Editorial Judgment: Debating Washington Post Editorial Board Positions

The Clinton Confirmation

Forums » Editorial Judgment » The Clinton Confirmation

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register

1 2 >> Last

Forums » washingtonpost.com forums » Editorial Judgment » The Clinton Confirmation

The Clinton Confirmation

posted at 1/13/2009 7:31 PM EST

*Moderator*

marisa_katz

First post: 10/17/2008
Last post: 1/28/2009
Total posts: 5

The Post editorial board has written about Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing to be secretary of state, and about the potential conflicts of interest posed by her husband's foreign fundraising for the Clinton Foundation. The board's bottom line is that former President Clinton should not raise money from foreign donors while his wife is at the State Department. Do you agree? Disagree? Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl will be checking in periodically and is happy to field questions about -- and to defend -- The Post's position.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Senator Clinton should not be Secretary of State and then President Clinton can continue raising money

posted at 1/14/2009 12:38 AM EST

MiriyamGevirtz

First post: 1/14/2009
Last post: 4/18/2009
Total posts: 3

I have always been shocked at the nomination of Hillary Clinto for Secretary of State as she mocks, and does not support President Elect Obama and has no experience in mediation. And, we need President Clinton's abilities at fund raising.

That solves two problems in one.

Miriyam Gevirtz

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

I strongly agree with the "Post" editorial

posted at 1/14/2009 1:02 AM EST

Aprogressiveindependent

First post: 9/27/2008
Last post: 12/2/2009
Total posts: 85

The "Washington Post" editorial board has correctly called for former president Clinton not to raise money from foreign donors while his wife is Secretary of State. Typical of the Clintons how she tried, as the editorial stated, to stonewall some of the questions raised by this issue. Hopefully the "Washington Post" will continue to follow this story in its reporting during the Obama administration.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Hope this is not the end of this

posted at 1/14/2009 4:28 AM EST

Prozrenie

First post: 3/19/2008
Last post: 8/6/2009
Total posts: 15

The suggestions for amendment or haulting the funddraising seem eminently correct. If there were doubt, the fact that she has already intervened several times as a Senator based on fund issues and contributions makes it a real no-brainer, to me. I don't understand why Barack Obama (or his staff) has/had been planning to put up with this. Mr. President?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Mrs Clinton Confirmation

posted at 1/14/2009 7:30 AM EST

ewulf

First post: 1/14/2009
Last post: 1/14/2009
Total posts: 1

Although a delicate issue by itself,I do think that more important is the integrity of whom will hold such a responsability as to be Secretary of State.It might help more transparency, but integrity is an above all asset.However, The Post editorial board is right, when it focus on the implications of the matter,because it will allow better evaluation of sensitive decisions.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Clinton Foundation

posted at 1/14/2009 8:52 AM EST

thuff7

First post: 9/5/2007
Last post: 7/8/2009
Total posts: 17

Your editorial only addresses the issue of fund raising by the Clinton Foundation. This and previous editorials toss out the notion that the foundation is addressing important issues such as HIV. Fine, but how much of the donations actually are used for these costs and how much are pocketed by the administrators of the foundation? The United Way took on many noble causes, but it turned out that the officers were lining their own pockets. Are the Clintons getting rich from this foundation? If so, aren't these donations simply laundered bribes?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

A qualified NO

posted at 1/14/2009 8:53 AM EST

cintronlourdes

First post: 5/7/2008
Last post: 3/17/2009
Total posts: 11

If the same demand were imposed on all other members of Obama's cabinet, I would say yes, I agree with the Post.

But that is not the case. This imposition is just a political strategy to deal with the Clintons. It has NOTHING to do with the search for honesty.

We, the people, don't get to know how our Congress people and Pentagon military high brass benefit from the connections they make while in their jobs. Trillions of dollars disappeared from the Pentagon coffers, according to Rumsfeld on 9/10/01. No one has demanded an investigation. Politicians and the MSM cover up for them.

There is corruption all over D.C. This incoming administration will NOT be the exception.

The demand on Hillary is just political posturing to press her and give, at the same time, a pretense of search for honesty so that the people is prepared in case she needs to be kicked out when she does not follow the President's orders. They will pull out some 'donations' and make it look as if she is being fired for that and not for disagreeing with the president.

Bright tactic to not look imperial.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

A compromise

posted at 1/14/2009 10:03 AM EST

adifferentpointofview

First post: 5/2/2008
Last post: 10/8/2009
Total posts: 13

If the Clinton Foundation does pursue worthy projects like combatting AIDS and global warming, then eliminating all foreign donations would reduce the amount of good work that would be done in these areas. This would hurt the world. It is important to avoid conflicts of interest, and if Mrs. Clinton intervened 6 times on behalf of her husband's donors, then this needs to stop. I would propose the following compromise: large donors need to be immediately disclosed as discussed in the Post's editorial. Then President Obama needs to make sure that he and Mrs. Clinton are on the same page as to what the official US policy is on each issue that Mrs. Clinton is involved with. As with any good executive, President Obama needs to periodically review Mrs. Clinton's performance, particularly on matters where a potential conflict of interest can occur. Then President Obama can decide whether he feels that Mrs. Clinton is properly representing him. If not, then they can take corrective action and if that fails, President Obama can request Mrs. Clinton's resignation. I think that we don't need to assume that there will be a conflict of interest, but it is prudent to make sure that there isn't.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

I agree completely

posted at 1/14/2009 11:14 AM EST

palladinmo

First post: 1/14/2009
Last post: 1/14/2009
Total posts: 1

Hillary Clinton is the last person we need as Secretary of State.

The very appearance that the goodwill of the American people is up for sale will make her tenure in the office a sad testament for this country.

I suppose the new State Department stationary will read "make checks payable to..."

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Missing the point

posted at 1/14/2009 11:34 AM EST

DenverDoc

First post: 1/14/2009
Last post: 1/14/2009
Total posts: 1

The Senate appears consumed by worry that foreign nations might have influence due to contributions to Bill Clinton's charitable foundation, but they miss the point completely.

Our nation has been racking up debt by the billions that is sold to foreign nations. These purchases of debt will need to be paid back in some manner (as opposed to charitable donations). Therefore these nations (especially China) already have undue influence on our government.

The Senate should be more worried about these billions in debt than Bill Clinton's charity.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Contradictory

posted at 1/14/2009 12:04 PM EST

CardFan

First post: 9/11/2007
Last post: 10/29/2009
Total posts: 27

While on the surface, a suggestion that Mr. Clinton restrict his fund raising from foreign governments during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Sec of State seems reasonable, it fails to take the idea a step further. With our nation drowning in red ink, a great deal of the indebtedness is to China. Who says that the enormous IOU the US government already owes China hasn't or won't influence BOTH foreign and domestic policy? Seems to be a case of the splinter and the log.

6 days till the end of the Bush administration.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Thanks for the comments

posted at 1/14/2009 12:13 PM EST

*Moderator*

JacksonDiehl

First post: 1/13/2009
Last post: 6/2/2009
Total posts: 19

So far I don't see much disagreement with our editorial position. Some people are discussing this as a case of corruption (or possible corruption) by the Clintons. I don't think that's the main problem, especially as neither Clinton receives financial benefit from the Foundation. The more serious issue for us is how foreign governments and other foreign interests will interpret the connection between the Foundation and the Secretary of State, and how it will be treated by the global media--which loves to spin conspiracy theories about U.S. policy.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

I couldn't disagree more

posted at 1/14/2009 12:57 PM EST

dwt301

First post: 5/6/2008
Last post: 11/10/2009
Total posts: 7

Mr. Diehl: If you will look closely, many of these posters are not agreeing with your editorial assertions - they don't like Clinton and they don't want her to be Sec of State, period. As for your assertions, in order for there to be a real problem with Clinton serving she would have to willfully attempt to change or influence American foreign policy based on contributions to her husband's foundation, and subsequently convince President Obama either to agree with the her or simply allow her to go off course without rebuking her. Do you, or does anyone at the Post, seriously believe that would happen?

What we are left with - and go back and reread your editorials for how many times you use these words - are "perceptions," "questions," "concerns," "appearances." If a foreign power "perceives" that it will get special treatment based on contributions to the Clinton Foundation, how is that the Sec. of State's fault if she does not in fact provide special treatment? How is that any different than any other "perception" that a foreign power might have about U.S. policy that is incorrect? If Sec.-designate Clinton does not correct any misconception about U.S. policy, or attempts to change said policy based on contributions, then provide the evidence and call for her resignation. Otherwise, the ones "spinning conspiracy theories about U.S. policy" are you and the Wall Street Journal, not the "global media."

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Thanks for the comments

posted at 1/14/2009 1:29 PM EST

ZZim

First post: 1/22/2008
Last post: 12/2/2009
Total posts: 1946

Replying to:

I don't think anyone reasonably could disagree with your editorial position. Of course Bill should not accept donations while his wife is Sec of State.

As for whether or not influence-peddling is taking place, I think that you erred when you wrote "neither Clinton receives financial benefit from the Foundation". This should read "neither Clinton receives DIRECT financial benefit from the Foundation, SO FAR AS WE KNOW". I know you have to dance around this issue and give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt. I just think that it would be naive to believe that Bill isn't selling influence. He's making introductions, concluding other not-visibly-connected business deals, establishing relationships, inviting key people to dinner with certain politicians, etc. Seriously, just because Bill gets no paycheck from his foundation doesn't mean it's not a powerful tool in his web-of-relationships business/personal/political dealings.

