone she's sure to rely on since she has no foreign affairs track record of her own, it can become one.

The foundation has agreed to disclose its list of confidential clients and every year new donors from foreign states could be subject to the scrutiny of Obama administration lawyers.

Here’s my question to you: Should the foreign financial affairs of Bill Clinton's foundation be enough to prevent Sen. Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Mike from Syracuse, New York writes:
No Jack, but Mr. Bill should decline any foreign contributions while she is Secretary of State.

John from Fort Collins, Colorado writes:
The Clintons are absolute masters at pushing all their dealings just past the edge, then moving on without blinking and without consequences. This is just the skill set a Secretary of State needs to play international poker with today's world leaders. It would be a poor fit if Hillary were just a nice stay-at-home mother who liked to bake cookies.

Frank from San Jose, California writes:
We don't deny people positions because of potential for wrongdoing; if we did that, no one would get hired anywhere for anything. If Hillary is the best person for the job, she should get it. We should all assume that she will perform her duties ethically unless proven otherwise. It is our duty as the voting public to watch her, as it would be for any other public official. We can't condemn her for something that hasn't happened.

Stan from Barrie, Ontario writes:
It depends on whether you want someone that's up to the job or simply someone who has no external complications. If Hillary can keep Bill's affairs (excuse the terminology) apart from her decisions related to foreign policy there is no reason why she shouldn't be confirmed.

Lane from Nashville, Tennessee writes:
Let me understand this, if she had been elected President, this wouldn't be an issue, but she's not able to be Secretary of State, because her husband does charity work?

DF writes:
The issue is not impropriety, or the appearance thereof, it is the conflict of interest itself. For anyone to have a conflict of interest and deny that it will influence his or her behavior is purely narcissistic. The Greeks called it hubris. It is the core evil of our system of government. Senator Clinton will be confirmed specifically because congresspersons do not want attention to be drawn to their own conflicts of interest.

Gail from Centre, Alabama writes:
I can't think of a better person to be secretary of state. Jack you are just looking for something to grunt about. You don't like the Clintons, and you would like to see her fail.

soundoff (338 Responses)
  1. Jamara in Los Angeles

    No!

    January 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
  2. Paul Round Rock, Texas

    No although you know Jack as Hillary said there are rules and the people that do will watch and make sure that they are followed to a T.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
  3. Dave

    I don't think the Foundation should impede confirmation in any significant way, unless some late-breaking revelation is uncovered. Indeed, if the 'process' works the way it should, it should be readily discernable whether or not the Foundation constitutes a confirmation showstopper. Any untoward scrutiny/fixation, etc would bely other agendas.

    As a long-time student and admirer of the American political construct I truly believe that as long as your efforts preserve the fundamental integrity of US institutions and mechanisms, it will remain apparent to all concerned that confirmations really do have a method to their madness. So let's keep the core fundamentals in mind and get on with it!

    Dave

    Thanks for a great programme – I continue to learn from it each and every day!

    January 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
  4. C from middle GA

    No. It's been clear for years that Bill does what Bill does... Hillary isn't involved with Bill's stuff – perhaps that's been the problem all along?

    January 14, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
  5. perry jones

    if mr clinton had not been a former presadent i would say no but that is not the case he was and there is a lot of history with the clintons and no one knows them and very few trust them so yes they are in question plus they are dealing s with other nations that have rather question able them selves
    perry jones
    conucil bluffs iowa

    January 14, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
  6. Dave

    RE: My last comments – I'm in Ottawa Canada

    January 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
  7. Anthony Smith

    No! The foundation is doing good work and Hillary is the best person for the job. I'll take the work of the Clinton's anyday over the disasters of the Bush family!

    Wildwood Crest, NJ

    January 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
  8. Peter TX

    I heard that one of the donors was Nigerian with ties to the former dictator, sweet! being originally from Nigeria, I now know where our country's wealth was going..........it is Robinhood all over again, rob the rich and pay the poor.........No? ok, rob the poorest and pay the poor, we starved for the good of others, what a scam!

    Peter

    Dallas-TX

    January 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
  9. Tom in Dallas

    Bill Clinton has disclosed his donors, it has been picked apart and/or explained. Let's get the country back on track after being derailed for 8 years.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
  10. Doug - Dallas, TX

    If the Senate doesn't confirm Hillary as Secretary of State they're idiots.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  11. shobana sridhar

    I think there will be no problem in Sen. Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State. The Clintons are laying bare all their finacial dealings with many leaders of the world and the charities that get them. Their dealings are laid threadbare for all and sundry to see.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
  12. Adela

    No it shouldn't. Everyone seems to forget that CGI is a non profitable foundation that helps millions of children around the world.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  13. Kevin in Dallas, TX

    Yes. Lets not forget that Bill Clinton is one of only two Presidents to have been impeached. Not exactly a shining beacon of ethics. His ties will be exploited by someone, and everyone knows it. We deserve better.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm |
  14. Lois Canada

    It's About as relevant as his love affairs!

    January 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  15. Karen

    Bill's sexual affairs have not stopped Hillary, why should Financial? Which is more important, affiars of the hart or pcketbook? This is America..what was I thinking?

    January 14, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
  16. Karen

    Bill's sexual affairs have not stopped Hillary, why should Financial? Which is more important, affiars of the heart or pocketbook? This is America..what was I thinking?

    January 14, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  17. Mike S., New Orleans

    No Jack. Most Americans have moved on from the Ken Starr years of political destruction and the Karl Rove era of ruthless partisan bloodshed. Bill Clinton's charitable foundation is irrelevant to Hillary's duties as Secretary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  18. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    No. Whatever the agreement that the Clintons and Obama have about these issues should suffice.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
  19. George

    This country has suffered one of the worst Presidencies in History, if not the worst, and you still want to dog after Bill Clinton. When are you going to get off Bill Clinton's back? You have asked every question about Bill Clinton the last two years, while Rome (Washington) was burning down. Where are all of the pertinent questions about Bush, or would that upset some of your corporate big wigs? How soon that you forget that Bill Clinton was impeached for his wrongdoings, and has now paid his dues with the impeachment, but no one wants to dig into Mr. Bush's wrongdoings. Talk about double standards, or are you just enthrallled with the Clintons?

    January 14, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  20. Scott, Wichita

    No. It's her cold, inhuman nature that should bar her from the job.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
  21. JD in NH

    No. If Hillary was a male nominee would we be having this discussion? President Clinton has agreed to provide the names of donors and the amount they contribute to his foundation and that's all that is required. By the way, I found it rather amusing Senator Vitter was all in a tizzy over ethical concerns.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
  22. John

    Jack: Another stupid question. Bill Clinton's finanical dealing for his Global Charity has been revealed for all to see. No, I do not believe it should stop Hillary Clinton from becoming Secretary of State. Jack it is a well known fact you do not like Hillary Clinton. Get over it, soon.

    John
    Alabama

    January 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
  23. Gerry In Toronto

    No, regardless of what anyone thinks of the Clinton's, one needs to recognize Bill Clinton's foundation has saved hundreds of thousands of lifes in 3rd world countries.

    I would expect and hope he's able to raise huge sums of money from the Arabs, Chinese and anyone else with money to keep this invaluable aid flowing to the needy.

    The only reason the GOP press this issue is they are concerned BIll will get the funds for the needy before G.W. Bush can get it for is Presidential library.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
  24. V.K. Raman, Sparks

    Republicans would like to revive the white water issue too, if possible. Consideration should be of Hillary and Hillary only and her qualification. Afterall she earned her reputation by pulling 18 millions votes during primary. Do not call those 18 millions were fools to support Hillary.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
  25. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: It should bring some serious reservations for her confirmation, but as we both know Jack, "when money talks, the truth remains hidden," and money does have it influences. She will be confirmed because everyone in Congress has a revolving account.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
  26. John in Rohnert Park

    Well if his sexual affairs didn't get in her way, why should his financial affairs?

    January 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm |
  27. Ron K

    Oh Come on Jack:

    Bill will pay back the $500,000.00 and it will all be HUNKY DOREY. After all everyone else is geting away with highway robbery. Except us poor folks.

    Ron K. San Diego

    January 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm |
  28. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son. Even less so should sins of the husband be visited upon the wife. She is a separate self actuating individual. Having responsibility for one's own actions and inactions is responsibility enough for any individual.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
  29. Sherrol in Canada

    NO, but the Clinton's need to go further in disclosing personal contributions to Bill's charity and do so on a quarterly basis. Hillary must not have her cake and eat it too.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
  30. BD, Boise, ID

    To think that Sen. Clinton would make any consideration to favor one of Bill Clinton's donors is just stupid. To even question such a thing sounds like little kids trying to make something out of nothing. It is time to grow up and move on to more serious concerns.

    January 14, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  31. Joe in DE

    No. We should not let affairs of famnily member as a reason for disqualifying. The pledge of disclosure is OK.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
  32. Mark in OKC

    Bill Clinton's "domestic affairs" haven't kept Hillary down so far, why should his "foreign affairs" effect his wife?

    January 14, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  33. Michael, Toronto

    President Clinton's financial dealings haven't affected Sen. Clinton's job performance thus far so it's reasonable to assume it won't affect her job when she's Secretary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
  34. Mari Fernandez, Salt Lake City, Utah

    No, why should this keep Sen. Clinton from serving as Sec. of State? I listened briefly to the grandstanding done by Sen. Lugar..... he must like to hear himself speak!

    January 14, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  35. BRUCE, ST PAUL, MN

    Hey, if she can forgive him for his wolrdwide affairs, then we should.... oh, you said financial affairs. Well we have always conducted foreign policy with one eye on the political implications and one eye on our financial interests. So now we can do it with a third eye on Bill's donor list.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  36. Allan G. Hanson Placerville, Ca.

    NO NO NO Many of the members of the Congress and Adminnistration have spouses that are invoved in buisiness that could create the same conflict of interest, and they are not restricted.
    If you can't trust her she shouldn't have the job. I happen to think she would be the best for the job. short of her husband.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
  37. Venia PA

    NO. They have promised to curb the activities of the foundation if she is appointed.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  38. Domenic from Montreal, Canada

    NO!

    January 14, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
  39. Gigi in Alabama

    NO!!! He is doing great work in the field of AIDS and other health problem areas around the world. Why should that hurt her? Seems to me that is a plus not a minus.
    I know you are talking about fund raising and all that entails, but she is smart enough not to let something like that influence her.
    Too many people are looking for anything that can tear the Clinton's down. Leave them alone and concentrate on the Bush/Cheney money trail.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
  40. Meg Ulmes

    Jack–
    You would hope these donations won't make a difference in her judgment on world situations or all her to be influenced by her husband or his donors. I think that she would be very good at this job, so I hope it won't stop a good thing.

    Troy, Ohio

    January 14, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
  41. Stacy from Leesburg, VA

    Jack, I think the bigger question should be “Is Senator Clinton qualified for the job as Secretary of State?” She and President Clinton signed a memorandum of understanding stating the foundation is different from her role in the Cabinet. If she violates that, then she is held accountable and removed from office. I would warn the GOP not to play politics too much with Cabinet positions, because if they do then they put themselves into further alienating the American voter.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
  42. george c paree

    No the clintons have served america .Jack I repect your opinion but you cant tell me how much they helped our family.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
  43. garrick

    hi jack
    simple no way no how,shes the best for the job and she will be in by tomorrow.
    clearwater,fl

    January 14, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  44. Terry from North Carolina

    Jack
    Former presidents should go to an old folks home, play bingo, watch TV and build model ships and planes. Bill Clinton is becoming a thorn in Hillarys side and yes his financial affairs are enough to prevent Hillarys confirmation as secretary of state. Who is managing Barack Obamas " vetting process " ? Debbies Staffing ?

