Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bill Clinton Will Release Identity of Donors


Former President Bill Clinton will release the names of several hundred thousand donors to his presidential library and foundation. Photo by Ng Han Guan -- Associated Press

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. -- Former President Bill Clinton has agreed to make public 200,000 donors to his presidential library and foundation by the end of the year as part of an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama's transition team designed to allow his wife -- Hillary Rodham Clinton -- to be named Secretary of State, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

The former president has also agreed to allow the State Department and, potentially, the White House, to vet his personal business interests and speeches so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest, according to transition officials.

The outlines of the deal cut by Obama and the Clintons emerged last week as it became increasingly clear that the New York Senator would be named Secretary of State shortly after Thanksgiving.

Bill Clinton has long resisted calls to make public the donors to his library and foundation public, insisting, rightly, that he has complied with all federal laws governing the disclosure (or lack thereof) of the contributions and the contributors to the foundation.

During the primary fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Illinois Senator's campaign described his opponent as a "veteran of non-disclosure" -- using the donors to the library as a cudgel in the argument.

With that potentially sticky-wicket now a non-issue, the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State appears to be on a glide path.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 29, 2008; 11:34 PM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Cabinet Picks Creates Vulnerabilities
Next: Fix Pick: Being Bobby Jindal

Comments

Broadwayjoe - your analysis of Sen. Clinton's qualification is based on slanders via the blogosphere, not anything published. In particular, your comments "threatening to disrupt her party's convention" and "rooted against him in the general election" are both flat out lies.

You're biased? Even, shall I say it, bitter? Fine. Have the courage of your convictions then. I voted for Sen. Clinton. Thereafter, I donated, volunteered, and voted for Pres.-elect Obama. Fortunately, our new president has the sense to ignore the yowling in the wind.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

There have been identified no "Pros" of picking Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton as Secretary of State, only "Cons."

Based on the MSM reporting, she has no background in diplomacy, has a reputation for discord and poor staff management, spent the primaries personally attacking O and threatening to disrupt her party's convention, and rooted against him in the general election.

These hardly seem like qualifications to be O's top diplomat. I am sure O does have a good reason for picking her (maybe it was a early concession in exchange for not he agreeing not to destroy the convention, which she did anyway with the two-day enshrine-the-whine performance in Denver). But I am also sure it is NOT one of the bogus justifications given in the press -- the REAL reason probably will come out years after O has completed his second term.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 30, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

good posts... I too am confused at all the HRC as "genius" or "breathtaking". I'm guessing this hero worship explains an Ellen Degenerous or Mellissa Ethridge as well, because nothing else explains the devotion of these folks. Maybe if we had a Queen... you could put it in that category of fellow human worship, or saintlyness.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 30, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | November 30, 2008 2:05 PM wrote:

We must not be seeing the same woman, the lack of abilty, or the unwillingness, to understand her strengths, AND her accomplishments, is breathtaking.

Can you name one of her breathtaking accomplishments? Unless getting elected to the Senate qualifies as a breathtaking. In which case she is joined by 99 other breathtakers in the Senate; including Ted Stevens and John McCain who also managed to win his party's nomination. Something, which despite being the overwhelming favorite, she was unable to accomplish. A fringe benefit of Obama's victory is that she will never be president.

Posted by: lure1 | November 30, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I am amused by the prospect of Obama nominating Hilary as Sec. State. Obama's two biggest critics of his lack of sufficient experience to be President, Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton, are now set to become major players on foreign policy in an Obama administration. Hilary as a foreign policy expert? Somebodys idea of a joke...right?

I am also amused when I remember Obama's chief complaint against McCain, i.e., that McCain was "running for a third Bush term." What with all of the Clintonistas joining the new team, it would seem McCain could now legitimately argue that Obama was running for a third Clinton term. Is this the "change in Washington" Obama was referring to? Returning to the good old days of long ago....the '90s? Whoever said the dead do not rise again never considered the Clintons.

Posted by: worldnomad1 | November 30, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I suspect Obama will fire her within a year or so. After all, the democrats are the ones who wanted to be rid of the Clintons and this seems like the only way to do it.

Posted by: vgailitis | November 30, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Two will shortly be in the White House. Does anybody seriously believe she would have been elected senator from NY, a state she never lived in, if her husband had not been president?
-----------
Yes, she would have had a career inpublic service, just the same, perhaps achieving an even higher profile, politically.


We must not be seeing the same woman, the lack of abilty, or the unwillingness, to understand her strengths, AND her accomplishments, is breathtaking.

Or something...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | November 30, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

What is great about a new president (Obama) is what he isn't: he isn't George Bush. Bush was great for a while, too: he wasn't Bill Clinton. Are we forgetting that the new president's claim to fame is who he's not? We've all been on this roller coaster before -- twice in recent memory.

It seems to me that Barak Obama isn't his own man, but a man made up of parts, parts of other people. This is by his choosing. This is why we see painful flashbacks in his choices for the cabinet: selections from Bush, Clinton, and Reagan administrations. This is hideous. Man, be your own man. Barak Obama is so hell bent on trying to be somebody else, and I myself have never been one for idols. For me there isn't a whole lot of patina to wear off before I see the real deal. This is a man of parts, not one of strength and integrity. Who is he going to be tomorrow?

I think of all the turmoil we've seen with political factions, corruption and nothing getting done so long as the guilty can point to their opponents. And I see the same old people coming back time and again. We're already looking like somebody else's failed democracy (I think of Israel where they keep recycling their old white men, bringing back yesterday's conflicts, both the Jews and Palestinians).

Our government is recycling old white men and like kind (Hillary, for example). They've done us so much good? We've had so much trouble. Why would you want to do this to our country again? Barak Obama is so wrong.

No idols here, just a practiced eye.

Posted by: redd1 | November 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

What exactly are Hillary Clinton's qualifications? That she married a man who became president? They say she's an Ivy League educated lawyer. There are plenty of them around. Two will shortly be in the White House. Does anybody seriously believe she would have been elected senator from NY, a state she never lived in, if her husband had not been president? Must have been the Yankees hat that put her over the top. What has she ever accomplished, other than marrying well? And even that is debatable. She is the antithesis of what the feminists say they want.

Posted by: lure1 | November 30, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary's Ascent .."

What a joke. The White House staff can push her around at will. Now the Senate is a place for reason and discourse.

Posted by: gary4books | November 30, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

the position of secretary of state is the most visible position of the presidential office...

HOW CAN OBAMA offer the job to hillary clinton??

hillary went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and said that she and her daughter were SHOT AT BY SNIPERS at a BOSNIAN AIRPORT which was later found to be a COMPLETE LIE by CBS News footage of the event!!!

you can't have a sec of state who LIES.

HILLARY HAS ZERO EXPERIENCE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

obama even said the same thing during the campaign.. obama mocked hillary.. obama asked if having tea with the various heads of states WIVES qualified her..

well obama.. YOU were the one who asked the question.

DOES IT?!?!?!

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

A couple of points:

1. I did not vote for Obama but I have been impressed with the people he has selected, partly because of their background and stature and also because I think he really does seem to be keeping his promise to try to bring change to how Washington works. Most of the posts I have read that are critical of his choices have to do with the writers' own preference or dislike of certain persons rather than their qualifications for the job. I am impressed that instead of choosing cronies and "yes men/women," as other administrations have done, he has actually chosen people based on ability. 2. Several people here and elsewhere keep bringing up Bill Richardson as the better choice for Secretary of State. Bill Richardson is certainly a very, very bright man but the job he has done as governor of New Mexico has been less than stellar and many New Mexicans believe him to be a dedicated practitioner of cronyism. Also, in the past he had the reputation of being someone who had gotten too close to some very nasty dictators.

