Many of our friends on the right view Hillary Clinton unfavorably. Some are of the opinion that she is, in the damning words of the late columnist Bill Safire, "a congenital liar." Others share the uncharitable view of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey that Clinton's thoughts "sound a lot like Karl Marx."

Well, we do not think the former first lady, former senator from New York and former secretary of state a liar. Nor do we think her a Marxist. But we do have nagging questions about Clinton's fitness to be the next president of the United States.

We know she's an exceedingly bright woman — a Yale alum like some former presidents, including George W. Bush, husband Bill Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush. We know she boasts experience at the highest level of government, having overseen the State Department for four years.

Yet we think Clinton suffers a tragic flaw — the lack of an ethical compass.

That brings us to the disquieting revelation Thursday by The New York Times that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in donations from Ian Telfer, former chairman of Uranium One, a Canadian company with substantial U.S. holdings.

It so happens that the donations from Telfer's family foundation coincided with discussions by the State Department, then headed by Mrs. Clinton, as to whether to approve a Russian takeover of Uranium One.

Normally, the Clinton damage-control team would have ascribed the explosive story to the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Mrs. Clinton first invoked when defending her husband against accusations of presidential philandering.

But since the Gray Lady cannot be accused of being in cahoots with Clinton haters on the right, the Clinton presidential campaign simply denied, denied, denied that Telfer's multimillion-dollar gift had anything whatsoever to do with Mrs. Clinton's role as secretary of state.

No one, stated Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon, "has produced a shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation."

Well, Fallon is absolutely correct. There is no smoking email — that we know of — from Clinton to Telfer in which she promised a quid pro quo.

But that's beside the point. What troubles us is that it apparently didn't occur to Clinton that as secretary of state, she should have scrupulously avoided not only conflicts of interest but even the appearance of such conflicts.

A public official with an ethical compass would have known that.

REPRINTED FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER