...how many other people will be put off (as I am) from donating to any cause with which a notorious con man like Bill Clinton is associated?

Probably fewer people than would have decried W if he had only tapped his father for the aid effort. I'm sure that those that are put off will be outweighed by those drawn to Clinton's "charitable charismatic charm". No guesses on my part about how it will eventually affect the distribution of monies, though.

The fact that President Bush chose Clinton and his father to spearhead the effort suggests to me that the Administration decided that the accusation of "stingy" has some real legs, whether the accusation was warranted or not. The selection of Clinton is a masterful stroke of political theater and damage control.

And, since the selection of Clinton by Bush will only enhance Bubba's global stature, I also suspect some choice Texas 'cuss words were uttered in the White House before the decision was announced.

The accusation of "stingy" did have legs with Anti-American Europeans, which I have no doubt was the entire purpose of the comment. Of course, the facts don't exactly matter to some. I doubt the picking of Clinton changes opinions at all. If anything it will be another point to lampoon the US with.

Leland, then why did Bush do it?

It's all part of the continuing attempts on the part of the administration (despite all the bile and partisanship on the part of the donkeys) to "set a new tone" in Washington. I seriously doubt that it had anything at all to do with the "stingy" comment, which reflected much more poorly on the commenter than on the administration.

Clinton is in a better position to get donations from the Michael Moores and Barbara Streisands of the world than GHW Bush. I think that probably outweighs the number of folks who are put off by the appointment.

Bill,

I think both Rand and rjschwarz have it right. Picking Clinton shows a bi-partisan effort and that bi-partisan effort encourages bi-partisan donations.

I'm not put-off by it at all. As I said in another comment, I'm for the Roger Simon view of keeping politics out of the issue of providing aid in this disaster. Comments that America is "stingy" don't hold up well when its American helicopters landing and handing out supplies, and that started happening before Clara Short contradicted Jan Egeland.

PS... I do note irony in avoiding politics yet placing two politicians in charge. However, you are talking about former Presidents, which means a few things:

a) They know how to fundraise
b) They know how to organize, manage, and administer
c) They already have a base of supporters

At least it might keep Bill Clinton off the lecture circuit for a while which might cause a loss of income for him.

At least he didn't pick Ford and Carter.

Of course if Clinton (or Bush, Sr.) didn't put you off donating, the fact that the UN is now in charge (and hence in a much better position to steal you contributions) might do it.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f94c32b6-5f00-11d9-8cca-00000e2511c8.html

President Bush tapping Bubba for this effort is nothing less than brilliance, considering Clinton bad-mouthed the U.S. from afar. Now he has to put up or shut up.

And considering his financial donation to this matter consists of an 'undisclosed amount' and President Bush has given $10,000 so far Bubba's caught by the short hairs.

Remember: Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.