Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 03/ 7/2008

Taxing questions for Clinton

By Michael Dobbs


TV debate between Clinton and Lazio, Sept. 13, 2000

I'm a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly work toward releasing [my tax returns], and we will get that done and in the public domain."
--Hillary Clinton, MSNBC debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.

The Clinton camp has been trying to make hay on the income tax returns issue for weeks. During a campaign stop in Ithaca on July 7, the first lady said she found Lazio's failure to make public his returns "frankly disturbing."
--Associated Press report, Aug. 3, 2000.

During her 2000 New York Senate campaign, Hillary Clinton made a big issue out of her Republican opponent's failure to release his tax returns. Former congressman Rick Lazio eventually relented, but only after the Clinton campaign dispatched volunteers dressed as Uncle Sam to picket his public appearances. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem to "fan the flames," and repeatedly demanded, "Mr. Lazio, what are you trying to hide?"

Today, Clinton is facing similar accusations from her Democratic opponent. The Obama campaign released a March 5 "What does Clinton have to hide?" memo arguing that she is concealing pertinent information from the voters.

Just how good is the Clinton record on financial disclosure?

The Facts

During the 1992 campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton released their tax returns going back to 1980. They refused to release the returns for previous years, including 1978 and 1979, when, it later turned out, Hillary made nearly $100,000 trading in cattle futures.

During their years in the White House, the Clintons followed tradition and released their tax returns on an annual basis. There were few surprises, although comedians had a field day with some over-generous charitable write-offs, including $2 pairs of underwear. When she ran for the New York Senate seat in 2000, Clinton had already disclosed her tax returns as first lady.

The Clintons stopped disclosing their tax returns after they left the White House in 2000, and their incomes began to soar, with book deals and lecture fees. Hillary did not release her returns during her Senate re-election campaign in 2006. Instead, she pointed to the annual financial disclosure forms that she files as a U.S. senator which are available here and here.

By contrast, Obama has released the form 1040 portion of his tax return (but not the entire return) since he first ran for the Senate from Illinois in 2004. Obama has released all his returns since 2004. Obama's Senate financial disclosure records are available here.

Critics, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, argue that disclosure of the tax returns could shed light on how Clinton was able to make a $5 million loan to her campaign last month. They also point out that Bill Clinton has refused to release a list of donors for the Clinton foundation, which funds his Presidential library and other charitable activities.

The Clinton campaign now says that the Clintons will release all her post-White House tax returns "on or around April 15," a week before the potentially crucial Pennsylvania primary.


The Pinocchio Test

Let me know whether you think that Hillary Clinton has been up front about her tax returns and other financial information. What about Barack Obama and John McCain? I am off for the first half of next week. When I return, I plan to start looking at the public disclosure records of all the candidates in more detail.


(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | March 7, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Verdict Pending  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton stumbles on Ohio history
Next: Truth-telling on Iraq

Comments

Given the Clinton's history in this area, it is imperative that unrlenting pressure be applied to release those records -- in particular because she loaned her campaign $5 million.

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | March 7, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

I was somewhat surprised that that Fact-Checker stated that Obama did not release his entire return because the return I printed off the website was complete and ready to be filed with the IRS. I have been a self employed CPA who specializes in tax and I have never seen such public disclosure by a political candidate in my 25 years of practice. The return I have in my hand has been a source of fun in the office. I handed it to my administrative assistant and told we had a new client, please check them in, all we had was the prior year return because he was too busy to pull together his 2007 information right now. She came to me and asked if she would get to meet Obama. I told her I was just having fun with her. The bottom line is I think all candidates should release there tax returns. Professional like me can establish a real baseline on the individual because I always start with prior returns on new clients. I would love to review all the major candidates complete return like the Obama's have provided the public. I would love to see Hillary and John McCain provide the same level of disclosure.

Posted by: Bradley R McGrew,CPA | March 7, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes the information you don't give is more telling than the information you do give. Take, for instance, the 1978 and 1979 tax returns that the Clintons withheld when B.Clinton was running for president. Yes, they WERE hiding something. H.Clinton should have released her tax returns weeks ago. "I've been pretty busy" is no excuse not to release the prior years' returns; does she not have a CPA who can photocopy them for her? Is she too busy to make a one minute phone call? If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, acts like a rat...

Posted by: Kathleen in Cedar Rapids, Iowa | March 7, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Obama's house purchase in conjuction with Rezko makes it critical that Obama shows his property purchase detail.

What will happen to the unusable lot next to his house. Since Rezko just sold 10 ft of the plot, that lot does not have enough space to build a new house.

Obama's house deal with Rezko has to be published if Clinton has to go extra mile on her tax papters

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 7, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

This is a dangerous oversight on the part of the press and Hillary Clinton supporters. When someone claims to represent my party, I want to know where and how they are getting their income. This is plainly reasonable. We need this information. Before any discussion of superdelegates or FLA and MI, democratic voters require this information.

Posted by: maq1 | March 7, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

SeedofChange - given your interest in real estate, you may find the following link to be of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

Posted by: maq1 | March 7, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Since when did the Clintons tell the truth. Lies come naturally and easily to them. Unfortunately they easily bamboozle the media and too many americans.

Posted by: kwakuazar | March 7, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I think I'll tell the IRS I was too busy to prepare my return this year. If it's good enough for Hilary, the excuse should work for me, too.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

clinton should *at least* match obama in this area. failure to do so is a mistake. opponents (democrat or republican) will have a field day.

Posted by: mamund | March 7, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Obama's house deal with Rezko has to be published if Clinton has to go extra mile on her tax papters

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 7, 2008 08:21 AM

***********************************
seedless, when you have problems sleeping, do you count Rezko instead of sheep? Nice try...

Posted by: LAC | March 7, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

why the hell should Clinton do something that Obama wants?

He didn't debate, he whines aobut the press, he's a baby.

get over it obama fans.
Clinton is stronger than Obama

Posted by: trey | March 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I have trouble getting excited about this right now. They aren't due until April 15th. My 2007 taxes aren't completed yet, so I could disclose them if I was asked. This is a disengenuous issue. According to the article, the Clintons previously disclosed their statements from 1980 on during the 1992 campain. Why has Obama only disclosed his returns since he has been in the Senate? What is he hiding? See, it is a silly arguement. Why aren't we discussing their actions on the environment or something meaningful? And, who cares who donated to the Presidential library? Please worry about real issues and not disclosure of documents that aren't even due yet.

Posted by: Scott | March 7, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I've got just one question.

How is releasing tax returns going to solve our dire needs we are having in the US right now?

Has anyone read the job reports this morning. Our economy is in a nose dive.

Is Obama going to get a better grip on our economy because he has disclosed his tax returns?

I don't think so.

Posted by: Julie in Georgia | March 7, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I noticed most of the Obama income for 2006 & 2007 was from book deals. Oh, Michelle got $50+ thousand for serving on a Food Producing Committee. Man I envy that special interest hourly rate. Don't I remember a lot of bashing of Hillary for taking advantage of her political position on her book deals? Thats OK, they're Clintons. Crooks and murderers. What ever they do is crooked. Bama's straight. how do I know, he told me so. Yeah right.

Posted by: Chief | March 7, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: trey | March 7, 2008 09:27 AM

why the hell should Clinton do something that Obama wants?

He didn't debate, he whines aobut the press, he's a baby.

get over it obama fans.
Clinton is stronger than Obama
======================================
======================================

Read the paper, get yourself informed. She wanted Sen. Obama to debate her 5 times. He agreed to 2 more, considering that there had already been 20 debates.

She was the one who whines about how the press was easy on Sen. Obama, and hard on her. Remember the "oh, woe is me" comment about her always being asked the first question in debates? Well, she never seemed to have a problem when she was considered the front runner with the nomination wrapped up. They put her in the middle of the debaters, asked her the first and last questions, and she never had a thing to say. Not a peep.

Now she cries foul.

Her actions are pitiful, dirty, and in bad form, especially from someone who wants to represent me to the world.

Don't get me started about the Canadian NAFTA memo. You know, the one that the Clinton people accused Sen. Obama of doing a wink-wink with Canadian officials concerning NAFTA? Turns out it was the Clinton people who did the wink-wink...Not the Obama people, like both the Canadians and Obama people said. That was the tip in Ohio. Dirt bag tactics are the Clinton's middle name. And where is the media on this topic. Ohioans and Texans should feel used and lied to.

Shame on her!


Posted by: CitizenXX | March 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

SeedofChange - given your interest in real estate, you may find the following link to be of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

Posted by: maq1
__________________________________________

What year did you wake up, Rip. We're $6o million paste that. Read the report.

Posted by: Chief | March 7, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Still waiting for NAFTA-gate---Part III...The Whole Story.

Posted by: flarrfan | March 7, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Trey said:

"Clinton is stronger than Obama"

Most monsters are.

I was working in the lab late one night
When my eyes beheld an eerie sight
For my monster from her slab began to rise
And suddenly to my surprise


She did the mash
She did the monster mash
The monster mash
It was a graveyard smash
She did the mash
It caught on in a flash
She did the mash
She did the monster mash

From my laboratory in the castle east
To the master bedroom where the vampires feast
The Clintons all came from their humble abodes
To get a jolt from my electrodes

They did the mash
They did the monster mash
The monster mash
It was a graveyard smash
They did the mash
It caught on in a flash
They did the mash
They did the monster mash

The Clintons were having fun
The party had just begun
The guests included Wolf Man
Dracula and his son

The scene was rockin', all were digging the sounds
Igor on chains, backed by his baying hounds
The coffin-bangers were about to arrive
With their vocal group, "The Crypt-Kicker Five"


They played the mash
They played the monster mash
The monster mash
It was a graveyard smash
They played the mash
It caught on in a flash
They played the mash
They played the monster mash

Out from his coffin, Obama's voice did ring
Seems he was troubled by just one thing
He opened the lid and shook his fist
And said, "Whatever happened to my Transylvania twist?"

It's now the mash
It's now the monster mash
The monster mash
And it's a graveyard smash
It's now the mash
It's caught on in a flash
It's now the mash
It's now the monster mash

Now everything's cool, Bill's a part of the band
And my monster mash is the hit of the land
For you, the living, this mash was meant too
When you get to my door, tell them Hillary sent you

Then you can mash
Then you can monster mash
The monster mash
And do my graveyard smash
Then you can mash
You'll catch on in a flash
Then you can mash
Then you can monster mash

Posted by: flarrfan | March 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Only fools pay attention to things like tax returns. What is a 1040 worth. Nothing there except total income. . The summary is always by the campaign. Again, only fools pay attention. Wait a minute. Who got elected in 2000 and 2004? I take it back. Fools aplenty.

Posted by: Chief | March 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I want to see Hillary and Bill's tax returns for the years 2000-2007, even if they are Xerox copies. I want to see Hillary's White House papers, even if they are Xerox copies.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton combination makes for interesting "have-it-all" attitudes and circumstances and they could never withstand an audit from the IRS. You really have to see them get off the private jet in Anguilla and note if they declared the "gift" as income (from BET Bob), or not. Bill would likely explain that he was on a mission of humanity to get contributions for his library (or rearrange foreign affairs with Anguilla for the State Department). They have not paid for anything ever and have developed remarkable techniques to game the system. The other interesting thing about the couple is that they have spent a great deal of time around people with real money and thereby developed an interesting, determined taste and desire for personal wealth (notwithstanding power). The problem is that regardless of their personal wealth (now), they could never break the cycle of getting everything for free (travel, vacations, meals, and you name it). Thus, their view of taxable income (gifts) is not from their perspective taxable but rather the world's obligation for taking care of public servants who owed millions in attorney fees (for lying and having to defend things like disbarment - and Senator Clinton likely never got over failing the bar examination and is punishing the system). They have always had two sets of rules and continue to play the game recklessly. If the IRS attempted an audit they would claim unfounded persecution and some groundless witch hunt instigated by some nefarious group or Senator Obama. In essence, the media are afraid of the Clinton couple and the media will be viewed by history as not having the skill and fortitude to factually and accurately report their unique entitlement pathology and relentless abuses. To be able to define truth around a lie is a unique talent but a dangerous skill in a treacherous world. Mrs. Clinton did not have a security clearance while first lady for good cause and reason. She is ill prepared to deal with crisis without personalizing an incident and has the hair trigger demeanor of a trained guard (standing on a wall) instead of a wise and skilled diplomat. It is not a personality to run a nation or anything else and they do not want to reveal their taxes because they cannot remember from day-to-day or month-to-month, what was income and what was a freebie gift. Gifts are taxable, right?

Posted by: terry.brady | March 7, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

When Hillary receives that phone call at 3AM it will probably be Gennifer with a G, Paula, Kathleen, or Monica saying "Is Bill there?" Or maybe it will be the Ukrainian or Kazakhstan mobsters Bill has been hanging around with demanding a favor for all the money they gave Bill.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 7, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

think I'll tell the IRS I was too busy to prepare my return this year. If it's good enough for Hilary, the excuse should work for me, too.
__________________________________________

Its March. March, Rip. I worked real hard last year and got all my forms by Jan. 20, Turned in all my info to my accountant, Jan 21. Guess when he finished it. April 14. Lick your chops for a while longer. Go Hillary, go.

Posted by: Chief | March 7, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

With the Clinton history of graft and lack of a moral compass, it imperative that we see Hillary's tax returns. Are we to be surprised if Hillary gets back in there with another redo of the continual scandals of their previous White House years? They have shown no indication that they have changed any of their behavior patterns that led to the disgracing of the Democratic Party. To this day the Clintons remain close to Texas Congressman Jim Wright, who was forced out of Congress for corruption. This is the network of support that Hillary has, with the old line corrupt cronies that are just as bad as the Republican graft we are now experiencing.(i.e.Ed Rendell).

Posted by: majorteddy | March 7, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Why don't they ask Hillary why Bill raised
social security taxes from 50 to 75 percent. She could not lead a horse to water. One other thing, hard working Americans donating millions of dollars to any political campaign is rediculous, espescially while this country is going downhill.
All candidates should have a forum and sign a legal document as to what they will do if elected. And if not done in a timely fashion they should removed from office immediately.

Posted by: Jay Gray | March 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

To the SeedOfChanges of the world:

The details of the Obama house purchase in Chicago have been made public, and have been widely reported in the press in Chicago and across the US. The sellers of the property have confirmed that there was a detailed negotiation with the Obamas that resulted in a deal that both parties signed off on. The purchase of the adjoining lot by the Rezkos had NO impact on the price of the home purchased by the Obamas. All of this is directly from the seller.

As far as releasing the details of the transaction, all real estate purchase details must be filed in the town they take place in.

Please, SeedOfChange, stop the lying and muckraking where there is no muck to rake.

Posted by: steveboyington | March 7, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: politicojunk | March 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Even more than her tax returns, the White House papers are essential because they underpin the entire premise of her campaign- her experience and readiness.

This is Hillary's achilles heal. Being non-transparent, highly political, and at times even making false and misleading statements on matters such as these. Take filegate, for example, "I also would like to know how those files disappeared from my desk." There are unfortunately many examples of this, and the whole approach is part of what makes she and Bill so divisive. (That and alot of crazies who just hate them for fun.)

Posted by: MShaughn | March 7, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Clintons sold this country for cash. Pardoning terrorists. Pardonning rich criminals like Rich.

Selling American prestige. Read this NY Times article about how Bill was pimped out by his rich Canadian friend to the Kazakhstan's dictator:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Who want this couple in the White House?
They will pick up the 3AM call and ask "how much?"

Posted by: tchanta | March 7, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

What's interesting is that we are not just talking about last year's taxes...the Clintons have not released any taxes since 2000. If she wants to run for the Presidency role, then she should release her taxes from 2000. What the heck does the taxes from 200 upto 2006 have to do with April 15? Nothing.....Obviously she doesn't want all of the poor white rural hard working folks to see all of the wads of money that she and Bill has made over the past several years and she doesn't want Americans to see how they made that money and who are those donors and business partners. This is crucial when you think about of conflict of interest that she will be placing herself and America into...She'll have to return all of those favors and at who expense....The AMERICAN Peopl's expense. I say keep the pressure on her to release those returns...What's she hiding..

Posted by: release 2000-2006 returns | March 7, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

SeedOfLunacy has been polluting the WaPo message boards with bile for long enough. Can't tell if he/she/it is a Rove Republican or a deranged Hillbot but it is telling that all the attacks on Obama are baseless.

I am sure Hillary has a whole team of CPAs doing her taxes for her so her stupid claim of being" too busy" is just a transparent load of BS. If you want a President that thinks it's okay to insult the intelligence of the public like that, then go ahead and stand by Hillary.

Posted by: maria | March 7, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Some of th posters here need to re-read this article. It is not just this year's tax returns that Hllary has kept secret, it is ALL the tax returns since they left the white house in 2000.

I noticed a couple of posts along the lines "I haven't got my tax returns filled out until April 14th" or similar, stating it is reasonable she wait till April 15. My point is, these are not the current returns that are being requested, it is all of her returns since she left the White House and joined the senate.

The tax returns will show a pattern of taking millions from the very interests she claims to oppose, countries like India and Canada and Mexico that are leaders in outsourcing American jobs, Saudi Arabia, etc. Also consultant fees from the very insurance and drug companies she claims she will fight tooth and nail.

This issue goes directly to the veracity of her claims as a change agent. She keeps hammering Obama over a relatively minor land deal, and she keep all or her own financial dealings secret.

If there was no "smoking gun" in the tax returns, then why has she resisted this cry for their release? If they were free of potential conflicts, wouldn't she be EAGER to supply the returns?

Come on people, dpn't get taken in by this, this is really OBVIOUS.

Posted by: Harry | March 7, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Fact Checker actually did a fairly good job of relaying the issues on this one. Many of the comments above aren't exacty pertinent to the article. BUT, if Clinton says she will make her taxes available on April 15th, or whenever, and it is March 7th, What is the problem? If she doesn't make them available when she says she will that would be an issue. What about the real issues of running the country though. What about the economy. What about the environment. What baout detailed plans to get out of expensive wars that are ruining the economy and trashing the value of the dollar, which, makes oil more expensive for us and doesn't exactly help the economy. WHy are you people not worried about the real problems that the next president will face?

Posted by: Scott | March 7, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

We want our impeached President and his spouse back in the White House. Hillary gets Air Force One, Bill, his girlfriends, and White House female Interns get Air Force Two. Let the party start.. We are going to have a good time.

Hillary 08, The Commander in Chief, Ready to Lead on Day One!!

Posted by: Jim | March 7, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Harry for re-iterating what the Hillary supporters are either not understanding or just don't want to understand. I guess that says a lot about their broad capabilities of being able to comprehend.

Let's ask them again, one mor time for the road....where is the darn taxes from 2000-2006. If she wants to continue in this race, the American people should demand that she release them. Either the Hill's supporters are just ignorant and don't care about the transparencies and unaccountabilities with their candidate or they are just as unethical as she is. Because any idiot that has a clear understanding of what a President's character should stand for, would have to be concerned about Hillary's and Bill's failure to release their tax returns to their voters. Hmmmm....ignorance is like a terminating virus....

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 7, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

More hypocrisy from the Clinton camp. At this point it's not even surprising. Lies, lies and more lies, then some spin, then some more lies and a hint of racism for good measure.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 7, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

We are winning, riding on the back on the Low-information voters, blue collar workers, Feminists and Latinos. Obama can whine, and whine..

We have the momentum. We also have Karl Rove's support - Check out his article in support of our candidacy in yesterday's Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120476732666015257.html.

Karl Rove knows we are the best candidate against the Republicans, hence his support.
Obama does not pass the C-in-C threshold test.
Go Hillary for C-in-C!!

Posted by: Sarah | March 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

What Clinton is hiding is very suspect. Does it have to do with Ron Burkles or Frank Giustra or the millions from Saudi Arabia for the Clinton Library? I believe so. There could be even more surprises as well. The voters have a right to know about any scandals ahead of time. She must release the tax returns before she gets the nomination. And all her records as first lady, too. That is part of her experience argument. Of course she probably has scrubbed the tax return and the records, so we will never know. But the Repbublicans will find out. Bush is still in charge of the IRS and everything.

Posted by: goldie2 | March 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

You say nothing about the upcoming March 20 court hearing on the Judicial Watch case against Clinton??

Judicial watch is also going for the secret files of her back door health care plan of the 90's. Sources say she will try to block the hearing by releasing 'something' before then.
The next 30 days before the Pennsylvania primary will be interesting, and very telling for the Clinton's.
The Rezko trial are leaking more and more Clinton connections, the tax records are being forced out and now Judicial Watch is coming down hard on her on other issues.

The past favorable status of the Clinton's which allowed them to keep all of this at bay and under the rug, is now about to explode. Finally!


Posted by: hazmaq | March 7, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

So, the Clintons have more tax information publicly available than Obama and Obama has not released all of his tax information either.

Does it have something to do with Rezko financing part of his Home purchase?

Posted by: Independent | March 7, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Bill, White House Interns and Girlfriends for Air Force 2? Really? God save America.

Posted by: Juan | March 7, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

SpeedofChange

Obama's Rezko property purchase details vs. Clinton's tax return release. Please explain what one has to do with the other.

I'm not sure how Illinios does it, but in the state I'm in, property purchases are of public record. Obama's property purchase should be on public records.

It's silliness like this that gets the public going in the wrong direction. We (the public) should insist that all cadidates stick to substantive issues.

I think both of them are hiding something. And in both cases, it's probably not that bad, until the political spin is applied, (as it will be),and then it becomes something totally different. That being said, I can understand the reluctance of both.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

SpeedofChange

Obama's Rezko property purchase details vs. Clinton's tax return release. Please explain what one has to do with the other.

I'm not sure how Illinios does it, but in the state I'm in, property purchases are of public record. Obama's property purchase should be on public records.

It's silliness like this that gets the public going in the wrong direction. We (the public) should insist that all cadidates stick to substantive issues.

I think both of them are hiding something. And in both cases, it's probably not that bad, until the political spin is applied, (as it will be),and then it becomes something totally different. That being said, I can understand the reluctance of both.

thelastmanstanding...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

SpeedofChange

Obama's Rezko property purchase details vs. Clinton's tax return release. Please explain what one has to do with the other.

I'm not sure how Illinois does it, but in the state that I'm in, property purchases are of public record. Obama's property purchase should be on public records.

It's silliness like this that gets the public going in the wrong direction. We (the public) should insist that all cadidates stick to substantive issues.

I think both of them are hiding something. And in both cases, it's probably not that bad, until the political spin is applied, (as it will be),and then it becomes something totally different. That being said, I can understand the reluctance of both

Posted by: thelastmanstanding | March 7, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I would be disappointed if Clinton does not release whatever Obama has released (1040 or whatever) by April 15 as she promised in the debate. They both should be releasing the same level of documentation.

So we should revisit on April 15 and until then I see no point in taking about it.

Posted by: needs the facts | March 7, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

After reading through all the blogs on various sites, I can understand how our country has gotten into such a mess. All the silly bickering over nonsense, as we watch (or not) our livelihoods swirl down the crapper. We shouldn't be surprised when our elected polical officials do the very same thing when they get into office.

Posted by: thelastmanstanding | March 7, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

She'll release her taxes on April 23rd. Which would be one day AFTER the Penn. primary. The Clintons have figured Americans out and will use tricks as much as possible to distract you from their dishonesty. Its important to know this stuff now because depending on the information, voters have got to decide whether she or Obama would survive the Republican onslaught. Unless you're naive, the Clintons have alot in their closet so be sure that the Republicans are preparing for her well (taxes, pending lawsuit in California, etc.) Now we're learning that it was the Clintons who called the Canadians, etc. and that Obama's team wasn't guilty of a wink wink. You all better take the silly Rezko thing because that'll be nothing compared to what we'll be stuck with when Clinton's stuff come out. She's just hoping that by the time any drama comes out, she's the only nominee and we'll be stuck with her.

Posted by: bwotorson | March 7, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary McCain is playing her supporters just like she did in Ohio. Hillary camp was the one who contacted Canada and she knew the public will not find out until after the Ohio vote. By then she would have already won their votes and there was nothing they could do about it. She shafter them before on NAFTA and she shafted them again on NAFTA. Every responsible adult keeps a copy of their tax returns and it amazes me that her supporters are willing to 'buy her' without checking out her tax returns. She actually say, wait until after her nomination. And by golly, the people are willing to do that. Then when her tax returns show something they do not like, it is too late. She already has their votes. I will not vote for the Repubican wanna-be-no even if she running against McCain. They are identical twin but I have more respect for McCain.

Posted by: bvrlyjackson | March 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

ALL OUR ELECTED, OR RUNNING FOR OFFICE, people should be REQUIRED to release ALL OF THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS but we will never see this happen. So many of them become rich in public office, just look at the Clintons.......look at the wealth they have accumulated in public office. Also, why doesn't Chelsea speak at inner city universities in Philadelphia? Temple for one...no big donations there....Chelsea only speaks at Ivy League schools like the University of Pennsylvania.......

Posted by: grannyone1 | March 7, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

This should be a priority for the Obama camp. She has to be hiding something that has the perception of being personally damaging.
The Clinton's need to go away before they create a worse mess than G.W.Bush has already created. Hillary as president would be a frightening nightmare come true. God help us all if she gets it. We will then be wishing for Bush's return to save us all.
Referring to Hillary as a "Monster" was kind words. More appropriate terms should be applied that are not so nice.

Posted by: Eric | March 7, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I really don't care about anybody tax return. I don't show mine to anybody. Why should anybody have to or want to show anybody their tax return. Just a diversion from our country issues. Typical of Obama no substance character. GO AWAY OBAMA!

Posted by: Joe | March 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

This ought to be a non-issue until her due date. Her delay on the tax returns is a bad and untrustworthy move in itself. However, the campaign setting a date is a smart move to shield from frequent attacks.

It would now be a bad move on Obama's part to pound this issue until she releases it, with the risk that when it is released, there's nothing significantly damaging to observe.

NAFTA-Canada ordeal is what needs to be focused on, for Obama's sake. It was an inaccurate report exploited by Clinton that damaged him heavily in Ohio. This is something he needs to set straight with voters.

Rezko, thus far, is also a non-story. Until Obama is mentioned unfavourably in court will this matter.

Posted by: Etienne | March 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

When Clinton took the high road and insisted her opponents follow a certain patch (for example, release tax records), then Clinton should also. But she expects others to do what she, of course, doesn't have the time to do....as if she prepares her own taxes.

Posted by: Tom Bennett | March 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the slick Clintons! Everything depends on what the meaning of "is" is. It is sad the Democrats got saddled with these awful people once again. Looks like McCain will be a sure winner.

Posted by: bodo | March 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly work toward releasing [my tax returns], and we will get that done and in the public domain."
--Hillary Clinton, MSNBC debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.

The Clinton camp has been trying to make hay on the income tax returns issue for weeks. During a campaign stop in Ithaca on July 7, the first lady said she found Lazio's failure to make public his returns "frankly disturbing."
--Associated Press report, Aug. 3, 2000.

Well, well, now the pot called out the kettle. Lazio got tarred and feathered for his non-release of his income tax returns; now its Hillary's to be raked over the coals. For a couple who were in serious debt (legal bills through their eyeballs) and had nothing going ton Bill's White House tenure, the Clintons have done very well for themselves. So it is only reasonable for America to "test and vet" Hillary and her character (cough). Let's see your 2000 to 2006 income tax returns, Hillary; show us that you can be trusted. You can, can you?

Posted by: meldupree | March 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Lets not forget that Hillary's brothers were caught red-handed selling pardons.

""" Hillary Clinton said that she herself had been unaware until the evening of February 19 that her brother, lawyer Hugh Rodham, received $400,000 to lobby for two wealthy felons.

Under pressure from his sister, Rodham said he would return the money he was rewarded after clemency was granted for Almon Glenn Brawell, who was convicted of mail fraud and perjury, and Carlos Vignali, a cocaine trafficker.

Sen. Clinton told a news conference that she was "disappointed" and "heartbroken" when she learned about the roles of her brother and husband in the commutations.

The new senator also had to deflect criticism over the disclosure that her campaign treasurer, William Cunningham III, helped obtain clemency for Robert Fain and James Manning, two tax felons from Arkansas.""


The Obama Campaign needs to bring this up regarding her "35 years of Public Service experience". Here's the link for those of you who want to read about it.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/pardons/overview.html

Posted by: chris30338 | March 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"I'm busy right now I'll get those to you later".. Wow.. Is that a Clintonesque response or what? Like she didnt know that she should release them and should have already released them. I'll bet she only has to make one phone call to an accountant or request to an assistant and it would be done yesterday. I smell something funny.

Posted by: cmsatown | March 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Clinton supporter. Not gung-ho, but certainly not an Obama supporter - he's not ready yet and is proving that daily.

I do wish that Hillary would release her tax records. Personally, I don't look at candidates' taxes when making my choice, but the fact that she won't release them yet is bothering. Does she think that by delaying she can keep Obama on a single track of attack that most voters don't really care about, and they'll get fatigued hearing Obama harping on it? Or does she have something to hide?

If she's hiding something, then delaying their release doesn't gain her anything, because she can only win by swaying superdelegates. Any tax bombshell will be known before the convention.

I'd think Hillary would want to go the extra mile to show she's on the up and up, since she's burdened with being viewed as untrustworthy. Why feed that, unless she truly is so callous to not care about it. I read a recent opinion piece that recited the maxim, "Trust is the coin of the realm." I don't think we have any candidate who can deliver on that, so I'm going with the better-experienced, tough fighter who matches my policy views - Hillary.

