Clinton Foundation Releases Donor List
The Clinton Foundation has released its list of donors, domestic and foreign, as part of the agreement reached with the Obama team to make Hillary Secretary of State, and the Associated Press takes first crack at framing the story by focusing on the foreign part:
Former President Bill Clinton's foundation has raised tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments that his wife will engage as the next secretary of state...The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave more than $10 million to the foundation, which pays for Clinton's presidential library and his charitable work around the world. Other foreign government givers include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy and Jamaica. Indian interests are represented.
The coverage of this will be heavy with innuendo to the effect that there's something vaguely sinister about the fact that foreigners will be giving money to a charitable foundation doing good works around the world in order to influence Hillary. Obama doesn't seem to think there's a problem here, obviously, except perhaps for the bad press it has and will produce.
More on this in a bit.
Fer'ners?! Hate 'em!
December 18, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The coverage of any story on the Clintons is heavy with innuendo. Same with coverage of Obama.
Different rules exist for covering Republicans and covering Democrats.
December 18, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Different rules exist for covering Republicans and covering Democrats."
I keep missing the differences... except that the Democrat supporters keep praising democrat leaders and blast republicans... whereas Republican supporters praise republican leaders and blast democrats...
I suggest there will be plenty of uproar when Bush opens his shrine with his bible and staff prominently displayed also...
December 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something vaguely sinister? Come on. It's called pay for play. Hello. Nobody gives hundreds of millions out of the kindness of their heart. See the Kazakhstan uranium deal by way of example. Give me a break.
You know damn well that the spin was, gee clinton will be president again and you'll get all kinds of favors if you donate. Otherwise, why would they bother. I am sure guido was banging on the clintons' door when they lost the primary; however, they got secretary of state so I guess these "donors" will get something for their money. Guido got recalled.
I actually would like to see where all the money raised went. What went to "administrative" costs?
December 18, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of all the hand-wringing that went on about Bush the Senior's ties to the Saudis when Bush the Lesser was elected. OH YEAH. THERE WASN'T ANY HAND-WRINGING.
December 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Different rules for Democrats and Republicans...
December 18, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite curious about the headlines used by AP about Saudi and India donors. If we look at the list the big donors are from England, Australia, Norway and a whole lot of other places. Why did they headline the Saudis and Indians ( who really don't seem to have been great contributors). The quality of reporting by AP is not the greatest, but is this just the usual poor reporting again from AP or is there something undesirable they are implying about the Saudis and Indians?
December 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not an expert on this, but how will the pro-Israel supporters of the Clintons take this news? A big part of Hillary's support came from those who figured Obama would cave on Israel.
December 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Hillary was considered a shoe-in for the nomination, who's to say that these countries weren't betting that Hillary would be POTUS?
How will Hillary deliver a tough message to the Saudi's after they given Bill $10 million plus?
December 18, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because she'll delivering President Obama's message.
December 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has at best, a perceived conflict of interest which will hurt her credibility as SoS.
Bill having accepted tens of millions of dollars in contributions from foreign governments is bound to undermine effectiveness. Countries who didn't give, will always wonder if they should have and countries that did will probably expect favorable treatment from Hillary.
If a Republican had nominated an SoS who had received that kind of money in charitable contributions from the Saudi's, the Dems would rightly, be up in arms.
December 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add blackwater to the list as well. I'm sure blackwater is really concerned about stopping aids in africa. Pathetic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_foundation_donors
December 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, lets see if Hillary outlaws Blackwater!
December 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
HUH? Let me get this straight. On the frontpage of TPM you have a headline that says "Saudi and Blackwater Donated Generously to Clinton Foundation" Then when I click on that headline it comes to this article where it says that coverage "will be heavy with innuendo to the effect that there's something vaguely sinister about the fact that foreigners will be giving money to a charitable foundation doing good works around the world in order to influence Hillary."
Could you make up your mind, is it an issue (implied by the headline) or not (stated by the article?? Or is this just a screwed up link??
December 18, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink