Will Obama start off by breaking his own rules?

[billynomates]

The presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has for months faced questions about the source of the money for her husband's presidential library. During a September debate, moderator Tim Russert asked the senator whether her husband would release a donor list. Clinton said she was sure her husband would "be happy to consider that," though the former president later declined to provide a list of donors.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has made an issue of the large yet unidentified contributors to presidential libraries, saying that he wants to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in such donations. Obama has introduced legislation that would require disclosure of all contributions to presidential libraries, including Clinton's, and Congress has actively debated such a proposal. Unlike campaign donations, money given to presidential libraries is often done with limited or no disclosure.

The Clinton library has steadfastly declined to reveal its donors, saying they were promised confidentiality. The William J. Clinton Foundation, which funds the library, is considered a charity whose contributors can remain anonymous.

Should the potential Secretary of State obey the same rules as others?

[billynomates]

Frank Guistra

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

Mr. Giustra was invited to accompany the former president to Almaty just as the financier was trying to seal a deal he had been negotiating for months.

In separate written responses, both men said Mr. Giustra traveled with Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan, India and China to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation.

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of “any particular efforts” and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an “observer only” and there was “no discussion” of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.

But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton “of course made an impression.” Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustra’s company based solely on the merits of its offer.

After The Times told Mr. Giustra that others said he had discussed the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev, Mr. Giustra responded that he “may well have mentioned my general interest in the Kazakhstan mining business to him, but I did not discuss the ongoing” efforts.

[spaceboy761]

I'm not sure if you can just pass a law that forces disclosure of sources retroactively. The people that contributed did so under a confidentiality agreement and that really cannot be violated. Changing the disclosure status of all future contribuitions would be fine, although I'm not sure why the Clintons are being touchy about this.

[bluffmanxx]

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

I'm not sure if you can just pass a law that forces disclosure of sources retroactively. The people that contributed did so under a confidentiality agreement and that really cannot be violated.

agree that retroactive changes are hard to implement.

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

Changing the disclosure status of all future contribuitions would be fine, although I'm not sure why the Clintons are being touchy about this.

oh, come on now...i'm sure you can figure out the general reasons why without knowing all the specifics.

they don't want it known where the money came from and what sort of agreements were involved.

[bluffmanxx]

did someone mention rules???

New Rules In The Age Of Obama

Due to the Obama victory, including a few more Democratic seats in Congress, there has been a shift of power in our nation to the Left. Since it was you, the liberals, Democrats, middle-roaders, African-Americans, centralists, socialists, Bush Haters, or whatever you care to call yourselves, who voted for this shift of power, you must now all understand a few simple rules. You may not like these rules but with power comes great sacrifice along with a responsibility for your words and actions. Therefore with this new shift to the Left all of you who voted for Obama will have to change your ways. But then, isn't 'Change' what you were all after, after all?

So here, with absolutely no apologies to Bill Maher, who for years has been making up 'New Rules' for conservatives, are your New Rules:

1) You can no longer complain about sexism or discrimination towards women.

Ah, ah, ah… there's no use in complaining! Not after that hatchet job you allowed on Gov. Sarah Palin and her family! Let's see, how did that go? Oh yes, Obama, Wright, Ayers and idiotic Biden guffaws were off limits but not the Palin kids.

2) You can no longer bemoan the loss of the Freedom of Speech or any other violations of your privacy.

you all sat quietly by and accepted without question or concern Obama's personal media's crucifixion of Joe the Plumber

3) You can no longer claim that you are informed or enlightened.

Since you all seem to get your information, and are content with it, from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, or The New York and LA Times you do not understand the meaning of 'unbiased.' Try hitting the books, like Obama's, Ayers'; Cone's or Farrakhan's to find out what your candidate is really like. Tackle Michelle Obama's college thesis, I got it off of the Internet.

The article rambles on...but you get the point.

[billybob]

When will obama release the people and countries that financed his run for president!!! The answer is never!!!! Too much foreign money contributed, wonder if he is obligated to them now. Naw

[spaceboy761]

Oh, stop overreacting. This can't be any worse than when Kennedy took secret orders from the Pope for three years.

[billybob]

I gree, whats ur point????

[spaceboy761]

Thank you for proving my point way better than I ever could.

[billybob]

doesn't probe ur point, they both were wrong