But why not release the taxes and be done with it?

Posted by: hitpoints | March 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Will the REAL Hillary Rodham Clinton, please STAND UP:

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for the civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of  republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senato rs adamantly against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes '...how then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?' He continues, '...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.'

She has worked extremely hard to hide many truths about her past, including ordering that her 92 page college thesis that she wrote at Wellesley College be 'sealed' and unavailable to the public, an order forced upon the college by Bill Clinton while president, although all senior thesis' at Wellesley have been available for public reading for over 100 years, except one....Hillary Rodham Clinton's.

Posted by: nerakami | March 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

nerakami wrote:
"Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for the civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

That is absolutely false, and typical of the race-baiting from Obama supporters. A new politics without distorting your opponent? Hardly.

Clinton was illustrating the importance of experience in addition to inspiration. She was trying to make a point that Obama was trying to say experience didn't matter, that inspiration was more important. Hillary attempted to show how experience in getting things done in politics is not just a matter of speeches.

Who got the Civil Rights Act of '64 through? MLK? No. Plenty of Southern Democrats sure weren't going to go along with MLK. LBJ had to twist arms and tick off the Southern voting bloc because he knew it was right. MLK and many others were instrumental in showing people how right it was. But it DID take a president to get the Civil Rights Act passed. It wasn't going to get passed on its own.

And Hillary never said LBJ should get all the credit for civil rights' progress, or anything close to that.

I'm sick of the underhanded ways of the Obama campaign. He won't get my support.

Posted by: hitpoints | March 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

By the way, 5 Pinocchios for nerakami.

Posted by: hitpoints | March 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton (or Clinton II) is delaying the release of her tax returns because the documents will show the fortune she got from lobbyists who are now running with her on the campaign trails or are waiting for new favors (like the guy who gave Clinton I $35 millions recently).

Clinton II is also not cooperating in releasing her White House records as first lady because they will show that most of her experience consists in meeting with more lobbyists (like the ones who rent the Lincoln Bedroom or prepare the health care plan in 1993).

Posted by: Benoit | March 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Nerakami for that information...They like to say that blacks often use the race card, especially when you expose bigots. Could you please do me a favor and post where the source for this informaiton? I would love to review the information and possibly pass it around to concerned voters. It's interesting to see how quickly Bill and Hill kicked the blacks in the butt when they decided to support Obama. This type of bigotry is exactly why I will never support another Clinton for any position other than facing legal charges for all of the fraud they have committed. Thanks again for the information. Hopefully, someone can convince them to release their tax returns for the last 6 years. Interesting people....

Posted by: Thanks! | March 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's HILL and BILL doesn't LIKE BLACK PEOPLE!! hahahaha

They HATE BLACK PEOPLE..The Clinton's are racist and the studies have shown so are most of their rural, low income, blue collar white males....

Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Of course the Clintons should release their tax records. As a librarian I also would like to know who are the donors for the Clinton library. Apparently from what I hear, rich Arab leaders and unsavory characters from Kazakhstan ...

Posted by: Pepou | March 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I want to know who she and her husband owe favors to. Should those people's interest oppose those of the USA, that puts her in a compromised position.

Clinton claims she's busy and can't get the already filed returns out in a timely manner. Does she think we're so stupid that we don't know that her hired hands do this for her?

Posted by: TracieMo | March 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

what about Peter Paul and Clinton Trial?

Posted by: andrew | March 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama better get his stories and positions straight regarding NAFTAGATE and now the lies about withdrawing troops from IRAQ now called IRAQGATE. His empty promises and speeches are getting too old. People are finding out how much of a double talker Obama is. Shame on you Obama!

Posted by: MAUFIT | March 7, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

When are you guys in the print and electronic media going to start doing your jobs?

What happened to the dogged pavement pounding reporting that put the Post on the map? I don't think I've ever seen such lazy reporting!

If your paper, as well as all the other papers and electronic media are printing stories from the Drudge Report, or from double-annonyomous sources, or printing "not really a story yet, or not any real facts yet" types of stories, shame on you.

This country is at war! We have an economy that is on life support; millions of americas will go to bed tonight hungry, and the only thing you can find worth printing is a story leaked to the Drudge Report! Since when did the Drudge Report or TMZ or any of these so called on-line media outlets rise the level of Washington Post?

I read the newspaper in the hopes that it will be the final arbitor of the truth. I read the paper because I hope the reporters writing the stories are not blinded, or guilted into writing stories of such little content, or full of complete idolitary, that their integrity is for sale.

Sadly, in the past three weeks, not only has your integrity been for sale, you've literally sold your souls to the devil.

If all these candidates don't measure up, write about it. Don't print, rumor, half-truth, or inconclusive analysis; write the truth. And, as all you journalist should know, in politics the truth never falls in your lap, you have to seek it out. Now get back to work!

Posted by: thomjo4018 | March 7, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

As usual the mainstream media is failing to do it's job by choosing not to cover this story which is why it pissed me off whenever hillary whines about how the media "is too tough on her". We're in a recession! Don't we ALL deserve to know how to turn $1k into $100k in less than a year??? Come on Hill! What are you hiding?? Didn't she say she would release her records after this primary??? Yet ANOTHER promise the vagina voters will CHOOSE TO IGNORE.

Posted by: N.W. | March 7, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

BILLARY HAD THEIR SHARE OF SCANDALS AND NEVER AGAIN WILL THEY GET BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO SOIL IT ONCE MORE!!!!!!

NO MORE MONSTERS ALLOWED AT THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!

DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE THE ELECTION IF THE MONSTER IS THE NOMINEE!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

What'll happen is that, until April 15th, she'll keep the press at bay by saying she'll release her returns in time for the Pennsylvania primary. Then she'll release either only her tax records from the most recent year, or she'll release only a small selection of tax returns from the past several years when she accumulated all her wealth. She'll claim compliance, and say she needs more time to get together her other tax returns, at which point she will have made it past April 22nd safely without disclosing.

Posted by: davestickler | March 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

She makes it sound like she prepares her/Bill's own tax forms while in reality some accounting firms does it and they are probably already comlpleted....awaiting their signatures.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

It seems that the main issue here is whether Sen. Clintons reason for not releasing her tax returns is legitimate. In this department, I think we can safely say she gets 3 or 4 pinnochios. Claiming that she doesn't have time to get around to it is ridiculous. All that requires is a phone call to the person who does her taxes, and a 1 minute phone call at that. That said, it's her prerogative keep them secret, so there are not many facts to check in the first place.

Posted by: Edward Goldstein | March 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

So, why DID Hillary set the date of April 15th to release her tax returns? Me thinks it is her usual thinking that voters - at least her voters - are stupid and will confuse that with tax deadline day. Which some have apparently done. It's 2000-2006 that she has already filed that she could release today, or a month ago.

I can not picture Hillary doing as I do, sitting down at the computer one evening to e-file. She can direct her tax attorneys at any given moment to release those tax returns for previous years, and she refuses to do so.

So you Hillary supporters keep thinking she has until April 15th, she knows all the right "words" and terminology to use to appeal to her base.

Posted by: Susan17177 | March 7, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

RE: Chief

Its March. March, Rip. I worked real hard last year and got all my forms by Jan. 20, Turned in all my info to my accountant, Jan 21. Guess when he finished it. April 14. Lick your chops for a while longer. Go Hillary, go.

==================================
Does it take until April 14 to produce the returns for tax years 2000-2006? Nice try.

Posted by: n2itiveus | March 7, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I hope that Obama does not team up with Hillary. She is deceitful and wants to use him to become president. If she runs with someone else, she may not defeat McCain. She will use Obama to get what she wants, then attempt to make him the invisible VP, under her control. Ugh.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding me? Why does the media overlook all you mentioned?

Thanks for letting me know. Now I'll have more questions! Uggh!

I used to think the bitterness towards Bill and Hillary was sower grapes. I don't think so anymore.

I had just wanted to see the the 2006 and 2007 tax returns. Also her First Lady Schedule. Now I want to see more!

BTW, I was really offended by the SNL Cartoon on Obama, Sharpton, Jackson campaign. I am done watching Saturday Night Live!

Posted by: jw | March 7, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

To Sara and Independent
READ, this is from the article above!
By contrast, Obama has released the form 1040 portion of his tax return (but not the entire return) since he first ran for the Senate from Illinois in 2004. Obama has released all his returns since 2004. Obama's Senate financial disclosure records are available here.
Independent, Mr. Obama's records has all been released. He is not hiding Rezko NOTHING. Remember, Rezko took the SAME picture with the Clintons while they were at the White House that was exposed by Matt Lauer. Hillary was outdone when he asked her is this the same 'slumlandlord' you accused Senator Obama is befriending? Hillary stumbled at her words and then lyingly responded, 'Well, we have taken thousands of pictures with guests. I can't remember when it was taken and why it was taken." She is such a bonified LIAR. Hell is definitely a place she needs to be PRESIDENT! She knows why Rezko was on the picture with she and superlying Bill because he had completed a fund raising for them. Why are they so on Senator Obama when Rezko raised MORE MONEY for Bill/Hill (Approximately $3M) and George Bush ($300M). This is so bias and unethical. They should be questioned more than Senator Obama. LOOK AT THE PICTURE. IS IT BECAUSE HE IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN OR IT IS A DECOY TO CAST A SHADOW OVER HIS CAMPAIGN? I AM BEGINNING TO HATE THIS RACIST COUNTRY. IT IS DISGRACEFUL!

Posted by: Loisp | March 7, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I'll award 3.5 Pinocchios, plus an Emmy for her role as a selfless civil servant running for President.

Remember: she's doing it for the "walking wounded" - the folks convalescing in an underfunded VA hospital somewhere. She's doing this for those she sent to Iraq to fight and die because she answered that 3 a.m. phone call only to follow Bush and McCain into a reckless and misguided war that is costing us blood and treasure.

My admiration for the Clintons diminished as my respect for Al Gore grew. They were kryptonite on the campaign trail by the time he ran for President and it's a shame he couldn't overcome their excessive secrecy and double-talk.

Keep in mind also that they hit Lazio with the "tax" question in an election that wasn't particularly close. What's wrong with their values?

This tactic will not work in November and she will drive Republicans and Independents toward McBush while antagonizing the vast majority of Americans who want to change the divisive politics of the past.

I voted for Obama - he's got game, and he doesn't call ticky-tack fouls. The country can do better. Kaine, Warner, Gore, Webb, Obama - that's the trajectory I want to be on.

Posted by: stivnik | March 7, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I hope that Obama does not run with Hillary. She is deceitful and only wants to use Obama's good name to defeat McCain. She knows that if she runs with someone else she may lose. If she gets in she will make him the invisible VP so that she can get all the credit. She actually is a monster.

Posted by: L. lane | March 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Not only the 2007 return but the 2006 as well.

What is she hiding?

Posted by: michael4 | March 7, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Unless she made her money illegally, I could care less how she made it. I am sure the book deal and the speaking fees have been lucrative and I am proud of her. The fact that Obama contines to bring up stupid stuff like a tax return, is also old politics. I want a person in the White House that knows how to roll with the punches and can throw a few herself. Anyone that beleives that Republicans are suddenly going to fall in love with Obama and cooperate once he is elected is naive and probably too young to know what checks and balances really mean in the White House. But with so many older democrats making that mistake as well, how else are they suppose to think. I hope the voters in the next few primaries vote with thier heads and not thier pride and thier delusions.

Posted by: Elaine | March 7, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I find the media's laziness on fact checking the Canadian NAFTA situation troubling. Why did the media just take Hillary's word that it was only Obama's campaign that had contact with Canada? I found out yesterday that it turns out that it was Hillary who gave the Canadians the wink and nod about NAFTA. Andrea Mitchell, supposedly a veteran reporter, was on the Today show this morning still repeating the line fed to the media from the Clintons about Obama's campaign. She did not mention anythilng about Hillary's contact with the Canadians. I thought that journalism had certain rules about getting so many sources before you run a story, etc. Also, I saw a picture of Hillary and that Rezko guy on the Today show. Why hasn't the media found out if he has made any contributions to the Clintons? This type of sloppy journalism could have cost Obama Texas and Ohio. I challenge the reporters to do their jobs!

