Submitted by Gerald P McMorrow, Mar 28, 2007 14:18

Mrs. Clinton is not to be blamed for having money thrust into her hands by "corporate interests". After all, a simple "NO" would have sufficed to any request to a corporation for money. The fact that a corporation's board of directors approved such donations is what should be looked at. Was the donation in the spirit of "keeping a foot in both camps" or was it because the directors themselves might bear scrutiny as to possible connections with Mrs. Clinton? I seem to remember that the current governor of my home state, NY, made much of NYSE directors having approved what he considered to be "excessive" remuneration for the departing Chairman - and was whooped on by media. Gee! Could we get such a review of these corporate directors?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.