"The disclosure of contributors is among nine conditions that Mr. Clinton signed off on during discussions with representatives of Mr. Obama; all go beyond the requirements of law."

So are we going to change the Laws so that all former Presidents have to cough up their Library donor lists, or is this just Moonbat persecution of the Clintons?

Why again is it that the Democrats have to be better than the law requires (Spitzer) but the Republican'ts (Vetter, Craig, Rumsfeld, Gonzolas, Boy George II) don't even have to obey the laws?

Why again is it that the Democrats have to be better than the law requires Lance

In this case it's not about law so much as perception. Since the media magnifies Dem scandals (think "bitter" or Cynthia McKinney), Obama needs to do thorough vetting, which he should do as a matter of practice anyway. Imagine Hillary negotiates a deal in Israel that is seen as pro-Arab. Wolf Blitzer would devote every day to talking about how much the Clinton library got from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. That's all a huge distraction from the discussions about health care, environment, jobs, etc. that the rest of America would rather focus on. And let's be honest, the Clintons are a magnet for controversy, whether you think they deserve it or not.

I believe one of the reasons (out of so many) that the GOP is least trusted by the voters is the lack of transparency and their own double standards that they apply to others. If the Democrats fail to be open and forthright in their dealings they run the risk of being just as bad as the GOP. That's why the election was all about change.

The bigger story here is Bill agree to wear a leash.
It simply wasn't doable without that. You can't have the husband of the SoS flying hither and yon brokering his own foreign policy deals. Or even given the appearance to broker. We both know where big media would run with that...

So good for Bill. He needed to do this for Hillary. Lord knows he owes her some recompensation...

One of the dynamics I find most interesting in the transition is the intra-party fight over HRC (and presumably being belle of the ball has helped salve her wouldn't from losing the primary).

Reid offered to make a new, special leadership position for her outside of the seniority system if she stayed in the Senate, she is being offered plum committee assignments, Kennedy has asked her to be his right hand on health care, all in competition with their own new President Elect who wants her at State. You'd think some of that would be worked out a little less visibly. Still, it certainly is a sign of respect for the millions of enthusiastic supporters she had.

I'm floored by all the 'secret negotiations in plain sight' that have marked this nomination. She wanted it, then she didn't, then concerns about Bill, then maybe they can be settled, on and on. None of the other nominations have involved so much intrigue. I think Hillary is a great pick on the merits, and that she will command the respect of foreign leaders. But she has a large entourage and lots of friends in the media (and the members of her entourage have friends in the media)--far more than anyone else in his cabinet so far. Obama had better be ready for all of the leaks and back door lobbying that he's going to see. (1) Obama gives speech on important foreign policy issue (2) Hillary fully endorses administration position (3) Bill gives wide-ranging interview expressing tepid support (4) sources close to Hillary reveal her reservations about administration position.

Obama ran a very tight campaign, and Hillary's was as loose and leaky as a garbage scow. I hope Obama has a plan to control the sideshow.

zeitgeist, @14:38,

I'm kinda late and the thread seems to have died but, on the off-chance that you should see it... Read the following article, By Elizabeth Drew, in the newest New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22170

I haven't finished reading the whole thing myself (it's pages and pages long) but, the last para of the first subsection had me riveted. I won't quote the whole pare -- even the paragraphs are long -- but found this bit both an eye opener and something with a definite ring of truth. Drew is talking about Obama's dealing with Clinton and McCain, both. Nothing much is said about McCain, but, about Clinton, she has to say this (and more, which I won't quote):

in turning to his own former competitors, Obama was at the same time magnanimous and seeking to keep them close. Both were in a position to cause him difficulty in the Senate—Clinton, in particular, had kept her constituency intact (through HillPAC) and was planning her own Senate agenda, including her own health care program, no matter what Obama proposed. But Clinton lacks the seniority, and therefore a committee position from which to get her proposals taken up by the Senate. (She tried to get a special subcommittee appointed, but Edward M. Kennedy, who has his own health care plan and is chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the issue, blocked her, offering her later a role concerning health insurance.)

from Media Matters .com:
" Slate plays dumb about the Clinton Foundation

We've noticed lots of news outlets that have done this. When discussing Bill Clinton and the foundation he heads (and there's been lots of discussion lately about possible conflicts of interest with Hillary perhaps becoming SoS), the word that the Beltway media often refuses to use in connection with the foundation is "charity."

Chris Matthews did this all the time on MSNBC in recent days, relentlessly referring to international "business" connections Bill Clinton has. Charity was almost never mentioned.

Slate just published a 900-word piece in which writer Christopher Beam insists Clinton close down his foundation because of the "inevitable" financial scandals that will emerge in coming years, and how it would distract from his wife's work as SoS. The tsk-tsking article mentions "foundation" 21 times. But for some reason it only mentions "charity" once. ("Charity" also appears in the pun-driven headline.)

Interestingly, the piece never actually explains to readers what the Clinton Foundation does. Answer: It helps poor people around the world.

Why does Slate purposely play dumb about what the Clinton Foundation is? Why does Slate carefully avoid mentioning the Clinton Foundation battles the HIV/AIDS pandemic and fights hunger in Africa? My guess is that makes it easier for Slate to make the cavalier demand that, in order to please Beltway nay-sayers, the foundation must be shut down; that "the Clinton Foundation effectively has to close shop."

If Slate thinks its narrow definition of conflict of interest trumps helping poor people around the world, than just say so. But don't play dumb in the process."

Why is "CHARITY" never mentioned in relation to BC's foundation? Yeah...I'm looking at you Benen.