xerxestrust, thanks for the point about the Clintons' being hypocritical about obscene payouts to corporate executives when that same system pays Bill for his speeches. I think this relationship will keep Hillary from taking on needed corporate reform and banking regulations. This is clearly the “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours” mentality among politicians which leads to bigger corruption.

Ai am much more interested in what Bill (as a partner) did to earn all that money from Yucaipa. I'm assuming he didn't become a partner by investing any money (when he left the WH he didn't have that sort of money to invest) and with him busy writing and giving speeches (which is how he describes himself on his tax returns) I'd like to know what he contributed (as an advisor) to help Yucaipa's finances. My sense is that he lent his name and allowed himself to be affiliated with it so it would draw more investors (and strengthens Yucaipa's hand in negotiating deals). I doubt that Bill actually participated in any deals and transactions in any meaningful way. The business development that is being claimed is just very subjective….

So even though I do have a few questions and while Bill's contribution to Yucaipa may be dubious, I'm not sure there's really any reason to dig too deep into it. I don't think he was trying to cheat anyone out of money- just trying to find another way to make money by using his name. The biggest concern I have is over the conflict of interest this will present if Hillary becomes president. Bill has earned so much money from large corporations and that puts both Clintons in the debt of these large corporations. In the US we've never had the spouse of an ex-president have a real chance of becoming president. Hillary becoming president will only enrich her friends more and those friends will only enrich the Clintons more. Those relationships are already established and there's no reason to believe they will go away after all these years.

So my biggest concern isn't about the amount of money the Clintons earned, but whether Hillary can keep sufficient distance from her sponsors (and those sponsors run deep and are very powerful) to do what is best for the country. I would say no- I don't know of poitician who has done this. And with her husband being the ex-president, the ties are even stronger.

I also applaud their personal charitable contributions – but it is important to note that much of the $10 million has not yet be actually distributed to charities and causes they support – but invested in a family foundation that they retain full control over. Nevertheless – those funds will ultimately benefit the public good.

However – the sources of their wealth are fair game. Books sales are innocuous. But the incredible amount of money made through Bill Clinton's speeches give me pause. Yes – I knew on some level that he was commanding premium rates for speeches. But – Wow!

I understand from a free market perspective that he is simply getting what the market is willing to pay for a person of his stature and talent. But I do think it is more than a little hypocritical for the Clintons to attack the “obscene” payouts of corporate executives and “obscene” profits of corporations when in essence it is those payouts and profits that enable CEOs and corporations to pay Clinton what can be reasonably construed as “obscene” rates just to hear a speech.

Yes – it is true that some day Obama may also be able to cash in the same way. But for now that is only a possibilty he can still choose to forsake. For Clinton, it is a reality they have wholeheartedly embraced.