Posted by: Amelia2 | November 30, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton's chief enabler as secretary of State?? I hope not! A few basic facts should be considered before going down this road with all the past and potential Clinton pot holes.

1. HRC doesn't really have the diplomatic experience for the job. Sure she met many people while first lady. Is that diplomatic experience or just a hand shake and photo op.

2. many of her policy ideas are at the far end of the spectrum from Obama's. War in Iraq Negotiating with the bad guys No regard for the Palestinians etc.

3. Slick Willy isn't really offering full disclosure of his contributors etc. If he was it would say so in the many articles written so far that have just accepted the notion of HRC as Secretary of State. He said he would dosclose some now 200000 names. Is that all of them Bill. A simple yes or no, without parsing words will do. We all know what the meaning of yes or no is, I hope you dp to.

4. The Clintons have always looked out for themselves first. Will Bill be involved in shaping foriegn policy to suit his world view. Will Hillary or will she toe the line the President sets down.

6. Do we all want the drama and BS that having HilBill close to the foriegn policy apparatus will mean.

7. There are so many others with strong resumes and REAL diplomatic experience. Just a few names include Lugar, Hagel, Richardson, Holbrook...

Posted by: PointPleasantPointofView | November 30, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

If he had made this concession six months ago, then she would be vice president-elect today.

Submitting his speeches for review won't change the fact that he often talks to the media outside of prepared remarks.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama just attached very short leashes to both Hillary and Bill. Now neither one of them can say or do anything controversial without Obama's permission. Best of all, neither one of them can sabotage Obama's efforts with impunity.

Brilliant move.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | November 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Hillary as Sec of State is going to have to recuse herself from dealing with China, because the Gov't there have been big donors to her and Bill over the years.

Posted by: pgr88 | November 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

...and why is Obama getting away with not releasing the names of his donors?

Posted by: mafox1 | November 30, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama should end affirmative action and impose a strict merit-based economy which is color blind.

--------
Right.

As soon as he strikes all forms of racism from the human mind---

Aye!

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | November 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse


This is shocking.

This rivals the raid by 10 downing on Damien Green in Britain.

We cannot og on as a nation with this shutdown of freedom.

it was the shutdown of freedom of information and lack of reporting in the press that allowed this disasterous financial depression.

our freedoms went out the door with the money.

Hillary is nuts if she takes any position in this administration they are star crossed.

Bill should know better and should not give any names.

This portends dark days for the USA really dark days.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | November 30, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Well, this ought to cut loose a Republican s***-storm if ever there is going to be one.

Posted by: majorteddy | November 30, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

IS THIS THE SAME CLINTON THAT COMMITED PERJURY BEFORE A GRAND JURY ? IS SO, HAS HE REALLY CHANGED ?

Posted by: jomike6 | November 30, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

for all you whiners about Clinton....did you really think that change was coming? Nobody is more naive than you liberals...as if you could name more than a handful of qualified liberals to take many of these Cabinet posts...face reality folks, the only reason you won is because the MSM cheerleading of Obama through the primaries and complete ineptness of Bush dragging down McOld

Posted by: ebabin | November 30, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Response to 37Ostreet: I agree with what you are saying. I am responding to what people are saying on the street.
1. I think that Gov Richardson would have been a better choice or even John Kerry ( for New Mexico,Colorado,Florida latino voters)
2. Again he has too many Clinton picks in his cabinet mainly Hillary. The Republican's will use this against him in 2012 and say he's brought in washington insiders (not a maverick).
3. If he wants his presidency to be a success, he would need to follow through and get the troops out of Iraq.
4. Focus on creating jobs (Florida, Ohio)
5. Control the Clinton's and Hillary.
6. Prop #8 (liberals,California)
Sadly, the republicans will use this against him.
1. Hillary voted for the War in Iraq
2. Joe Biden also voted for the War
3. He now has the Bush cronies like Robert Gates staying on.