    January 14, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
  45. BigD 40-Below Minnesota

    No Way; Especially if Bill Promises Never to Do It Again!
    BigD

    January 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  46. KarenB, Florida

    if this is such a big thing, why was it not a problem when she was running for president.
    if it didn't matter then, why should it matter now.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  47. John in Santa Barbara, CA

    No. The money comes from public speaking. How sinister can that be. Most of the money goes to charity, a good thing, and most ex-Presidents have done this as well. Somebody just wants to make noise before Hillary gets confirmed.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  48. AJ from Austin TX

    Apparently, Clinton's foundation received money from many foreign sources. How do we know there won't be some back scratching going on if Hillary becomes Secretary of State? Will Hillary show favoritism with countries that donated money to the Clinton Foundation?

    January 14, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
  49. shobana sridhar , florida

    No. Former President Bill Clinton's Finacial Affairs should not prevent Senator Hilary's Secretary of State confirmation. All his dealings have been put in front of the Senate for their viewing. I think there is nothing more to hide. It's now an open book.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  50. connie from Indiana

    Jack, I don't think any of the former president's affair should be held against Hillary, if you know what I mean.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
  51. HD Taylor - Arizona

    Only if you are a Republican.

    HD in Phoenix, AZ

    January 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
  52. Dean in Macungie,PA

    Jack,

    First this is Hillary's confirmation not Bill's. Look at her record,not his.
    If receiving funding from outside interests (whether they be foreign or American (lobbists)) has an affect on one's decisions why does congress always make the right decisions. Oh never mind.

    Dean in PA

    January 14, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  53. Tina Texas

    No. This is what happens when you have family members running of office. No family member should ever be allowed to run for office. It creats a right mess.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  54. frankie

    No. And asking someone not to run a charity, or asking anyone in the world not to make charitable donations, is stupid.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  55. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    Yes, we give away enough money to other countries for a lot of nonsense and we don't need it coming back to the Clinton foundation to buy favors for things that should be done because they are right. This financial issue won't keep Hillary from becoming Sec. of State because they stick together like flies in Washington.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
  56. erico mb33139

    Hillary NEEDS to get a divorce from Bill !! Those two are so interwoven in so much 'manure' that it stinks. Imagine the Saudis funding Billy millions. A crisis arises and the Sec State is forced to take sides with the Government. What's Billy going to do, while in bed with Hilly ?

    January 14, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
  57. Tony from Torrington

    Why should the fact that Bill and Hillary are crooked stop her confirmation? It dooesn’t stop any of the others from “serving.” Politicians, especially people like Barney Franks, serve their own interests, not those of the American people. Why shouldn’t Hillary and Bill continue to get some of the spoils.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
  58. Bernie of Lowell, MA

    Since Bill Clinton has been so successful raising funds, perhaps he should give them all away to the State Department to fund its woefully low budget .

    January 14, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
  59. Jeff in Glen Carbon IL

    Not really. Everyone knows she doesn't agree with half of what he does, says, or thinks. It is odd, though, that with his incredibly large pension and his speech and book income, and his Secret Service benefits, and Hillary's income, that he needs to court the world's power-brokers for money. Must be a personality flaw. Makes you wonder about his real motives and those of the people who pay him. But, I don't think it really makes her less capable. Even though I still can't find any foreign relations credentials beyond having traveled to foreign countries and been married to someone who had foreign affairs experience.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  60. Richard Sternagel

    Which Foreign Affairs are you talking about? Seriously Bill Clinton's financial affairs should concern only Bill Clinton.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  61. LUCY - ILLINOIS

    Absolutely not. She has nothing to do with Bill's Worldwide Charity . She will make a very good Secretary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
  62. David in San Diego

    Of course not. One would hardly ask this question about the wife of a male nominee. And as I read it, she has broad, almost unanimous support from Rebublicans on the committee as well as from Democrats.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
  63. Brian from Fort Mill, SC

    Not unless he accepts donations from the likes of Osama bin Laden. And even then, as long as the check clears.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
  64. Frank from Peterborough

    Well now let's see you had Bushes relationship with the Saudis and big oil, Cheney's relationship with Haliburton as well as Cheney's wife's relationship with Enron so why would you worry about what relationships Bill Clinton has with anyone?

    Just look at recent history and chances are anyone who has amassed a few million has also cheated, stole, manipulated and gouged the system and the public so there isn't much of a chance you can find anyone any more fit to do the job than Hillary.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  65. Howard M. Bolingbrook IL

    Jack, Whether President Clinton's financial should come to play or not is a mute point, in this matter. Did you see yesterdays Clinton love fest pretending to be a senate confirmation hearing. Frankly, I'm sick of the Clinton's on the public stage, but this a done deal.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  66. Harold

    NO

    January 14, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
  67. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    George H.W. Bush, a former president, is involved in foundations of foregin financial affairs while George W. Bush is president. Any consideration of denying Hillary Clinton is totally absurded, unless there is proof of any wrong doings by Bill Clinton.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
  68. Pablo en Tejas

    Geeze, Jack,
    no matter what she does she keeps tripping over Bill's feet. Near as I can tell this is all about fear of potential influence peddling mesing up our foreign policy.
    I don't recall the GOP having any problem with it when Bush, Cheney & their pals were pulling that crap and jamming up our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan.
    I do believe I dectect the smell of mendacity and hypocrisy wafting down from that side of the aisle.
    In the immortal words of Louis Renaud (aka Claude Rains)
    "I'm shocked; shocked to learn there's gambling going on in here!"

    Pablo
    Arlington Texas

    January 14, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  69. David in Raleigh, NC

    Bill Clinton and his business dealings are a liability. Obama should get rid of Hillary and select somebody else to be Secretary of State.

    Unfortunately, Obama can't do that because he made a deal with Hillary to give her the Secretary of State job if she didn't force a floor vote on the floor of the Democratic Convention.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  70. pete in ny

    Not if Hillary will be less arrogant and agree to more transparency. Any honest person has to acknowledge that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest in his dealings. Sen Clinton though refuses to admit this and even made an idiotic defense that no former president has released so much data. Duhhh! No former president raised millions from foreign governments and has a wife nominated to be Sec of State!

    Sen Lugar proposed several common sense provisions to help the public and the congress see at a glance that there are no conflicts but Sen Clinton pooh-poohed them by telling us that she had already worked everything out with the Obama team and in effect we should trust her!

    Come on- since when has any politician earned the right to expect us to just trust them- maybe tax man Charlie Rangel" or how about Chris( cut rate mortgage) Dodd?. In the case of the Clintons there is a lengthy history of questionable financial dealing going back to her cattle futures profit before she was First Lady and the data released by Bill so far screams out for increased accountability.

    January 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  71. Vinnie Vino

    Jack,

    Last time I checked Hillary was not Bill Clinton, although most Clinton haters would swear Billary was one person. Assuming this is ture about them being two different people with important international jobs. As long as Bill keeps the foreign financial affairs of his foundation in the public spotlight then it should not cost the confirmation to become Secretary of State...

    C.I., New York

    January 14, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
  72. Jenna Wade

    Should the foreign financial affairs of Bill Clinton’s foundation be enough to prevent Sen. Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State?

    Gee is Bill running for Secretary of State too?

    This is a NON Issue, being made an Issue by the GOP.

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    January 14, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
  73. Ray Lawson from Danville, VA

    Yes.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:01 pm |
  74. Peter Van Derick

    We would assume that these same questions would have come up if Senator Clinton had been elected President. I don't think it should be an issue. It is apples and oranges....She will be a wonderful Secretary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  75. Katiec Pekin, IL

    Has there been anything illegal? Have not heard any charges of
    impropriority. My understanding is this is a world wide foundation
    benefiting needs for many. This is not government run or government
    related. How can this possibly enter into Hillary Clinton being
    our Secretary of State? I do not think it can or will. Anyway, it most
    certainly should not.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  76. Cecil Jones

    Kinda gives new meaning to "Pay to Play" now doesn't it? Pay Bill and Hillary will play along.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  77. sharon kitchen

    no. there is an agreement that was signed.....as I understand the reports so far,.....they will have to report all and anyone can review and if there are questions...congress can ask and be told...........
    At first, I thought there might be...concerning x-pres clinton.
    How many people have said they would be ready to answer any and all questions?
    Could all in Congress do this?
    How about all the banks?
    How about the morgage companies?
    How about the car companies?......just to name a few.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  78. Vinnie Vino

    Jack,

    Last time I checked Hillary was not Bill Clinton, although most Clinton haters would swear Billary was one person. Assuming this is ture about them being two different people with important international jobs. As long as Bill keeps the foreign financial affairs of his foundation in the public spotlight then it should not cost Hillary the confirmation to become Secretary of State…

    C.I., New York

    January 14, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  79. Krishna Koliwad

    Yes. Definitely. Clintons are getting by easily. Being a philanthropist with other peoples money is not free! Be ware!

    KK,
    LCF, CA

    January 14, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
  80. vickie

    I don't think so. Hillary is an individual so she should be treated as one. What does she has to do with Bill's funds.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  81. laura from willis

    No. I think the Clintons are being most co-operative already.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  82. chester from toledo ohio

    jack enough is enough the clinton family has done what it took to disclose everything whats wronf with the republicans they just attacking her and her family cause she is a democrate

    January 14, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  83. Paul S. Columbia, SC

    No. I'm sure Bill will be happy to have an all expense paid world travelling bag lady at his beck and call.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  84. Sam Fairview, Texas

    I think it should disqualify her. At least until we truly know who made those donations and why they made them and where that money went. If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat and acts like a rat then it most assuredly is a rat.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  85. Jan Illinois

    Absolutely not and by the way that is discrimination in my view. This is Hillary's job not Bill's. Go back and get in on the business of every other member of the government spouses and see how far you get with that!! How would you like to be judged for what your spouse does , I don't care who you are this would be unfair.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  86. Gigi

    NO. I don't know all of my husbands affairs and I'm surely not responsible for any of them. Laugh, Jack

    January 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
  87. Jan from Delaware

    NO it should not. His foundation is doing things a government cannot do. To prevent it from accepting funds from foreign countries would tie the hands of the foundation and limit the good it is doing all over the world. I think you question the integrity of Hillary and Obama when you assume they would let anything influence their decisions and policies. It is a setup for failure and this is very unfair.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  88. JW in Atlanta

    If money/etc can buy favors from Clinton as Secretary of State, then she should not be confirmed. If she's untouchable in terms of being influenced, then she should probably be confirmed. The problem is that we live in times where offspring of a past president wants to be Senator of N.Y., the son of a president was a governor and another both a governor and president, and a wife of a president is a Senator hoping to be Sec. of State. How can you convince anyone that this kind of influence posturing is purely a coincidence? It's how the world works, and you can bet that as Secretary of State, Bill's activities will flourish with all kinds of contributions.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  89. Sue -Idaho

    it's not the Financial affairs that people should be worried about Jack!

