freeman3 wrote:And here is a fair assessment of her time as Secretary of State.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1180 ... tary-state

The second, more important reason not to judge Clinton too harshly is that it isn't clear her opinions mattered that much.

freeman3 wrote:Really, Brad, those are accomplishments? The bar is pretty low, I guess...

Ray Jay wrote:So, how does the Justice Department determine whether they should investigate the Clinton Foundation / missing e-mails. They've investigated Christie, a New Jersey Senator, and a Virginia governor. (I don't know the political party of the last 2, and I'm not looking it up because I'm hoping it is beside the point.) Do Clinton's actions warrant such an investigation? It isn't really the Republican's job or the press's job. Are they not investigating her based on objective non-partisan criteria?

Is Hillary too good to answer questions?

rickyp wrote:fate

Is Hillary too good to answer questions?

Maybe

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3827.html

Question .
Why is it that when millions are given to a PAC of a candidate there is no investigation into the quid quo pro expected and/or received in return for the donation?
But when the donation goes to a charity there is?

I wonder if part of the reason this issue is not larger is this glaring contradiction. And the fact that no one has identified any quid quo pro on Hills part...

Within two weeks of Haiti’s January 2010 earthquake, the word had already gone out from the State Department that Bill Clinton would be in charge of U.S. reconstruction efforts. “That means,” one individual told me and I reported in a Jan. 25, 2010 column, “if you don’t have Clinton connections, you won’t be in the game.”

The “game,” as my source called it, meant securing hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts from the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development and grants from multilateral institutions like the InterAmerican Development Bank, which gets the bulk of its funding from the U.S.

The Clintons deny that Bill’s power over State’s purse was used to secure donations to the Clinton Foundation. But at least two contributors who gave more than $1 million as I described in a March 9 column, including the InterAmerican Development Bank, benefited from U.S. earthquake aid.

There’s a lot that didn’t get done. In the north of the country, the Clinton-proposed Caracol Industrial Park was supposed to feature some 40 buildings for apparel assembly supporting up to 65,000 jobs. It remains a mystery why there are still only three buildings in full operation and only 5,000 jobs, despite plenty of tenant interest.

And, there is a difference when you are Secretary of State vs. a candidate with no specific power to immediately affect policy

Another dimension of the difference is that it is foreign money ... it's one thing to represent American domestic interests, whether they be oil or trial lawyer. After all they are citizens. However it is another to represent foreign corporations or governments.

Ray Jay wrote:Another dimension of the difference is that it is foreign money ... it's one thing to represent American domestic interests, whether they be oil or trial lawyer. After all they are citizens. However it is another to represent foreign corporations or governments.

rickyp wrote:Only American citizens (and immigrants with green cards) can contribute to federal politics, but the American divisions of foreign companies can form political action committees (PACs) and collect contributions from their American employees