Should the Democrats nominate someone who skates 'close to the line on ethics'?

The ongoing Clinton scandal is just the latest.  I agree completely with the Washington Post:

SERVICE AT the highest levels of the United States government demands a certain instinctive sensitivity to right and wrong when it comes to ethics. 

So much can happen belowdecks that a Cabinet member or president must set high standards and expect that subordinates will follow the example. 

This is why the latest disclosures about the Clinton Foundation’s donors raise new concerns about Hillary Clinton’s presidential quest.

Yes, the concern is simple: can you trust them?  I say "them" because both Clintons will be living in the White House if she wins.   

Are the Clintons capable of putting their desire for wealth above the nation?   

The uranium deal raises lots of questions about that, as the editorial explains:

When the Russians sought to expand their holdings to 51 percent of the company, it required approval of the U.S. government, including the State Department, when Ms. Clinton was secretary of state. The transaction was approved in 2010. More donations to the Clinton Foundation — millions of dollars — flowed from people connected to Uranium One. 

The same month the sale went through, the former president gave a talk in Moscow sponsored by an investment bank for $500,000. The investment bank was promoting stock in Uranium One. Though there is no evidence of a quid pro quo, on the merits the deal was bad for U.S. interests: Vladi­mir Putin can now boast of control of more than a fifth of U.S. uranium reserves.

The Clintons have sought to do good works with their foundation, but this is not about the works. It is about the fundraising, both for the charity and for the Clintons’ personal benefit. Besides the Uranium One money, millions more dollars have been contributed by foreign governments and interests with a stake in State Department decisions, or in a future president. 

Bill Clinton, The Post reported, has raked in close to $100 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2013, a staggering sum that far exceeds the self-marketing of any other president.

It smells bad.  It raises a simple question: are these people honest?  Are they interested in promoting themselves or the nation's interest?
 The Clintons, and the Carvilles and Begalas of the world, will say that there is nothing in writing connecting the donations to public decisions.
 That's true!  At the same time, there is enough circumstantial evidence here to argue that the Clintons were looking out for themselves and not the country.

It's up to the Democrats now.  They can send their voters, and the nation, a message that they don't like this any more than the rest of us do.  They can start by demanding that Bill and Hillary Clinton answer questions about this scandal.

Chelsea Clinton is a very nice young woman.  However, she shouldn't be the only Clinton explaining what this is all about.

P.S. You can hear my show (CantoTalk) or follow me on Twitter.

The ongoing Clinton scandal is just the latest.  I agree completely with the Washington Post:

SERVICE AT the highest levels of the United States government demands a certain instinctive sensitivity to right and wrong when it comes to ethics. 

So much can happen belowdecks that a Cabinet member or president must set high standards and expect that subordinates will follow the example. 

This is why the latest disclosures about the Clinton Foundation’s donors raise new concerns about Hillary Clinton’s presidential quest.

Yes, the concern is simple: can you trust them?  I say "them" because both Clintons will be living in the White House if she wins.   

Are the Clintons capable of putting their desire for wealth above the nation?   

The uranium deal raises lots of questions about that, as the editorial explains:

When the Russians sought to expand their holdings to 51 percent of the company, it required approval of the U.S. government, including the State Department, when Ms. Clinton was secretary of state. The transaction was approved in 2010. More donations to the Clinton Foundation — millions of dollars — flowed from people connected to Uranium One. 

The same month the sale went through, the former president gave a talk in Moscow sponsored by an investment bank for $500,000. The investment bank was promoting stock in Uranium One. Though there is no evidence of a quid pro quo, on the merits the deal was bad for U.S. interests: Vladi­mir Putin can now boast of control of more than a fifth of U.S. uranium reserves.

The Clintons have sought to do good works with their foundation, but this is not about the works. It is about the fundraising, both for the charity and for the Clintons’ personal benefit. Besides the Uranium One money, millions more dollars have been contributed by foreign governments and interests with a stake in State Department decisions, or in a future president. 

Bill Clinton, The Post reported, has raked in close to $100 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2013, a staggering sum that far exceeds the self-marketing of any other president.

It smells bad.  It raises a simple question: are these people honest?  Are they interested in promoting themselves or the nation's interest?
 The Clintons, and the Carvilles and Begalas of the world, will say that there is nothing in writing connecting the donations to public decisions.
 That's true!  At the same time, there is enough circumstantial evidence here to argue that the Clintons were looking out for themselves and not the country.

It's up to the Democrats now.  They can send their voters, and the nation, a message that they don't like this any more than the rest of us do.  They can start by demanding that Bill and Hillary Clinton answer questions about this scandal.

Chelsea Clinton is a very nice young woman.  However, she shouldn't be the only Clinton explaining what this is all about.

P.S. You can hear my show (CantoTalk) or follow me on Twitter.