    January 14, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  90. Melissa

    No.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  91. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    The republicans and the right-wing media have been after the Clintons for 18 years. My disgust for these scum knows no bounds. What Bill does is his own business. If he had been able to do his job when he was president instead of having to fend off endless investigations we would not be in the mess we are in now. Leave Hillary alone and let her do the job of cleaning up the mess left by Condi.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  92. Dan from Alliance, OH

    No, but she needs to distance herself from any of the activity of the foundation. Just as a polititian's wife would do the same.

    Dan

    January 14, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  93. Tripp Mechanicsburg, PA

    No. However, whenever any Clintons are involved, close scrutiny is well advised.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  94. Patricia

    The Clinton Foundation: As I recall a Foundation is supposed to be philanthropic. Which should mean that President Clinton or Sen. Clinton would NOT have access to use that money for personal use for furtherance of a political agenda of any kind. So long as all donors are disclosed on regular basis I've got no problem. Sen. Clinton should & will become Sec. of State Clinton.
    Patricia
    Palmdale, Ca.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  95. May-Tennessee

    Why should Bill Clinton's financial affairs prevent Hillary's confirmation for Secretary of State? His extra-marital affairs didn't prevent her from being elected to the Senate. Besides, Hillary will do a great job...she's a smart woman and the best for the job!
    P.S. Love your show Jack!

    January 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
  96. Rex in Portland, Ore.

    In a word: no.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
  97. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: Bill Clinton is now suffering from over-exposure. The Clintons have exposed more aspects of their lives than we care to know! Let's confirm Hilary and get on with history!

    January 14, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
  98. Steve C

    His other "affairs" have not come up, so why should his financial ones?

    Steve,
    Laguna Niguel, CA

    January 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
  99. Annie, Atlanta

    Personally, the ethical conflicts are only going to be an issue for the Republicans who can't stand her. Clinton's foundation raises a lot of money for good causes, causes Republicans are inherently against.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  100. Greg, Hamilton Ontario

    No...White Water and all those other operations as the usual crooked politician might be glanced at by someone but Secretary of State is a whole new ball game and she is to sharp a tack not to know that.
    Rice was on the evening news as much as President Bush , maybe even more. Hillary knows she will be watched like a hawk and the smallest little thing will be blown up to Watergate size, if she gets caught. She is just to intelligent to let that happen and that makes her a safe vote for confirmation.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  101. Mike - Hot Springs, Arkansas

    Bill and his foundation have provided much good for the world. Let us just leave it at that. Only a very small minded Republican jerk would be pushing the issue.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  102. D. Texas

    No I don't

    January 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  103. Mike, Syracuse NY

    No Jack, but Mr. Bill should decline any foreign contributions while she is SoS.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  104. Chryssa

    No, Hillary was appointed, not Bill.

    Boise, ID

    January 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  105. Nancy, Tennessee

    Keeping Hillary Clinton from being Secretary of State because of the Clinton foundation is just a cop-out. Hillary will do a great job in this new role and contributions will have no affect on her leadership. People who want to use this as an excuse are still on the Clinton-bashing wagon. They need to get over themselves.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  106. Sandy from Knoxville

    She's an extremely intelligent, energetic lady – let's give her a chance! After the strong campaign she ran, she deserves it.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  107. Don (Ottawa)

    No, why should it. I think we are making a big deal over nothing. Contributions to Bill's worldwide charity have nothing to do with the work of the Secretary of State. Seems like the media is short of news.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  108. Joan

    NO. The money goes to charity not to the Clintons. I don't see how charitable contributions can interfere with politics.

    Joan
    Detroit

    January 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  109. Kathy in Chicago

    It should but it won't. Is this Change We Can Belive in? We've been duped again. Damblastit. Can't wait to see all the Clinton scandals Obama is going to have to put up with. Wew, Ken Star get ready to rumble.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
  110. Ron from Snowy Minnesota

    we need honest people to run our government.......Lou, Jack and Wolf should have been in Obama's administration. maybe in 2012 or 2016 u guys can run for the WH

    January 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  111. David Bebeau

    Absolutely YES!! If you think Bill will not be directing then you are in
    outter space.No Job Period.Not to mention congress giving her kid
    gloves treatment...........
    David Bebeau

    January 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  112. Jane (Minnesota)

    No. The president elect worked out an agreement to deal with this question and nominated her which means his concerns were addressed! It's P-E Obama's responsiblity monitor The Secretary of State's activities - I sure his team will cross reference the list with the activity.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
  113. Pugas-AZ

    We, as a country, do not owe her a thing. She had her day in the sun with Billy as president. Obama does not need anymore distractions from the tremendous chore at hand. She and Bill would be a real distraction. What was that we heard about a new way and breaking with the past? I don't believe in the tooth fairy either.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
  114. Kellie, PA

    Heck no. She's taken enough crap from Bill's mistakes and mishaps. Now it's her time to enter into the spotlight and do things the way they're suppose to be done.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  115. Bob D, Morristown, NJ

    Absolutely not. For starters they really are two separate people. I am unaware of anyone being denied a high office because of a potential conflict of a spouse's interest.

    Second, this is a charity, I doubt that Clinton would risk his or his wife's standing to garner a contribution to his charity. It's not like this charity is a tax dodge like the Ford foundation, nor is this foundation likely to provide and form of sexual gratification for Bill.

    So let's get real. Hillary has the credentials, talent, and contacts to make an excellent SoS, and Bill's charity, of which he has already made proper disclosures, is irrelevant.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  116. Jay in Texas

    Goodness no. If the Senate were to scrutinize the money trails and business dealings as closely as they are Clinton's, Obama's cabinet would be empty !
    Brownwood, Texas

    January 14, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  117. Sonny, Tampa

    No Jack, not Bill's financial affairs, Bill's affairs, period, now that's a
    whole different ballgame.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  118. L.M.,Arizona

    Oh stop! He is not involved. We have two crazy wars going on that should have never happened,a world that doesn't seem to like us,and possible criminal charges against our former leaders and you're talking about someone husband.

    L.M.,Arizona

    January 14, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  119. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    The Clinton haters will not want her in there no matter what and any excuse for them is fine. If she said the sky was clear and someone looked up as a cloud flew over, it would be grounds enough for the Clinton haters to say she shouldn't be confirmed. I'm not a Clinton fan, but compared to the lies, backroom deals, and dumb cowboy statesmanship we've had for the past eight years, she'll be a breath of fresh air.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  120. JIM FALLBROOK CA

    She shouldn't be confirmed if Bill Clinton is receiving donations from foreign countries especially from muslims. It would be a conflict of interest leaving Hillary open to taking a bribe.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
  121. Sandra fromTexas

    Absolutely not. It was so ridiculous yesterday watching Diaper Dave Vitter question Hillary about moral values and appropriate behavior. I am not really sure his point, because I kept picturing him in this huge diaper and I kept giggling. Hypocricy, thy name is Republican.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  122. Jerry from Jacksonville

    NO, they probably don't see each other enough to know what the other one is doing.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  123. JD, Central Illinois

    No. Was this an issue for her being a Senator or running for President? Transition Team has dealt with issue, but guess the Republicans had to come up with something to bash her with, as she proved at her hearing , she is knowledgable, capable, and history awaits.

    January 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
  124. Deb I , Nauvoo, IL

    Isn't being married to Bill Clinton punishment enough? Let this intelligent, motivated woman serve her country to the best of her ability. If Bill tries something shady, we can always go after him–again .

    January 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  125. carson

    No No No No jack...

    January 14, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  126. Ed Woodbridge,Va.

    A better question would be, is Hillary Clinton qualified for the job? Just a few short months ago she was calling her future boss(Obama) unqualified to be President, and now almost certainly with the Democrats in control of everything she will get the State job regardless off Bill's financial dealings! She is a lock for the job as long as Reid is running the show! I am convinced that every one of Obama's cabinet appointments could have skeletons in their closets, and they would still get the jobs they are seeking! Sooner or later many Americans are going to figure out that it was not a good idea to have one party (Democrats) in control of the House,Senate and the White House!

    Ed
    Woodbridge,Va.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  127. Brandy

    I think Bill and Hillary have made it pretty clear that they are a couple in name only. I doubt they share too many things.....those days are over.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  128. Neatha from Kansas City

    No, she is the best qualified and just like any other job interview for a woman, what her husband does on his own time should not prevent her from doing a good job.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  129. Karl from SF, CA

    Let it rest. We have a President and Vice President that have condoned torture and illegal detention, trampled the Constitution, killed over 4000 troops needlessly, and lied to the American people on numerous occasions and they haven’t even been “detained”. Bill and Hill don’t have direct involvement in the foundation. It does great work around the world, as Hillary will too. Sometimes you just have to let go of things.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  130. Shane Conley, Newport News, VA

    This blog is turning into a Mad Libs. "Should (mistake) prevent (experienced candidate) from being appointed to (well fitted cabinet position).

    January 14, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  131. John from collinsville, Illinois

    Jack I wish there was a mute button some one could use to edit stupid questions about qualifications. Has she not been veted enough thuogh other meetings?

    January 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  132. Susan Frost

    Mo, and I don't even like Hillary Clinton. She's never been an "insider" on Bill's many other affairs, so why should his foundation be any different?

    Susan
    Tuscaloosa, AL

    January 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  133. Michael, Pensacola, FL

    Financial affairs like being a board member to a company that the US government contracts services to like Halliburton or have him in the pocket of big business or foreign oil powers? No we can never have something wrong like that happen . . . . . again!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  134. Jim Handy

    No. I am not a big fan of either of the Clinton's, but our politicians and political party's need to start working together for the good of our country and the petty bickering about things like this need to stop.I don't think this would even be much of an issue if the media would stop trying to make it a bigger story than it is.

    Jim
    Inglewood, ca.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  135. Hope M. Madisonville, KY

    Why should it matter? He's not wanting to be Secretary of State,
    Hillary is. Check her finances and don't worry about Bill.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  136. Minnie, SC.

    . . . Stirring the pot again, eh Jack?

    January 14, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  137. Ronald Holst

    NO NO NO Any Reason To bash Clintion Is a good one Right?

    January 14, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  138. karen-phoenix

    OMG!! NO!! Clinton has a world foundation to HELP people!!! He trying to save lives and they confront him? How ridiculous!! Confirm her and lets get us out of this mess!!!!!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  139. Miles in ALLENTOWN

    NO!! In today's world where both spouses often have high powered jobs we would only be able to hire single people if we try to impose conflict of interest rules on spouses.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  140. Arielle Haze

    No, not at all. She is more than qualified to be Secretary of State. She was close to being our President! I think she'd divorce her husband before give up her new post, but she should not have to! They've been good citizens, and they have good intentions!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  141. Linda in Arizona

    Of course not. She has promised ongoing disclosures, and it's a charitable organization. Puleeze.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  142. Andrew, Chappaqua New York

    I live in the same town as Hillary and Bill currently do and i have met them both. Hilary has done so much to get to where she is, and there is no way she is going to let a charity organization affect her decisions. her entire political career has been about dividing herself from her husband, and this matter will be no different.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  143. Frances G

    No! Her stellar performance at the hearing is an excellent indication of her abilities in taking on the position. That's what counts.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  144. Lois Canada

    It's not like they are using the foreign money on Crack, it's money that is going to Charity!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  145. barbara in Tacoma

    If Iwere hillary I would have asked Senator Vitter, why are you questioning my ethics about discloures when your ethics aren't questioned by your fellow senators?