The Republican's im sure will be laughing this now to election 2012

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | November 30, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Obviously, look at the initial postings here, there are credibility problems here with Bill and Hillary - I have no idea why Obama wants to go down this path - he is playing with fire - this entire episode shows Obama's lack of judgement and complete inexperience.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 30, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Does this include the people, companies and entities PAYING BILL CLINTON SPEAKING FEES ???


.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 30, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Why sure. We can certainly trust Bubba to give us the complete list, can't we. Obama 2008? Clinton III.

Posted by: rg019571 | November 30, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

And are these 200,000 donors a COMPLETE list? That's what the media isn't making clear. If he doesn't reveal ALL of his donors, than something's not right.

It really means nothing if he cherry-picks 200,000 to make public, if there are others which he continues to cover up.

Posted by: PMaranci | November 30, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


mattadamsdietmanager1014


Did Obama campaign as the Post-partisan candidate or the liberal candidate? This is important.


What did Obama say?


See this is why so many people were angry with Obama's platform - they felt as though Obama was saying "post-partisan" and gaining support based on that commitment - however many people believed he was masking an ultra-liberal agenda like you described.


So which is it?


My thoughts are that Obama would be wise to stick with his words: that he is post-partisan - Let's see half the cabinet Republicans, a few Independents -


well.


Obama should do exactly what he said: be post-racial.


Obama should end affirmative action and impose a strict merit-based economy which is color blind.


Your assertion that certain ethnic groups need representation should be tossed aside - the best person for every job should be chosen - we have too many underqualified people filling slots.


Obama would do well if he follows his own words. It is not that hard.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 30, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Picking Hillary is a good move. Obama had to illustrate that he could indeed bring people together. To bring the world togethter, one must start at home. What better way to demonstrate that characteristic than to bring a former foe into the mix. Obama is very comfortable with himself.

Posted by: edwinjones | November 30, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Does this include the people, companies and entities PAYING BILL CLINTON SPEAKING FEES ???

.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 30, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Clearly there were superior candidates to Clinton for the Secretary of State position. However, there is a positive in that this will idle the Clintons from involvement in domestic political issues, which should be of tremendous benefit to the 44th President. It will effectively isolate Clinton. The 42nd President seems to have been quite accommodating to the Transition team, fulfilling whatever requirements were necessary to ensure that his wife will be named Secretary of State.

While I am somewhat skeptical of this working out well, I am cautiously hopeful.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | November 30, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

I still hope President-elect Obama can illuminate us on why Senator Clinton is the best qualified candidate for Secretary of State, our top diplomat to the world. That job should have gone to Governor Richardson, who is an experienced diplomat with years of executive experience. And, he has the correct judgment to endorse Obama early on. I am afraid that the Clintons will again exhaust all the loopholes in the book for their benefits as evidenced below.

"Bill Clinton has long resisted calls to make public the donors to his library and foundation public, insisting, rightly, that he has complied with all federal laws governing the disclosure (or lack thereof) of the contributions and the contributors to the foundation."

Why does Obama have to spend so much energy to keep the lid on the Clintons? Why can't he hire somebody that he can trust? If Hillary were the world's famous diplomat, I can see that. But she is far from it. She has to learn some foreign language first. Being able to speak your host’s language is the No. 1 tool of the trade for diplomacy. Bill will most likely tag along all over the world and conduct his own business on our tax dollars.

Does our law require that the spouse report the gifts he or she has received? I read that the First Lady or Man isn't required to do so. How about spouse of SOS? With Bill, we have to think one step ahead of him, or we are screwed. He will say, "Look, it's not in the book." with a smirk. “We want our new foreign policy to be the center of our state department, not the Clintons.”

Again, why do we have to hire Hillary first before Bill's donor list is made public. This is the same tactic they used for delaying the disclosure of his WH documents during the primary. He only had one man working on it as a night job. I doubt we will ever see these documents till after she runs again in 2012 or 2016. Bill will be always the reckless Bill.

