The Brian Lehrer Show

A couple of questions about this -

1) they've said they've done investigations of Edwards, Obama and now Hilliary; sounds like they;re targeting Democrats. Where are the corresponding investigations of Republicans?

2) I don't know how they report on these investigations, but I'd like to know how they prevent getting incorrect information out that might create a invalid assertion against the candidate under investigation. As is well known, a correction/retraction never has the same impact as an original high-profile assertion.

If you do hilary and bill why not do W and his brother and father.

Very interesting democratic effort.

But did anyone do any research to see whether having a father ex-president and a governor brother has any financial impact on your campaign?

This is a terrific idea. My comment is that if the question is who are Bill's supporters, you need to also ask who are the supporters of the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Foundation, and the related entities that have been created to pursue his health and social welfare interests. Good luck!

"Make Charts to show that there was a donation spike in those areas"... how normative is this crowd sourcing project, or is this just a liberal mob looking to catch someone red handed?

I wonder how much money George Bush Sr raised for his son over the two campaigns?

Wait a minute! Is this the first time an ex-president has helped raise money for a presidential candidate? Married to him/her or not? I find that hard to believe.

Bush Father and Son: Former Vice President Dan Quayle answered that question when he ran against the son of the 41st president. He said that all the funding streams from the president he served dried up for him once his president's son got into the race. That was one of the reasons he could not compete he said.

Isn't looking into Bill Clinton's financial impact on Hillary's campaign a little like shooting fish in a barrel?

Are you planning to look at the impact of George Bush on his son's campaign for president. What were the campaign donations like and how many of George one's supporters gave money to George two? Now that would make an interesting story.

And while you at it how about looking into defense spending in this country? Take on a difficult if not impossible task and give the electorate something to really think about.

This idea is such b.s. I am no fan of Senator Clinton or her doofy husband but it is obvious that what you're planning is a strategy to muckrake Clinton. As others have observed, none of this stuff was even proposed when W was running. And the Huffington Post, of all people...

Carter has received millions of Saudi petro-dollars. Surprise, surprise.

As a long time reader of huffpost, it is clear that the website has anti Clinton bias. Your guests' disavoual of bias in the research

campaign you are jointly launching is disingenuous at best. This is another example of left wing cannibilism. And you are culpable for helping to launch this dubious and very "unneutral"

project. It is why the Democrats continue to lose elections.

Let’s start at the beginning and do this right. I think we should also take a look at Mr. H. W. Bush and his son. A simultaneous study would help us all to believe this is not a partisan project. Could it be that Mr. Bush Sr and his contacts has had, or is not having influence on the present administration? If you're to be perceived as non-partisan it's must.

I find this angle interesting, but I wonder, perhaps we should be investigating the large donors into all the campaigns. It's become quite obvious that elections in this country are for sale to the highest bidder, with no concern for any small remnant of democracy. So much time is wasted discussing fund raising and a television prescence and very little time is spent discussing the issues. The main reason so much funding is required for our elections is the cost of televised ads. Since the corporate media would rather cover Angelina Jolie's kinkier habits over issues of substance such as the economy, ending the war or returning our civil libertiews; only the candidate with the largest war chest will be heard. The real story is about the suppression of news in favor of intellectual pablum. We don't have elections; we have bidding wars. I care less about Hillary's connections than I do about a return to democracy and discussion of issues in the public square. For the record; the Clinton years were NOT good for everyone economically. Those in the manufacturing sector lost their livelihoods when Clinton sent their jobs packing via NAFTA and GATT. No wonder the working class hates the Democratic party.

Addressing neopotism and dynasty issues in politics are critical to a democratic system.

To assure non-partisan approach, both the 2 dynasties of Bush and Clintons, with Yale and both their well know memberships in Skull and Bones, and our country's 20 years already without a break from the Yale Walls of Academia's needs to all be considered as dynasty building and academic familial neopotism.

The process of using your listeners as researchers, as a way to expand the duties and skills of citizenship are educationally mind expanding. So thanks for offering.

I agree that to be more fair and unbiased so this doesn't look like a Clinton lynching, it would be interesting to study the Bush Dynasty and just how Jeb-boy helped with those chads.

Thanks for the comments about this project. We look forward to presenting the findings next week. To address the question about why are not doing an assignment to look at the connection between George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush: Firstly, this assignment is about the current presidential campaign and neither person is running this time around. Saying that, for anyone who is interested in looking at the impact George H.W. Bush had on his son's presidential campaigns, we encourage you to please, go ahead and do the research. We will try to present anything interesting you find.

Secondly, to respond to the comments about why we are picking Hillary Clinton's campaign alone: We plan to do similar projects with Huffington Post's Off The Bus about the other leading Democratic candidates in addition to Republicans. Meanwhile, Off The Bus has focused many other stories on these candidates already.

I think many posters are missing the point here. What is happening is a first in US history: we have the spouse of an ex-President running for that same office. What we are looking at is what impact in the area of fundraising this relationship makes. Sure we have had sons of Presidents, brothers of Presidents, grandsons of Presidents, and various degrees of cousins of Presidents running, but this is the first spouse running for the highest office in our country. It isn't a witch-hunt, or a mud-raking exercise. It is a chance to look at history in the making as it is happening. We do not often get a chance to scrutinize what will be certain history while it is still the present.