    January 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  146. johnchristopher

    Not at all. And Hillary must be absolutely resolute that no individuals or country get a single break as a result of their contributions especially Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden resides.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  147. connie, Richmond, VA

    Yes. If anyone thinks the information already provided by the Clintons is complete, they are stupid. And there is no way Bill is going to stay out of trouble with some dubious monetary deals in the future. HRC's being SOS because of her husband's former status will be a positive in some respects, but a definite down side exists.

    HRC herself poses enough of a danger because there is an unbelievable jump from "obliterate Iran" to "President Obama's foreign policy". She did give a welll rehearsed performance in her hearing.

    This is a nightmare waiting to happen!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  148. STAN - PEKIN

    Confirm her. The GOP have given her enough static. She is the one for the job, and hope She or Bill are nominated for Supreme Court Judge in the future.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  149. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    She'll be working for Obama, not Bill and if there are any incongruities, she'll be fired like Colin Powell. Besides, I think they are married in name only, not that that is any of our business.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  150. Linda in Florida

    She deserves the job based on her own merits. Whatever she and Barack agreed to at the outset should suffice. She is a very smart woman and the rest of the world already knows and respects her. She will be very helpful in turning around the rest of the world's opinions of us. She will undo the mess that Condi Rice helped get us into.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  151. Jeff in Connecticut

    No Jack, but I am horribly disappointed with Bill accepting money from the Saudis. I cannot be swayed into thinking it's OK for us (the US) to be "friends" with a regime that allows the murder of school girls by burning to death because they don't have the right clothes on.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  152. Robert Valdez in New Mexico

    The only reason this "nominee" has admitted to having made an "honest mistake" is because he was caught . The fact that he took care of the problem does not automatically make it right. Somebody that is not on top of his own financial records is not one that I would trust with overseeing our nation's treasury dept. including the IRS. There are many more out there that would not have this "baggage".

    January 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  153. Dee in Florida

    No. From all I have seen so far Bill Clinton has fully disclosed his contributor information.

    The work done by Bill's charitable group should not have any effect on the office of the Secretary of State.

    And since everyone seems always to be joking about the personal relationship of the Clintons, and acting like the two of them never even speak to each other, how can people now say that Bill's business would influence Hillary's judgments?

    Have all those who think this will be a problem disclosed all THEIR financial dealings?

    January 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  154. Bob Mitchell

    What should keep her out is the fact that she will probably sabotage the Obama Administration

    January 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  155. Jackie in Dallas

    I don't think that Bill Clinton's Foundation, which does some remarkable work worldwide, should be a brake on Hillary Clinton's confirmation, as long as transparency remains in place. Besides, hasn't he removed himself as anything but the figurehead for her term? Sure, his opinion might influence hers...did Condi Rice not have anyone influencing her? With the microscope that the Republicans will have on her, and President Obama's entire administration, I don't think any possible influence brokering will go undetected. I only wish I could say the same of the last 8 years...we might not be in the fix we are in if that had been the case!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  156. Joel New Brighton MN

    We need all the help that smiling Bill and Hill can bring us.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  157. Jay in Nashville

    If the Clintons can influence nations with their Foundation or be influenced by people/nations donating to their Foundation then HC should not be confirmed. I believe it will prove to be a problem that comes to the public eye in the next two years. Just as BC will be a problem to HC being SecState. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
  158. Jan Magdanz

    No, but I am certain that the Republicans are itching to taking her on like they did in the 90's, and Obama's Presidency is recieving negative remarks from the right and he's not President yet.
    Pelosi and Ried need to tuck in their statements and take them to the President, quietly first...and keep quiet and show some class instead of their Pet orders to the President-elect.
    Jan of Ca.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  159. connie, Richmond, VA

    HRC will be confirmed regardless of the potential for the office of SOS being sold to the highest bidder in exchange for monies for CGI or the Clintons. Republicans who are loving the idea aren't or can't question HRC as many of thier hands are dirty, too.

    And is HRC qualified period? I think no; we're electing a SOS, not a prom queen or the most popular. It is so simplistic of the people who say what Bill does shouldn't matter. Last time I looked they are married! His money is hers, hers his. If there's no problem, why did Bill refuse to provide this same information during the primary?

    Frankly, I have Clinton fatigue and want our problems addressed, not more of the Clinton Follies a la 1990's!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  160. Peggy Howard

    I am so sick of Hilary and Bill Clinton. When are we going to bash them for all the weird things they have done and said.
    Why don't they lay off of Bush and start really digging into Bill and Hilary's history. Bill Clinton was impeached. Hilary is nothing more then a power hungary belittled and cheated upon wife.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  161. Brady

    Last time I checked, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were two different people. I don't see what the problem here is.

    Brady from Columbus, OH

    January 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  162. Alan, Buxton Maine

    The last time I noticed it was Hillary who was nominated for the position not Bill. Confirm her and let him continue his charitable efforts.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  163. Christine, Thousand Oaks California

    No. Bill's foundation has done a lot of good in the world. She's qualified and he's a plus as a go to guy.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  164. Maynard Thomas, Catlettsburg, KY

    No. There are rules already in place to address any questionable contributions. There is no need to compose new rules that pertain specifically to the Clintons. This appears to be an ongoing political assault by the republican party. Grow up, move on!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  165. Jack - Lancaster, OH

    Jack:

    Could, should, Republican, Democrat, Senator, Congtessman, appointees, the pardoned, it does not matter what the crime was it seems, the punishment is some kind of reward ! I can't take it any more Jack, I just can't !

    Jack

    January 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
  166. circy in New Mexico

    YES!

    January 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
  167. tlkoss

    Jack,
    As long as President Clinton keeps up his end of the deal and his nose clean, there shouldn't be any problems. But we all distinctly remember a certain episode in the Oval Office that almost brought down his Presidency, so only time will tell. Let's hope for the sake of the county he learned his lesson!

    TLKoss in Frigid Northern Michigan

    PS Oh Jack, BTW, you folks out east had better be prepared, everytime I step outside I feel like I'm standing in the middle of that bridge to nowhere, somewhere in Alaska!! in the Frozen tundra.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  168. John, Fort Collins, CO

    The Clintons are absolute masters at pushing all their dealings just past the edge, then moving on without blinking and without consequences. This is just the skill set a Secretary of State needs to play international poker with today's world leaders. It would be a poor fit if Hillary were just a nice stay-at-home mother who like to bake cookies.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  169. vern-t anaheim,ca

    no hilary clinton should be appointed secretary of state,she has extensive expierence in foreign affairs and her husbands charity work should have no basis in her selection.i think she will be a great secretary of state better than her predessor condelisa ice

    January 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  170. Frank in San Jose, CA

    We don't deny people positions because of potential for wrongdoing; if we did that, no one would get hired anywhere for anything. If Hillary is the best person for the job, she should get it. We should all assume that she will perform her duties ethically unless proven otherwise. It is our duty as the voting public to watch her, as it would be for any other public official. We can't condemn her for something that hasn't happened.

    January 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  171. joe tn

    Yes.....Please get the two of them out of gov't asap...

    January 14, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  172. Terry in Fayetteville, NC

    In a perfect government she should be passed over. However, I expect Obama's term limit to expire before his government achieves perfection..

    January 14, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  173. Brian - Trinidad

    Oh Gawd! When are we going to leave the Bill Clinton alone? He's not the Prez anymore.I wish he was but he's not! You couldn't prevent his success when he was President and now he's successfull as a citizen.Unless he has broken some law,stop insinuating that he's causing or will cause problems behind the scenes!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  174. Ken in NC

    Well former President Clinton's other affiar (s) didn't stop him from being President so it should not stop her from becoming the Sec. of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  175. odessa

    i remember in the primary season when hillary referred obama as a muslim and never clarified in front of the press..she knew that he wasn't a muslim and rather scafirice her political future..obama ignored her to prove that the issues really matter to this country..now she running for the secretary of state and bill clinton's foundation has donors coming from saudi arabria and other foreign countries..obama could have used it but chose not too..it shouldn't affect her chances but it proves to the voters about how much money that bill clinton raised for the foundation instead paying off his wife's campaign debt..i hope that she will do a good job for obama's administration as well for the country..

    January 14, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  176. klweldne@yahoo.com

    There is no reason that Hillary should be held accountable for what Bill did. She is her own person. Let her do the job so that we get out of Iraq NOW.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  177. Phil P. in NJ

    The Clintons are career politicians and true American patriots. They proved that when they endoresd Obama for President. They also have a vested interest in America with their daughter Chelsea. They have an opportunity to help shape American policy for the next 50 years. I'm sure they will want to leave this world a better place for their daughter and her children. At least, I would hope so.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
  178. lynnej from lattimore, nc

    No. As long as President Clinton's business is above aboard and there is no conflict of interest, get over it, confirm her and move on. We got people dying in Gaza and other areas of the Middle East. How that is handled determines al-Qaeda's actions. We need common sense in the area of foreign policy finally for a change.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
  179. Stan Schurman

    It depends on whether you want someone that's up to the job or simply someone who has no external complications. If Hillary can keep Bill's affairs (excuse the terminolgy) apart from her decisions related to foreign policy there is no reason why she shouldn't be confirmed.

    Stan Schurman
    Barrie, Ontario

    January 14, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
  180. gail Centre, Al.

    I can't think of a better person to be secretary of state. Jack you are just looking for something to grunt about. You don't like the clintons, and you would like to see her fail.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  181. Dave in Saint Louis,MO

    I am sorry but anytime you use the word affairs in a question about Bill and Hillary I just can't help but laugh!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  182. Lane from Nashville

    Let me understand this... if she had been elected President, this wouldn't be an issue, but she's not able to be Secretary of State, because her husband does charity work?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  183. Jay

    FUNNY
    Why wasn't this question raised when she was running for President in the Primaries?
    Just more cherry picking if you ask me.
    Had she been the President Elect, we wouldn't be having this sudden dissecting.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  184. Felicia (Georgia)

    NO! "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Luke 11: 7

    January 14, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  185. Allen

    No. She should be prevented by her own reputation for corruption and dishonesty, as well as her husbands.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  186. Laurie, New York, NY

    No, but Hillary shouldn't be so dismissive of efforts to tighten Bill's reporting requirements to eliminate conflicts of interest. He should report donations as they occur, instead of once a year and they should be vetted by the White House counsel not the State Department. Or else, she could finally just divorce him.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  187. Karna, Pacifica, CA

    NO!
    I realize that there are people who really don;t want change. What Bill has done for years should have no effect, it is not "new" info. Stop fussing over nothing and let Hillery get to work, please!?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  188. Patrick in Hampstead, Maryland

    Jack – I think there is a problem when someone tells you that they are not disclosing who there foriegn donors are . Thats a conflict and a major problem for most Americans. Hillary is a poor choice for Secretary of State and Obama's first big mistake. The Clintons still think they are American royalty like the Kennedy's. Its a Big joke.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  189. Billy D Providence, RI

    Absolutely not, after all he was our President for 8 years, if you can't trust him then who should you trust? I do not believe for a second Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton would do anything improper. She will be a good Secretary of State and has my 100% support, besides it comes from Salon.com the political version of the Enquirer.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  190. Tom Gladstone

    This is a ridiculous precedent to set. If we go down this road, then half of Washington wouldn't be allowed to take a job. Heck, even news networks have reporters married to people in the current administration and no one asks whether or not this compromises their ability to accurately report the news.