Why does Obama have to let Bill decide on when to disclose his donor list? I am sure he enjoys reading the list and the potential donor list on his computer every day. If we ask Mr. Warren Buffett, he will tell us not to sign the deal till we know the price. We should know the price of hiring the Clintons first, otherwise we will be very sorry. Can President-elect Obama afford to hire Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: dummy4peace | November 30, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

According to Wikipedia, Indian Wells, CA has the "highest proportion of millionaires of any city in the United States." If Chris is visiting family for the holiday weekend, then you are definitely part of the fabled media elite!

As for Clinton, it is appropriate that he should remove himself from the potentially gray areas of his charity, but I hope the organisation will continue to promote giving and actionable commitments from donors worldwide.

Posted by: KanDaShan | November 30, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

I for one think that this is a very good move for Obama. He needed to bring a familiar face to the world leaders! She is not only familiar but appreciated by world leaders. What the Obama administration needs to do is to show the world stage that he has it together and has some of the most knowledgeable and educated individuals on his team. Now a lot of people are getting upset because they are say but WAIT! You spoke about change and these are people we have seen for YEARS - this is NO CHANGE!

But wait - what we all need to understand is that the system currently doesn't work because a wrench was thrown in it! First, Obama needs to get the system running and then can he work on getting it be more effective. How long will it take for it just to run right? It may take his entire first term - 4 years!

So does it matter all the people in his cabinet? Absolutely yes! It makes a difference but his approach is very different. His plan is to take what we know as business as usual and change it. He needs those same people that we know to do it. As we heard during the entire campaign, this is no time for on the job training. He needs well oiled machines working - but to work in a different way!

I believe once he can produce and show his command on the job - we will see less skeptics out there. At least on this issue of we aren't sure if he is really going to do what he promised!

I look forward to the Change!
Prabhjit Singh

http://www.rempower.com/blog

Posted by: prabhjit | November 30, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse


i hate to say this.. but this reeks of some political posturing that goes WAY beyond what should be happening with a clinton being brought into the white house.

bill clinton has ties to some mining in a former russian state, and hillary lied to the ENTIRE WORLD with her claims of being shot at by terrorists at a bosnian airstrip.

the lady Powers who called hillary a "monster" WAS right.. at the time, hillary WAS a monster and would do ANYTHING to bring down obama...

and now.. we have hillary and the entire bill clinton administration in the white house yet again.

"change."

change, huh?

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 30, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

I, too, find it a concern that the conservative Democrats have filled most of the posts in the Obama inner circle. Clinton appears a conservative Democrat.

So if you want to counter the conservative Democrats in government and the conservative Republicans then please answer this political opinion poll on single payer universal health care HR 676.

Answer this poll on single payer health care:

http://www.twiigs.com/poll/Politics/17960

Also, do this. The makers of Bolla Wines and Jack Daniels Whiskey gives money to the Republican senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Tell everyone to CALL MITCH McCONNELL AT 202 224-2541. TELL HIM: Get the house and senate to pass the employee free choice act and do not do any FILIBUSTERS any longer throughout the Obama administration OR WE POUR JACK DANIELS WHISKEY AND BOLLA WINES DOWN THE SINK AND WE DON'T buy Jack Daniels and Bolla Wines anymore!

If you drive a truck Also tell him you will refuse to transport Jack Daniels and Bolla Wines as well.

Take action now, before the inauguration.

Posted by: DEMOCRATZoORG | November 30, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Really freedom41..worst..EVER?!?...I mean Rumsfeld or Gonzales doesn't count???

Posted by: andio76 | November 30, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

So much for "change". Just four years of Centrist jellyspine ahead.

Ah well, It's not like we didn't know it.

Posted by: captainkona | November 30, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

worst... appointment... ever...

Posted by: freedom41 | November 30, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

a glide path to Hillaryland and controversy in perpetual motion, beyond obliterating Iran.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 30, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company