Again, I don't have a problem with that, I just agree that he needs to tone it down for a bit while his wife is Sec of State. He'll just have to channel the funds elsewhere.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

clinton confirmation

posted at 1/14/2009 1:55 PM EST

thornegp

First post: 5/1/2008
Last post: 5/6/2009
Total posts: 15

I agree with the Post position, but what's the point of the discussion?
Hillary snoockered Obama by cutting a deal that Bill could continue to receive donations from foreign countries and not have to report them!
Game over! There is no doubt the fawning (and fearful)Senate will confirm her - and Obama will just join the litter bearers.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Mixed feelings

posted at 1/14/2009 2:27 PM EST

vivek1

First post: 1/14/2009
Last post: 5/11/2009
Total posts: 3

Well, I found it ironic that the Senators (in the hearing) were so concerned about HRC's conflict of interests.

All of them also raise lots of cash, much of it from bundlers, for their own elections. Are they implying that they are beholden to their donors, and hence want to make sure that HRC doesn't fall into the same trap?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

What did Bush Senior have to do?

posted at 1/14/2009 3:38 PM EST

kcycler

First post: 1/14/2009
Last post: 1/14/2009
Total posts: 1

George H W has raised lots of foreign funds and been involved in numerous speaking engagements etc. Was he required to vet anything? Did anybody question whether the big "W" was influenced by his Father's activities?

It seems that anything that has the word Clinton in it is universally assumed to be sleezy. I think Bill is doing a lot of good and Hillary will be a great Secretary of State.

It is time to leave them alone. Bill has agreed to more transparency in his dealings than anyone in the past.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Ms Clinton, she's crafty, but not a wise choice

posted at 1/14/2009 3:51 PM EST

sanmateo1850

First post: 5/12/2008
Last post: 11/9/2009
Total posts: 46

Being a rebulican it is hard to even hear the name Clinton without cringing a little. Ms. Clinton is a smart and cunning woman, who I will not doubt be perceived as a champion for the United States. But is she the best choice we have right now? Given her husband's extensive fundraising, how will she ever be able to separate herself from the perception of any conflict of interest. I also feel the Foreign Affairs committee did a disservice by not questioning her in-depth about this. This is truly going to cause a lot of chatter around the beltway, something this coutry does not need right now. We need truth and honesty restored in our government, not a debate on what our definition of what a particular word is. I feel this editorial made a very sound suggestion, but Ms. Clinton's response of "there is no intention to amend" does not make me feel good about her willingness to address any future "conflict of interest" issues.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Is Hillary Bill's Keeper?

posted at 1/14/2009 4:36 PM EST

lensch

First post: 9/3/2007
Last post: 10/6/2009
Total posts: 58

I didn't see much talk about Elaine Cho's husband when she was Sec of Labor? Did she make decisions that were influenced by her husband's job? There are many other examples. This guilt by association is making me sick. Let's try to judge people on their own performance.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: I couldn't disagree more

posted at 1/14/2009 4:42 PM EST

*Moderator*

JacksonDiehl

First post: 1/13/2009
Last post: 6/2/2009
Total posts: 19

Replying to:

Mr. Diehl: If you will look closely, many of these posters are not agreeing with your editorial assertions - they don't like Clinton and they don't want her to be Sec of State, period. As for your assertions, in order for there to be a real problem with Clinton serving she would have to willfully attempt to change or influence American foreign policy based on contributions to her husband's foundation, and subsequently convince President Obama either to agree with the her or simply allow her to go off course without rebuking her. Do you, or does anyone at the Post, seriously believe that would happen? What we are left with - and go back and reread your editorials for how many times you use these words - are "perceptions," "questions," "concerns," "appearances." If a foreign power "perceives" that it will get special treatment based on contributions to the Clinton Foundation, how is that the Sec. of State's fault if she does not in fact provide special treatment? How is that any different than any other "perception" that a foreign power might have about U.S. policy that is incorrect? If Sec.-designate Clinton does not correct any misconception about U.S. policy, or attempts to change said policy based on contributions, then provide the evidence and call for her resignation. Otherwise, the ones "spinning conspiracy theories about U.S. policy" are you and the Wall Street Journal, not the "global media."
Posted by dwt301

It's not necessary that Ms. Clinton willfully change American foreign policy to please a contributor in order for the arrangement she has made to be troublesome. It is only necessary that foreign governments and their publics perceive that she may do so, or that she has done so. Will leaders of the Pakistani military conclude that Ms. Clinton is tiltng toward India because of the large contributions made to the foundation by Indian businessmen, and consequently be more inclined to reject State Department pressure for a break with terrorist groups that operate in Kashmir? Will corrupt leaders in Central Asia believe they can buy better US relations by making large contributions to the foundation? There are lots of scenarios like this that strike me as plausible.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

1 2 >> Last

Forums » Editorial Judgment » The Clinton Confirmation

Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Classifieds

SEARCH:

Search Archives

The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites

Help | Contact Us

washingtonpost.com

Groups