    For whatever reason, the Washington fish bowl has never accepted the Clintons. They tried to impeach Clinton for no reason, that failed. They've tried to sully their reputation over the years, that's failed. This is just one more tired jab at them.

    Enough already.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  191. Stephen Halby

    It seams to me, all politics aside, that it is interesting that we would only want people to be our Secretary of State if they do not care enough about international affairs to try to make a positive difference in the first place. I understand the potential issues, but to disallow an individual because they are linked to trying to help people seems the wrong way to think.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  192. Trudy

    Absolutely Not !!
    Trudy in PA.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  193. John Elk Grove, CA

    This is ridiculous, Hilary Clinton is as professional as they come and she has been a loyal public servant for decades. It is absurd to think Hilary or Bill would take bribes from foreign countries when both have no financial interest. Everyone saying otherwise is just blowing hot air to relieve their heartbreak of John McCain not winning the presidency.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  194. thomas braun

    No. This is nothing more than a hit piece as it is well known that Christopher Hitchens literally hates the Clintons. Jack, it would be good if you could give a little context on these kinds of stories. There are many ignorant people who look at the surface only on such questions. Hitchens literally hates the Clintons.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  195. Winnie Cooper

    Honestly, I think Chris Hutchins should marry Ann Coulter. The venom they would generate together could keep them potentially "happy" and out of our hair!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  196. Gayle Levison

    It is incredibly naive to think that Bill Clinton's activities will not affect his wife's perfrmance. He said during her Presidental campaign, "We discuss EVERYTHING". They hide everything, too. I really like Obama, but his tripping into this trap will hurt us one day.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  197. junior doh

    no it should not, it like saying laura bush should not run for president because of George Bush. hahaha just playing. it should not affect it there are two different people but they should have an eye on her.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  198. Jose from Hoboken, NJ

    We are going to regret this one, Hillary should have been left in the Senate and never offered this job. President Clinton is incapable of keeping his hands off policy, plus he would offer his opinion. If that was the intention, fine, but he skirts the gray zone lately and, personally, I believe he sells his influence to the highest bidder.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  199. Derek B. Watat

    No jack. i think they should stick with the agreement the Obama team made with her before she was nominated.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  200. Julian Sanchez

    This is human instinct, if I provide you with a gift, I subconsciously expect to count with your help when the time comes.

    Hilary being being appointing to be the top foreign diplomat while her husband receives "gifts' from all foreign leaders is more than enough to question her ability to be unbiased.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  201. Diane (Denver)

    The Clintons have been leaving a bad taste in my mouth for many years, but people are losing sight of the forest on this one. Bill Clinton is a 100% VOLUNTEER with his NON-PROFIT entity that is doing FABULOUS things according to EVERYONE. If US policy gets pushed a bit towards what The Global Initiative is trying to accomplish – so much the better! God help us if there is a conflict of interest between our interests and those of the world at large!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  202. Ellen from Atlanta

    Anyone who watched the confirmation hearings yesterday can see what an amazing woman Hillary is and her intelligence and indepth grasp of so many issues will make her an wonderfule Secretary of State when the stakes have never been higher. I supported Barrack Obama for president over Hillary because I felt we needed a fresh leader. But I always admired Hillary Clinton's accomplishments, intelligence and class. I think having Bill Clinton as her husband will also help in opening dialog around the world since he is highly respected abroad.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  203. Rupok

    No because Hilary is another person and even if her husband bill Clinton helps her that shouldn't prevent anything. She should take the position as secretary of state.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  204. Nina Miller

    My question is this: why would Salon, and then CNN, give a platform to a known and acknowledged sexist like Christopher Hitchens to comment on any female politician?

    What's next – you ask David Duke to comment on Obama's stimulus package?

    Seriously, Hitchens has ZERO credibility when it comes to Hillary Clinton or any other female politician. Next time try promoting someone who (1) isn't contemptuous of half the population and (2) isn't drunk every waking moment.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  205. Tony D'Astoli

    One has nothing to do with the other. What do these people think is going to happen....hey I gave the Clinton Group $1,000,000 therefore Madam Secretary your country should surrender to us. Give me a break! Not one Republican asked Clinton what she would do when it came to her new job. It was just Clinton bashing all over again.

    Tony from Phoenix

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  206. Kevin Hemp

    Now here's one that damn sure wont make T.V.
    My Answere is leave her alone – Finally a woman with balls and they don't want to give her the job? Common – get real!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  207. Barbara Dowd

    No. Hillary should be confirmed as Secretary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  208. Nate in Idaho

    Do you actually think all the talk will change Obama's decision? He is going to act like his choice was the best one and will stick with it even though all of the talk is on how Bill's mess filters into Hillary's new position. Nothing will change ...

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  209. Andy

    Jack - what's the obsession with destroying Hillary? Enough already! You were a loyal follower of the Obama cult in the primaries. And your guy has now been elected. Is that not enough to make you happy or will you not rest until you've ruined Hillary as well? Shame on you and Christopher Hitchens! Ask yourself who would be a better Secy of State than Hillary. I doubt even you will come up with many names.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  210. Ollie Rivers

    Christopher Hitchens is a confirmed old-style "Clinton hater" who practically foams at the mouth whenever invited to discuss Bill or Hillary Clinton with other talking heads. I wouldn't take anything he has to say or write about the Clintons without a HUGE pinch of salt!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  211. Winnie Cooper

    Honestly, I think Chris Hitchens should marry Ann Coulter. The venom these two generate together could keep them potentially happy and out of our hair. Sioux Falls, SD.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  212. Lydia in Minneapolis,MN

    There's ALREADY been SIX times Sen.Clinton intervened on behalf of donars to hubby's charity. NOMIINATE SOMEONE ELSE MROE TRUSTWORTHY. How about Samantha Powers? She's has NO conflict of interests & a rep for upholding human rights–a REAL change from the Bush Administration.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  213. Joanne

    Jack, don't you know Christopher Hitchens absolutely hates Hillary Clinton and will do anything to knock her down? Read some of his past articles of the last year or so.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  214. Max in Orlando, FL

    I'm only 11 and I know that Hillary is not going to interfere with Bill Clintion's Foundation. I can't think of a better person to be Secretary of State than Hillary.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  215. Joseph Giustra

    What? Question the motives behind a donation to the victims of AIDS, poverty and disease? Do the victims really care? Should we? It seems that the Clintons' can never do anything right, and the right wing will always be attacking humanity and decency.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  216. Tom

    By the way, and I should have added this above, Hitchens is a walking nightmare. This is the same guy that wrote an entire book trashing Mother Theresa. Why he is still treated as a respectable journalist is beyond me.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  217. Jake, Oregon

    They were no problem at all for Veep Cheney whose benefactor company moved their headquarters to UAE to eliminate their share of US taxes And one questioner specifically has very questionable views of accountability and disclosure and moral conduct, yet he lurched forward anyway fueled by his hypocrisy.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  218. CNN FAN

    Right on! And what about the Clintons' past connection (to criminals) like Ya Lin Charlie Trie (Immediately after the donation to Clinton's defense fund, Trie sent a letter to President Clinton that expressed concern about America's intervention in tensions arising from China's military exercises being conducted near Taiwan. Trie told the President in his letter that war with China was a possibility should U.S. intervention continue), Norman Hsu, James Riady, John Huang, Gilbert Chagoury, Robert J. Congel, and Johnny Chung (bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law) and the Clinton's poor judgement and conflict of interest in promoting them, sponsoring them, having them to the White House many times, inviting them to Clinton-sponsored social events and fund-raising events, creating potential national security risks, possible conflict of interest (with China) and campaign finance ethics. Why is the Senate Confirmation Committee only concerned with President Bill Clinton's conflict of interest in his Charity Donors and not re Hillary and Bill Clinton's past political donors, obligations to China, and other obligations that may be a conflict to our national security? http://www.slate.com/id/2208425/?GT1=38001 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy Please do not drop the ball on this … our national security could depend on it!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  219. kc ratner

    "Conflict of Interest" for Hilary, yes! If she gets the approval, then how come Bill Richardson resigned. They all take money under the table.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  220. Steven

    At least we already know who has contributed to the Clinton Foundation and will continue to learn of future donors. If we only knew how many American companies have been sold to foreign governments and interests with the collapse of the dollar. Let's have more transparency with that!

    Steven
    Wichita, KS

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  221. Angel

    I understand that Former President Clinton is her husband and that at some time all wives turn to their husbands for advice, however I was under the impression that Senator Clinton was elected on HER merits not necessarily her husbands

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  222. Jeff

    Absolutely!!!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  223. Dawson Hunter

    Americans seem to have a short memory. Do we not remember all the scandals that the Clintons were involved in during Bill's tenure as president? The SecState should be someone worthy of our trust. The Clintons are not.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  224. D. Franklin

    The issue is not impropriety, or the appearance thereof, it is the conflict of interest itself. For anyone to have a conflict of interest and deny that it will influence his or her behavior is purely narcissistic. The Greeks called it hubris. It is the core evil of our system of government. Senator Clinton will be confirmed specifically because congresspersons do not want attention to be drawn to their own conflicts of interest.

    D. Franklin

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  225. Lois Kunkle

    Christopher Hitchens has been against the Clinton couple ever since I can remember. Lets give the woman a chance especiall since C. Hitchens has been supporting the idiots that have been running the country for the last eight years. Our country needs Hillory to help us out of this disaster. Take a closer look at who and what Hitchens is supporting,

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  226. Dee in Mena AR

    Absoultly not.....The Clintons, one or both, can put the United States back in the good graces of all the countries that GeorgeBush lost for us. They are well liked and respected anyplace they go and we need them to restore our standing in the world. President Clinton has done so much good and I believe it is all above board and honest. I don't believe that Hillary would let him influence her decisions on national affairs. Of course she would talk to him, husbands and wives do that, but she would make the ultimate decisions just as he did as President. We need the Clintons badly and more people like them. She would be a great Secretary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  227. kristin

    Jack,

    No, I don't think it should disqualify her from becoming our next Secretary of State. Christopher Hitchens dislikes the Clintons to such an extent that his objectivity is questionable.

    The Clinton Foundation does many good things. Don't you think we can monitor donations to this foundation, and determine if there are conflicts of interest? I think we probably can.

    Kristin

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  228. joyce jacoby

    NO. The Clintons have provided transcparicy as to their donors.If the premise not to confirm Hilary Clinton is her associations through the Foundation then the same could be said for any congressman on the hill who has associations with foreign donors or have foreign friendships.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  229. Susan

    No. My husband and I keep our financial accounts separate. Why should Hillary be scrutinized. I think it evident that she is her own woman and makes her own decisions!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  230. Jon - San Diego

    Put anyone under a strong enough microscope and you will find faults, agendas, and a questionable past

    The only person who would be able to stand up to the current process without exposing 'cracks in their armor' died on a cross

    Hillary may be abrasive, egocentric, a a general PITA but I would much rather have her as my advocate than any others who were mentioned

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  231. Kathryn, Santa Barbara, CA

    No.

    We're so lucky Hillary wants the job. She's brilliant.

    My admiration for her deepens every day, particularly as she's had to withstand withering criticism most of her life by people who have nothing better to do than tear down a very valuable public servant.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  232. Ed of Alaska

    Saying that Bill Clintons finances will not conflict with a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defies all laws of politics, money and corruption. That is not change, hope or anything I can believe in.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  233. George

    Hitchens is arguably the biggest chronic Clinton hater in the country and his views are hardly objective. That Jack Cafferty lauds them as the greatest wisdom since the Ten Commandments speaks more about Cafferty than the Clintons. Any candidate for Secretary of State deserves serious review but the foreign policy issues facing our country today are far too serious than to be sidetracked by the pettiness of someone like Hitchens and his fans like Cafferty.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  234. Kenneth Kleinman

    Jack - Since nothing remains hidden in DC for long, do you really think the Clintons are stupid enough to risk their legacy and reputations by allowing contributors to the Clinton foundation to influence Hillary's actions? Do you think President Obama would hesitate to ditch her the moment he suspects such actions. I think not on both counts.

    Ken Kleinman, Belleville IL

    January 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  235. Paul W.

    Jack:

    Yes, that is just more cover up, and not the transparency that Obama has talked about.

    She during the campaign continued hammering away at Obama not having the experience needed to be President.

    Hillary has no experience in Foreign Affairs, and that is critical.

    Of course if the USA really was a Democracy we would not be talking about terrorists all the time, when in fact; the real terrorists are located at 1600 Pennsylvania.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  236. Linda

    Cafferty, knock off the Clinton-bashing! You've spent the past year doing all in your power to criticize Hillary Clinton. She will make a great secretary of state so find someone else to pick on for a change. It is quite obvious what your opinion of the Clintons is. I thought you people were supposed to be unbiased!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  237. Joanna Lang

    You have to keep in mind that Hitchens is VERY right wing. He only tells one side of the story.

    There are Clinton haters under every rock, and it is going to be a real game for them to see how much slime they can throw around.

    Compared to the Bushes, if you are interested in history, the Clintons are not very good at this money thing. Ex-President G.H.W. Bush just flat out accepted money from the Saudis for his own use. Hitchens does not mention that.

    The Clintons have more than complied with the law, they have offered much more information about finances than is required. Their efforts at transparency are extraordinary, and still people will find fault. Encouraging this nonsense is a poor idea. Giving it airtime is playing right into the hands of the far-right.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  238. Rick Boyd

    Hillary should be excluded from appointment. If there are 6 questionable actions already, how many more will be added during her term? If President elect Obama wants continued credablilty, the back room needs to be used to get her "withdrawal".

    Hamburg, PA

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  239. john j. grimes Watertown, Ma.

    It should but certainly will not have any impact. The fact that they refuse to give the names of the donors to his library make it quite clear that they operate by their own rules. As the old saying goest is easier to be dishonest for two than for one.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  240. martin wiesler

    Something we know for sure–If you had a chance to be in her position you would take any and every step to be sure it leaned towards your thought process, as has everything you done in the past 18 months–You always seemed so open minded then during the election you've used your show as your opinion despite facts along with any news worthy stories–Get some facts, tell us the news, get behind the scenes there's plenty–save the gossip for daytime TV

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  241. Nina Miller

    And seriously, you do realize we're talking about a charitable foundation, right?

    What do you think would happen – Hillary, in her passion to raise more foreign government funding for AIDS, will sell out the interests of the United States (which is the largest single donor to AIDS relief)?

    Does that make any logical sense? (NO).

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  242. Richard

    Jack
    Are you not aware of the fact Christopher Hitchens absolutely despises the Clinton's and rips them every time he is used as a talking head.
    Please qualify the agenda of an author before sending us to an article regardless of how well it is written. Thanks

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  243. Joe Binard MD FRCSC

    Hillary should not even have been onsidered!
    Obama stands for "CHANGE" but I see too many rethreads and having Hillary Secretary of State while her hubby keeps on collecting huge sums from foreign countries is totally unwise: those countries will give Clinton to get something in return and since he can not do much now, it will be his wife the Secretary of State they will expect favors from!
    Same old Same old!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  244. David Karys-Schiff

    When you question Senator Clinton's ability to perform the duties of the office of Secretary of State just remember who holds the office right now. Secretary Rice has not been the most effective person to hold the office either. She's a Bush and oil company lackey. At least Clinton has served the public interest longer. No matter who is nominated someone will have an objection. Just let the process run its course and stop whining!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  245. bj gardber

    We do not believe all the clinton controversary generated by the media and politicians.
    Hillary is her own person and is a true patriot in her own right.
    It is not right to rob the people of the world Bills contribution in the name of humanity .He has said he will stop contributions to his private humanitarian businesses so let it go and rejoice we have someone so willing to give her efforts to the United States and the world.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  246. Agopal

    Jack, extremely intelligent people rarely make mistakes but when they do it turns out to be huge. I hope and pray that we use exactly that to get her out of this job.

    PA

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  247. Jim Fawcett

    Absolutely not. Since Bill doesn't discuss his personal affairs with her, or apparently not much of anything else, what's the problem?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  248. Mark Lee

    Absolutely. If someone wants to donate millions of dollars to the eradication of diseases like malaria or AIDS and get Bill Clinton's ear maybe it's worth it. It sure beats $90,000 in someone freezer or an addition put on your house in Alaska.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  249. Joel Wyatt

    Of course it should prevent her from serving and of course she should not have been nominated. That's why dynasties make no sense in a democracy. Voters are uninformed, policiticians have no spine and the media looks for ratings and trends rather than reporting the news. You all get what you deserve.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  250. James W.

    How long will the far right continue to bash Bill Clinton? Get over it!
    Hillary is imminently qualified, in fact , she is probably more qualified than most of the bozos who served in the the Bush Administration.
    I think, unlike the far right, Bill Clintons' name is a positive thing that will hold her and us in good stead.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  251. Phillip Fears

    As to Hillary's ability to conduct foreign affairs while Dollar Bill collects money, I have no doubt she can separate the two. Did anyone in the media make this big of a deal about Cheney and Halliburtons conection? At least she won't be able to invade a foriegn country and somehow enrich her husbands foundation, which contrary to Halliburton, has actually done good works throughout the world. Move on to a real story!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  252. Mike Mooney, Albany, New York

    Cafferty, what is your problem? People are contributing to Bill
    Clinton's entirely philanthropic missions in his foundation work,
    and you're gravely concerned about his influence.

    So you're opposed AIDS vaccines and malaria prevention, etc.?,
    as you're wringing hands over Bill's Svengali-like hold over
    Senator Clinton and the Democrats in government.

    Take a chill, Jack; Bill's influence is benevolent. It's a philanthrophic
    foundation! Relax. What he's doing is the the right thing to do.

    ~ Mike Mooney

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  253. Robert S. Foster City, CA

    I do not see why bill's activities unless illegal should prevent her from this position. She was appointed by the President-elect and they went over this issue already and if this is the hold up for confirmation, its ridiculous. I really do not see how a philanthropic organization can be that bad for the government. Is there something about the conformation that we do not know about?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  254. Raymond Johnson

    I fail to understand why Obama even nominated Hillary Clinton for the position of Secretary of State in the first place. During his presidential campaign he was hell-bent on convincing all of us that Hillary has no foreign diplomatic experience and that she at odds over how some of the unfriendly foreign powers would be approached. Congress has the opportunity to correct this mistake by failing to confirm Hillary Clinton. Maybe this was Obama's plan all along?
    Ray
    Houston, Texas

    January 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  255. James from Spokane

    As a strong republican I don't see why it should be an issue until there is evidence it WOULD be an issue. As a strong republican though I have a hard time supporting Hillary in anything, I tried, but even reading these comments everyone has to get their digs in on Bush. Get over it and stop whining bums.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  256. Keith

    No

    January 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  257. Torrance Lauderhill, FL

    No, his actions will not influence her desire for change, besides the people have spoken, she is the best for the job!!!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  258. Guy

    No. And until BOTH Bushes reveal their lists of donors (I'll bet good money all three have names and countries in common), the is another Republicon witch hunt; another Whitewater. Hypocrites all.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  259. Jeffrey C.

    Is it not possible, even most likely, that Hilary Clinton, as Secretary of State, will direct the huge amount of foreign aid that is part of the US budget to countries in need through the agency run by her husband, being the Clinton Global initiative.

    If she becomes Secretary of State, could this not become the most evident and outrageous case of conflict of interest in US history?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  260. Jean Clelland-Morin

    The questions are: Who is in a better position to be Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton? And what would we find in vetting others for the job? Too many in the media like you, Jack "It's over Hillary" cafferty, have already done enough damage. What's your honset opinion of Hillary Clinton? // Jean / San Antonio

    January 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  261. kay

    Hitchens should just shut up and go away.He wouldn't say anything good about the Clintons if his life depended on it.He has been after them for years.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  262. Paula from Ohio

    As for Christopher Hitchens, even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time. He's been wrong so many times. He should be back in the UK covering sex scandals of the MPs.
    As for Senator Clinton, she is a professional, par none. Her husband, former President has a Foundation that is helping people around the world, people who would otherwise fall through the cracks.
    Should we worry about a quid-pro-quo as it relates to donations and the Secretary of State position? No. Hilliary has a focus on the task at hand that will not be swayed by her husbands donors, Her job will be spreading Obamas world visions.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  263. Jerry La Roe

    No, Hillarys plus"s far outway any negitves her husbands foundation financing might present.America and the rest of the world need her in this job. Quit hacking away at Bill Clinton and let our new admnistrtion be about trying to finally start trying to turn this world wide mess around.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  264. Guy

    I meant, "THIS is another..."

