Bill has been raising money for tsunami relief, AIDS in Africa, and a whole bunch of charities. And? Oh, and some Democratic donors also give to candidates. And? A vague smear is a vague smear. Please, get a life.

On the other hand, Hillary has said she's for publicly-financed elections. So am I, if only because I'm tired of reading blather like this, that isn't anything but speculative guilt by association.

The enemy, Salon, is called the Republican Party, and the war hawks and extremists who run it. If you find out something substantive against Hillary -- or Edwards, or Obama or any of the other candidates or their positions, you'll tell us, right? Won't you? Or are you just a bunch of crunchy-granola lefties who won't ever elect a president of your own?

Let us not forget how Mrs Clinton- it takes a village to raise a child -changed her stripes when it came to destroying a village for oil.

Iraq has over 2 million political refugees and have lost countless lives since the start of this illegal war. This proves that Mrs Clinton has proven herself to be a true follower of Rove when it comes to money and power. In fact, that is why I consider her to be a borderline sociopath. Oh, and by the way, these transnational corporations/military industrial complex guys running the show have absolute contempt for the average american citizen. Look what Bush & Cheney, two other neo cons, have done without even a charge of treason.

we are doomed

I mean, did any of the media question Bush #1's, W's, Uncle Dick's or any of those guys on money? The answer is a very weak, sorta but not really. Is anyone going to question Mitt Romney on his money and influence? How about Rudy's law firm? If you're going to open a can of whoop ass...open it for everyone to enjoy not just the "homemaker".

to find out about Hillary's felonious campaign fund raising.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl

...will Mr. Bill's way with a buck (or millions upon millions) have a deleterious effect on a Hillary administration (if such a thing should occur), and if so, should we weigh that, as well as everything else, in whether or not to consider whether or not she should get our vote?

The answer isn't clear, at least not thanks to this article, but it at least raises a serious question about the viability of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate and/or an actual President.

Yes, she is a neocon, she is "Bush-Cheney lite", she is a lot of things we don't want now and shouldn't want just because it isn't a Republican. But that's not what's being asked here. What is being asked, on top of all the other questions that Democrats seem to be ignoring the way Republicans have blindly ignored the insanity that passes for Bush policies, is: Will Mr. Clinton's insanely talented philanthropy somehow turn into a liability for Hillary if she were to be elected? I think it could and that it should be considered at length, but the subject is too arcane for the ordinary people Out There who do not read and write on Salon but simply were "born" Democrats the same way a huge part of our citizenry inherited their Republican allegiance, their conservatism, etc. It is knee-jerkers that don't think about this stuff, and we can talk it to death here, but if we don't take it head-on to The People it will only become a problem after it's too late to do much about it.

I really am concerned about this issue and a lot of others, where Mrs. Clinton is concerned, because as a Republican I dread seeing any of my party's offerings run the risk of getting elected, and with Hillary as the Democratic candidate vs., say, Giuliani or Romney, god only knows who we'd wind up with. One thing is certain, though: we would be getting the same thing we already have, with a different head screwed on it.

Mark Benjamin raises a very good question to add to the others that ought to be getting asked right now. He just doesn't provide much in the way of concrete and persuasive answers, and that is what we need, and quick.

I can't believe you are blindly defending this situation. The charity contributions are not nearly as bad as the huge volume of public speaking.

Can you imagine if a republican was married to someone who made what BC did just for doing public speaking gigs?

I mean I am cool with him paying the bills etc but it sure looks like influence peddling to me?

What if Rude G's wife was pulling in that kind of cash doing motivational speeches. Look at where he was giving those speeches. The man is a great speak but look at the audience.

Clinton is a mis take for the democrats and for the country. If things where in such a bad state I would say fine. She will just be a corporate centrist but we new blood.

Obama Edwards hell if Bloomberg could win I would vote for him. We need someone who can bring rationality to the table on both sides. Rational disagreement and compromise. Not the poop throwing contest we have had for 15 years.

Like there's not nearly enough genuine corruption to go after right now in an administration that is 1000 times worse than Clinton Redux could ever, ever be.

Fine. Vote for Nader, then. You know he'll be running. See where that gets you.

While I don't support Hillary and think she has about as much of a chance of being president as your rock does, this article is basically dredging up old dirt that didn't stick last time.

It didn't hurt Bill when he was president, it isn't going to hurt him when he is first lady.

Only among those who will be force fed fake and hypocritical outrage by Limbaugh, Beck, and other right-wingers that anything a Democrat does is bad, bad, bad. The rest of the world doesn't give a damn.