    January 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  265. stormerf

    Yes ,Hillary shoud not be Secretary of State.She lied about the Letter, she said she got as a girl from NASA saying they didn't take women,she lied about how she got her Name,Her parents when to England and met sir Edmond Hillary after she was born,She lied about not voting for the war,and She lied about coming under sniper fire. Bill lied about his affairs,so now we have two liars.They lie so much they can't handle the truth and now Obama wants them to be Secretary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  266. Peggy-Lombard, Il

    NO. Bill's Foundation is not some sleazy scheme to pad his pockets. It does good work. The Senate should confirm Hillary ASAP.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  267. Mary L Sullivan

    Absolutely not!!! I follow politics pretty closely and how often is a man's spouses activities questioned? Not much.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  268. CNN VIEWER

    Great reporting! Please get Chris Hutchins live on your show asap so he can talk about the Clinton's potential conflict. Great media! Great coverage! Thanks!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  269. Bruce

    We'd need to know how many times she intervened on ANY foreign affairs issue before we could judge the six cited by Hitchens/Cafferty. However, if cynicism is to be the lens through which we view HRC as a potential secretary of state, then we must also consider her ambition to become President at the end of Obama's term. From that POV, we should expect her to have a very self interested motivation to not to engage in activity that could be judged or seen as corrupt, and further, her successful avoidance of the same should strengthen the trust that 2116 voters would have for her.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  270. OHIO for OBAMA

    NO.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  271. JerryinDayton

    This is not a big issue except to paranoid Clinton haters who always try to find some ominous motive behind everything they do. It is not necessarily unusual or illegal for a foundation donor also to lobby a sitting Senator on issues important to them. For example, I have been an avid Hillary Clinton supporter, and my family has donated to Bill Clinton's Foundation. Yet, the two are not connected in any way in that I never expected any quid pro quo and there never was any promise of any. I believe in the work of Bill Clinton's foundation, and I support the policies of Hillary Clinton and have encouraged her to work on behalf of those issues. People need to realize that Bill and Hillary Clinton's careers are in many ways two separate careers. Hillary has her own accomplishments SEPARATE from Bill. I've never understood why some people can't understand that and are obsessed with Bill and Hillary Clinton and believe they are the root of all evil, despite the fact they've done so much good for this country and the world. People need to get over their paranoid obsessions about Bill and Hillary Clinton and be glad we have to such capable, intelligent and dedicated people who are striving to do good in the world.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  272. Pat

    Poor Hillary, if I had my way she'd finally end up doing that "cookies and tea" thing that she groused about so very long ago! I am tired of the Kennedy, Bush and Clinton dynastys and wish they'd all go away to make room for level-headed real people, especially those without law degrees. In a perfect world, I guess...

    January 14, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  273. Dennis in Adams, Ne.

    Jack, I just read these comments to make myself feel intelligent. I'm a high school drop-out and I spell better than the college grads.

    BTW, does anybody really care if she's confirmed or not?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  274. Karyn in Fl.

    Absolutely, YES!!! Are the majority of your listeners deaf, dumb and blind. If they think Bill & Hillary are separate entities, they're kidding themselves. I see, "conflict of interest" all over this arrangement.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  275. Lee Sanford

    No. Hitchings has his own bias. Hilary is very bright, strong and Obama made a great choice for Secretary of State. Let's stop the constant negativity and get on with setting this Country back on the correct path.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  276. Margaret

    No, Bill Clinton's charities should NOT deter Senator Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State. She is the most qualified and respected person for the job. Jealous critics just can't let go of their hate for the Clintons and will drag up anything for their moment in the limelight. If these egregious things happened, where were the critics at the time? She is far more honest than critics who like to scream for attention in the day's headlines whatever the subject and flaunt their brand of crudeness and hatred.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  277. Ralph Nelson

    No. Wolf shouldn't be prevented from doing his job because his wife robbed a bank, either. I'm a friend of Bill. FOB. Best president since FDR. Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  278. Tim

    No. If a person in a position of power is going to be swayed by financial interests, favors, etc. then he or she will find a way to do it –
    foundation or not. It is a matter of integrity - either you have it or you don't. As far as Hitchens is concerned, he has had it in for the Clintons for a very, very long time and with a vengence. I doubt that he would make the same case if it were the "Smiths" or the "Browns" not the Clintons.
    Tim in Texas

    January 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  279. dave

    Of course not. Was George Bush I, with his international connections, a good enough reason to not allow George II to run for president ?

    If anything, she will have an embedded advantage over previous Sec's of State. No need for periods of "feeling out" or "trust" from those who either have contributed to Bill's foundation, got along with him when he was president, knew her she was First Lady, etc.

    She certainly has strength and knowledge that few Sec's of State were able to bring to the table. When foreign governments look at her they will see a former First Lady, a former U.S. Senator and a recent strong Presidential candidate. Negotiating from such a strong background has got to be to the advantage of the U.S. – regardless of what anyone in the U.S. thinks about Bill

    January 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  280. Betty D Nelson

    No...I realize she will confir with Bill on many different items and why not? He's her husband and a very, very smart guy and in the end she will make her own decisions because she's a very, very smart gal!! And she will most certainly seek opinions from other policital peers – so why not her own at-home expert?? By the way, did anyone else notice how tired she looked at the hearings? Get some sleep, girl, you've got a lot of work ahead of you.

    I'm from Montana.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  281. gary saari

    I think that Bill Clinton's foundation tries to help the needy people of the world which is admirable, but it seems that the Republican mind set only promotes their own agenda. The Republican agenda is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and that's why they play their religious and moral cards to distract from their real intent. Obviously, Bill Clinton's affairs regarding his foundation should not prevent Hillary's confirmation. She already has dealt with him regarding their religious and moral concepts.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  282. Abe in New York

    Let's get real.
    What politician does not have a conflict of interest?
    Surely every "living" politician is or influenced by some self serving motivation either before, during, or while thinking about post service.
    How much more naive can we get.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  283. JerryinDayton

    I take issue with your statement that Hillary Clinton has no foreign affairs track record of her own. That is a false statement. Serving as First Lady for eight years certainly provides some foreign affairs track record, particularly when one is as active as Hillary Clinton in the capacity of First Lady. Since that time she has been twice elected to the U.S. Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee that involves some international and foreign affairs duties/experience. So, it is just not accurate or true to say she has NO foreign affairs track record of her own. Honestly, some of you people just need to get over your paranoia and outright jealousy about Hillary and Bill Clinton. What, you just can't stand it that they are intelligent, capable and successful people who continue to do good for the country and the world despite all the negative crap that gets thrown at them. Get over it already!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  284. Nancy in Hawaii

    Hmmm would I rather have my country in the hands of those that buy medicines, like the Clinton foundation, or in the control of those that own/ed Halliburton, the war company? Tough choice for some, I guess.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  285. dan

    As an Illinios resident, its easy to spot another Pay to Play shakedown setup caper. As Bill takes payola via the backdoor hillery hands out favors at the front door.All at taxpayers expense.like two old foxes tguarding our fort Knox henhouse.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  286. John Papaleo

    No, When will the monarchy end? How blind are those who see the Clintons as champions of democracy? Hillary sat and watched while Bill and his administration failed to protect us from Bin Laden. Now after her dogging Obama she is his Sect. of State? How could this be? Bill sets up his foundation and makes tens of millions from over-seas and you think his wife, the women he sleeps with every night can make objective decisions for our country as part of an administration that until recently she aggressively opposed? The Clintons are not heros, they are narcissistic fakes who are only concerned about power and money. Just like everyone else in Washington.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  287. DAVID CASEY

    The relationship of former President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, the nominee for the post of Secretary of State, should not be an issue.
    Many of our former president's wives have held key positions in the
    various stages of either government or the private sector.

    The allegiance of the selectee to up hold the duties of that office is paramount. In this case, Hillary , will no doubt be subject to controversy, but if there is a conflict of interest between her duties and the foundation headed by the former President Bill Clinton, she must
    sever herself from her husband's ties to his organization.

    If there are questions affecting national security and diplomacy, she must present a resonse to the Congress and the media before making a decision which puts not only herself and her husband in question, but to show good faith in representing this nation as the Secretary of State. Personally, I think she will do a good job. I wish her well, she has excellent credentials and except for the decision of the voters, she would be in the Oval Office herself on January 20, 2009.
    David Casey

    January 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  288. Richard Green

    Jack,
    Hillary's job as Sec.of State will be to represent the views and beliefs of the government of the US as expressed by Barack Obama. If she fails to do that, she will be replaced. Folks who hope to influence Hillary through Bill's charities will need to include President-elect Obama in that equation. Obama will make our foreign policy, not Hillary. So, no, it won't be a problem.
    [Was it a problem that one of McCain's top staffers took over half a million dollars from the gov't of Georgia as a lobbyist before McCain took up their cause? I don't recall too much bruhaha about that.]

    Rich Green
    San Clemente, Cal. where it's 80 degrees

    January 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  289. Cathy

    People need to lay off Hilary. She is very intelligent and has a strong personality. She will make a great Secretary of State. It was the unfortunate fear of Bill that cost her the election. They need to look at Hilary's strengths and independence of Bill instead of making challenges regarding her qualifications not Bill's and his activities . l
    am really tired of politics in everything anyone tries to do for this country. After all, we all have a few skeletons in our closets. How about your skeletons??

    Cathy
    One of the few Democrats in Clinton County, Ohio

    January 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  290. Rosemary

    Yes. I still don't see why people think Hillary is the best person for the job. There are a lot more talented people out there at this time in history. It could be a very big potential for embarassment and conflict of interest.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  291. lou

    Send her through...Bill's foundation is leqal and productive. It would be an odd twist of fate if she ever had to land a plane in a war zone with sniper fire flying about. Don't wish it on her, but karma has a way of sneaking up on you.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  292. Ed Dodson

    The Clintons have always been ready to sell their influence. Nobody should doubt that Hillary's interventions for Bill's big donors were anything but quid pro quo. It's great to hear that, despite all the marital discord, they are still a team!
    This makes a lie out of Mr. Obama's campaing promise to make the US Foreign Policy more respectable to the rest of the world.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  293. Jack

    What if Hillary had been elected Pres. ? Do you think they would have stoped her from taking office?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  294. brian

    Jack- no! People need to focus on the skill, experience, influence, and energy that Sen. Clinton can bring to the job, and not whether she helped Pres. Clinton get funding for his charity work, As Carville said recently, the Clintons have a legacy of peace snd prosperity- will someone explain why that isn't recommendation enough for the tough assignment ahead?

    Brian, SF

    January 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  295. John

    Hillary is an excellent candidate for the job. However, for her to be effective, the Clinton Foundation should return every cent of the funds donated by foreign countries especially Arab Islamist entities and countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the others. In fact, there should be a law that forbids former Presidents from getting any foreign donations for their libraries or Foundations. Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation should act immediately to return these donations from Islamist countries and individuals in the Middle East.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  296. Rose Hann

    Christopher Hitchens HATES the Ckintons. Ask Joan Walsh who writes for Salon how she has had to ask him to stop. She even wrote a column about him.
    The Clinton Foundation has done such good, it's sad the card carrying Clinton bas-hers have to spoil much needed help for the sick and poor because a fat slob like Hitchens writes hate.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  297. Daniel Pratt

    Everything in which the Clintons are involved has a redolence of corruption. Why should this situation be any different? While it is difficult to tell whether Mrs. Clinton’s various “government interventions” benefitted the former President’s charitable enterprises, it is reasonable to assume that she was not meddling in said affairs out of boredom, or to promote her burgeoning career as a humanitarian. I think such matters should be careful investigated as a measure of revealing the true aspirations of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, whether wholesome or malfeasant.

    Daniel E. Pratt
    Huntsville, TX

    January 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  298. james from houston

    No

    January 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  299. Meredith

    Secretary of State current Duties According to Wikipedia:

    The Non-Original Domestic Functions
    1) Storage and Use of the Great Seal of the United States
    2) Performance of Protocol for the White House
    3) Drafting of Proclamations
    4) Responding to Inquiries

    In Accordance with the United States Constitution:
    1) Secretary performs Such Duties as President Requires
    a) Include negotiating with foreign representatives
    b) Instructing US Embassies or Consulates abroad
    2) Secretary Serves as Principal adviser to the President
    a) In the determination of US Foreign Policy
    b) responsible for overall direction, cordination
    c) Supervision of interdepartemental activities of the US
    Government overseas – except certain military activities –

    After reviewing what Wikipedia has to say about the duties of the Secretary of State, I see NO conflict at all what so ever for Hillary to be Secretary of State.

    So to all those who just want to give Barack Obama a hard time, Nice try. But it wont work. Now grow up and stop whining ! ! !

    January 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  300. Carl In SC

    Just think, if Hillary had won the election, she would be the President. Nothing like this question would be ask. Now I ask if Hillary was OK to be President, Then why should she NOT be Secretary of State?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  301. ken

    Why? What the Clintons want the Clintons get. Their past has all kinds of shady deals in them, so why change now?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  302. Barb from Hazel Crest, IL

    I think she is the best for the job. Therefore, Hillary husband foundation should not stop her from getting the job.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  303. Jacqueline

    Why should it Jack?
    I bet if you looked at everyone in the government you will find some conflict of interest. I'd like to see what's in Nancy Polosi's closet.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  304. Stephen Schwartz, NYC

    Don't take one man's (Christopher Hichens), silly opinion concerning Hilary Clinton to heart. Secretary of State Clinton is most qualified to hold this office. Haven't their long years of service been enough to convince the world that the clintons' are all about service. Research each time Hilary intervend and one will find that there was no ethical conflicts, but was great benefit to aids and other Initiatives. Jack, stop taking up your delite in bashing the Clintons'. Your really smarter than that. Praise those who serve this nation with honor.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  305. Bruce

    No, but , according to the constitution the fact that the Secretary of State position took a salary increase while Hillary Clinton was a sitting senator does disqualify her from the position until the end of her current senate term. But what the heck, the constitution is just a piece of paper.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  306. Charlie Ebert

    When it comes to the Clinton's, I remember the 90's. I remember a republican congress continully trying to impeach President Clinton despite his re-election for another 4 years. People still love Bill Clinton to this day. it was a sex scandal then. Now it's some kind of financial scandal. Remember White Water! We relected him back then and we all knew about White Water. We all felt that due to the overwhelming negative republican congress that most of these stories were cocked up! We couldn't trust anybody's word. Like trusting a bunch of congress conservatives who willingly spent us into another 4 trillion dollar debt during the "W" administration. Just the fact Hillary Clinton is still married to Bill is, in my opinion, as strange as the story of some alien abuiduction...
    So, what have we all learned????

    January 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  307. Juliet from AZ

    Yes !!!!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  308. Kyle- DuPont, WA

    His extra-marital affairs did not stand in the way of him being president. Don't see why his financial affairs should derail his wife's career.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  309. Rich in Florida

    Get real. Clinton will be a great secretary of state and that should be all that matters, period.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  310. Anthony Bonnes

    Poor Hillary, thanks to Bill she can compete. So why should Bill give up his earnings? After all it is hard here in the U S to live on small wages. Just go to the hospital one time and you will see what I mean.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  311. Luke Randles in Tennessee

    Jack...just let it go......if you keep this up you will soon be seen as another Chris Matthews or Matt Drudge or Rush Limbaugh. So blindly obsessed that anything that goes wrong anywhere in the world was due to Bill and/or Hillary Clinton....just let it go it's time.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  312. Margaret Griffin

    your numbers need clarification. 6 donors out of how many? For how much? Was it against the law? What one might do is not the same as having done it. So no, I don't think she should be denied confirmation on such flimsy whimisical imaginings. How could Congress trust Bush with a trillion bucks but doubt the moral compass of Hillary, considering their track records?

    January 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  313. Lynn

    No It's a non-issue.

    While we're at it here, I watched Hillary's performance yesterday and thought she did extremely well. I also found some of the old boy senators' comments like "you're a big leaguer" to be sexist and condesending. Hillary will make a great Secretary of State, and any one who has concerns about conflicts of interest will soon see that such concerns are unwarranted.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  314. EugeneWiese

    Bill Clinton's financial affairs should not be confused with Hilliary's ability to be confirmed by the Senate for Secretary of State. Theirs only one Secretary at a time. Christopher Hitchens is a false prophet. His supposed Truths on any subject should be filed in the minority report. Intelligence can be a dangerous thing.,like Ann Coulter. Gene Midlothian ,Va

    January 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  315. Terik Ororke

    The Senate and others have done nothing about our country being sold to the Chinese, and they are now worried about a charitable trust that operates far more efficiently and with greater oversight than the US Government? Come on....let the Clintons do what public servants can do.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  316. Nan Pearson

    Everyone can be influenced by life's events. Would your comments be affected by your contact with your bank? Would my actions be influenced by my travel to Palm Springs? Can you seperate your actions from those of your family? Is Hilliary guilty because of her association with her husband? Look, she will be a deal maker and all of those connections will be helpful.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  317. Mary Jo Rickel

    I could not find Mr. Hichen's article on Salon.com, but seeing he seems to have a tendency to nitpick all things pertaining to Hillary or Bill Clinton, I would put his article in my "disregard" box. Thank you

    January 14, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  318. Chaffee Monell

    The issue is a concern, but with prompt disclosure of all significant contributions to the foundation, that concern should be satisfied. Hillary is a heavyweight, and brings many substantial plusses to the table, including her high profile. Her performance at the confirmation hearing amply demonstrated her command of the subject.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  319. Robert in Galveston

    NO!!! All the Clinton haters out there are just looking for anything to use to bring down Bill and Hillary but they need to get over it. This country was in a lot better shape when Bill left office than it is now that little george is leaving.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  320. CNN VIEWER

    Re: Cafferty File today on Wolf Blitzer. Right on! Please get Slate.com's Chris Hutchins on the air today asap to discuss his view of the Clinton’s potential and past conflicts of interest! And what about the Clintons' past connection (to criminals) like Ya Lin Charlie Trie (Immediately after the donation to Clinton's defense fund, Trie sent a letter to President Clinton that expressed concern about America's intervention in tensions arising from China's military exercises being conducted near Taiwan. Trie told the President in his letter that war with China was a possibility should U.S. intervention continue), Norman Hsu, James Riady, John Huang, Gilbert Chagoury, Robert J. Congel, and Johnny Chung (bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law) and the Clinton's poor judgement in promoting them, sponsoring them, having them to the White House many times, inviting them to Clinton-sponsored social events and fund-raising events, creating potential national security risks, possible conflict of interest (with China) and campaign finance ethics. Why is the Senate Confirmation Committee only concerned with President Bill Clinton's conflict of interest in his Charity Donors and not re Hillary and Bill Clinton's past political donors, obligations to China, and other obligations that may be a conflict to our national security? Read: http://www.slate.com/id/2208425/?GT1=38001 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy Please do not drop the ball on this … our national security could depend on it!

    January 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
  321. Shawn

    The Clinton's tried to steal silverware and now they are trying to steal another high government office with global contacts. Sadly, most in Washington are no more honest and will probably appoint her.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
  322. SASHA

    Christopher Hitcens deep hate of Clintons is evident to evryone who reads his comentarys.If he was objective he would asked same question about Bush I dealings with Carlile Group wich is hevily invalved with Saudis and other Midle Eastern cuntries.Hes son become a President ,no questions from Mr. Hitchens.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  323. Ronnie

    It has already been demonstrated that the way to get thing done through the back door is through Clintons Foundation. Hillary is sleeping with the enemy and we don't need someone in such a high Government position to hang a For Sale sign out. No to Hillarys confirmation.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  324. Richard Williams in Larchmont, NY

    Jack,
    Let it rest. Hillary is her own person. Too many others have an axe to grind.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  325. Winnie Cooper

    January 14th, 2009 5:13 pm ET

    Honestly, I think Chris Hitchens should marry Ann Coulter. The venom these two generate together could keep them potentially happy and out of our hair. Sioux Falls, SD.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  326. JOSH WALKER

    No Hillary Made A Very Good First Lady and She even Make an Fine Person In Secertary of State.

    January 14, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
  327. Jean

    Are you kidding? What's the difference between Bill's foundation taking donations and our Senators & Congressmen/women taking campaign donations from the large PAC's and lobbyist groups? Don't those donations also sway their votes in someone's favor besides mine?

    January 14, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
  328. Marian Kriston

    We in the private sector are denied positions based on our credit score.
    It is a report of how and what we have done. The employer uses the credit score to project our ethics.

    January 14, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
  329. Ralph

    Yes. It is dangerous for secret money to go to the Clintons via a foundation. Transparency is essential in this case.

    January 14, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  330. Trent Thomas

    Jack ; The question of influence by Bill's contributors deserves one answer; Ofcourse! But what everyone seems to be missing is that you don't need to make a contribution to his charity to exert this influence. All politicians have constiuants that whisper in there ears. Hillary will be no different. Bill is her husband and will play a part in how she forms an opinion. Your question seems to indicate that some how we can control who exerts influence by knowing who gives money to his favorite charity, this of course is not possible. Forcing Bill to be transparent simply means he finds another way of passing notes to his wife.

    -Hoodsource.com – ' A Urban community blog'

    January 14, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  331. Jeff Crocket

    Bill Clinton will end up slimming her tenure!! Let Bill continue to have his fun!!

    Hillary doesn't stand up to him anyway!! Neither will Obama!!

    January 14, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  332. Raj Kapoor

    She should be confirmed and Senate confirmation circus should stop. She is as good as any one of them with over 120 million votes.

    January 14, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  333. Jackie in Dallas

    By the way, for the commentor that mentioned Bill Clinton's impeachment...

    You obviously do not know what impeachment means. It is very like an indictment, meaning that there is cause to suspect wrongdoing in some form. What you are forgetting, maybe conveniently, is that he was ACQUITTED by the Congress. Now, you can say that the Congress screwed up, that's up to you, but it is like second-guessing a jury in a regular court trial. Unless you were there and heard all the evidence, and were selected to make the decision, all you can really do is gripe and complain, and then vote out the members of Congress that represented you at the time.

    Governor Blagojevich has been indicted, but not convicted of any wrongdoing, which is why he can select PE Obama's replacement and swear in the Illinois Senate. You are innocent until proven guilty and, in a civil case which this more closely resembles, and can be found not responsible.

    January 14, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  334. tess atlanta, ga

    hillary should not be confirmed for anything except the biggest liar, egotist and self-serving witch in washington (and that says a lot!) both clintons should pack it up and find another place to live as far away from the public view as possible – aren't we absolutly sick and tired of their never ending power grabs – i know if i never had to see or hear about either of them in my lifetime i would be ethrilled!!!

    January 14, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  335. Amie

    Jack, most of us know better then to listen to the likes of Christopher Hitchens, who after all has been dogging the Clintons for over a decade.
    It's unfortunate that he can't find something more. He'd like to see Hillary and all women home baking cookies.

    January 14, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  336. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Hi Jack,

    No. Actually I think between the foundation and the fact that he was president once can benefit the new Secretary of State and the country as long as their is transparency.

    January 14, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  337. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Hi Jack,

    of course you are a nice person!

    Take care
    Diane Dagenais Turbide

    January 14, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  338. Tu

    Should Bill Clinton’s Financial Affairs Prevent Hillary’s Secretary of State Confirmation?

    Please give it a break and do not call it affairs. Everyone has relationships or connection one way or another. Whatever you call it, she must do a great job for our country to be an effective servant or else.

    January 14, 2009 at 6:41 pm |