Posted by: Sheila | March 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I'd really like to hear more about the upcoming TRIAL the Clintons are facing concerning campaign fund-raising fraud. Please do some digging for the rest of us!

Posted by: Cat | March 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

HRC has absolutely lost my vote with these stupid gutter tactics and lies. I expect them to increase rather than decrease. She is proving herself to be exactly what many feared her to be: a conniving, overly-ambitious, less-than-honest, say-anything-to-get elected, classless....person.

Posted by: michael4 | March 7, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"Why don't they ask Hillary why Bill raised
social security taxes from 50 to 75 percent"

Huh? Wow, a lot must have changed since I retired! I didn't realize the social security tax rate was 75%. The last I checked it was something like 15%

Posted by: Marcus Pryor | March 7, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

More power to the CPA's that agree on the TAX RETURNS. HUSSEIN Obama has not revealed his
PORK BARREL spending prior to 2007.

I am now trying to research his performance
for the voters when he was in Chicago.

He has no idea as to HOW he can control SPENDING IF he is elected President. Everyone wants to preach about supply side economics... BUT no one is talking about the 9 Trillion Dollar NATIONAL DEBT.

Foreign Companies and Foreign Countries are allowed to PURCHASE minority shares in Americans Companies. Gas is now 3 dollars and 30 cents here in Ohio.

HUSSEING Obama has no concept of the WAR on TERROR.. what to do in Iraq. Tells his LOYAL MINIONS that he will withdraw the troops in 2009, but will send them back IF NEEDED. (God what a dunder head on that statement).

Preaches about NAFTA being the cause of Ohio, Michigan, Pa losing jobs. Folks when the OLD GUARD in Washington allowed FOREIGN
manufactures to build here in American, Buy American Companies, and FOREIGN MANUFACTURES to dump products on the open market. And we as consumers buy this stuff because it is CHEAPER because manufacturing costs here in the US got out of control because of BIG UNIONS.

I think HUSSEIN Obama is a well-educted, well speaking individual... and HE MAY MAKE A GOOD PRESIDET some DAY.

Just older and more experienced being led down the rosey path by some smooth talking, silver-tongued wantabe IN POWER no matter what he has to say or do to get there.

Out of the three... not sure that anyone of them CAN MAKE THE CHANGES NEEDED IN WASHINGTON,

And yes... I was in the Infantry and served this company proudly in the ARMY.

REFUSE to recognize GOD BUSH as my Commander-in-Chief and firmly believe that he should have been impeached before his first term was over.

Posted by: miller51550 | March 7, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

no hitpoints, four Pinocchios s for you and two geppettos for nerakami! Hillary was a "Goldwater girl" who worked for an arch-segregationist who tried to defeat civil-rights legislation. Do you think that Barry Goldwater would have hired a liberal, civil-rights advocate in his Senate office during the sixties?

Dollars to donuts Hillary casted her lot with Goldwater in the same way she casted her lot with the Board of Directors at Wal-Mart!

Posted by: meldupree | March 7, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Unless she made her money illegally, I could care less how she made it. I am sure the book deal and the speaking fees have been lucrative and I am proud of her. The fact that Obama contines to bring up stupid stuff like a tax return, is also old politics. I want a person in the White House that knows how to roll with the punches and can throw a few herself. Anyone that beleives that Republicans are suddenly going to fall in love with Obama and cooperate once he is elected is naive and probably too young to know what checks and balances really mean in the White House. But with so many older democrats making that mistake as well, how else are they suppose to think. I hope the voters in the next few primaries vote with thier heads and not thier pride and thier delusions.

Posted by: Elaine | March 7, 2008 06:44 PM
-------------------
The tax returns? Not just Obama, but a lot of reporters and voters bring this up. You may be willing to take her word for everything, but that makes who naive? I'm not aware of anyone who "beleives" (sic) the Republicans are going to fall in love with Obama, however a lot of them do want the Republicans out of the White House! Don't you? And your reference to "checks and balances" in the White House is born of ignorance and misunderstanding. Take a civics course. "I hope the voters in the next few primaries vote with thier (sic) heads and not thier (sic) pride and thier (sic) delusions." - dang, I was going to say that about you! Learn to think, and then express yourself without the confused condescension.


Posted by: michael4 | March 7, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

No, the Clintons have not been up front about their tax returns, nor her position on Iraq, nor a wide range of other issues. And too often they are the same issues for which her staff attacks her opponents. The hypocrisy is gagging.

Posted by: 33rdSt | March 7, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

She is stalling. Releasing her complete tax returns will be detrimental to her campaign. She absolutely has something to hide and she should be called on that in a more agressive fashion well before the Philadelphia primary.

Posted by: cathy | March 7, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Nerakami, Please stop making things up. Mrs. Clinton in no way tried to minimize anything Dr. King did. What she said was that it took a president to pass the Civil Rights Act. IT DID no matter what you want to believe or have been told, without President Johnson that Bill would not have passed. THAT IS A FACT. Dr. King was not an elected official. This in no way minimizes anything Dr. King did.

FACT too, Jessie Jackson did win South Carolina with 80% of the Black vote. Nothing wrong or negative in stating FACTS.

By Obama allowing this to stand without stating that these were facts and alluding to racism was OBAMA's way of injecting race into the campaign. The sad thing is is that people bought into that and have forgotten how we fared under the Clinton Presidency, So sad.

Posted by: catmom | March 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so why is it that Clinton's returns for 2001 through 2006 can't be released until on or about April 15th of 2008? Sounds like she doesn't want to disclose them. Seems like more than a bit of a dodge to me.

Posted by: omgim53 | March 7, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Forget Clinton's tax return. What you all should be screaming about is who helped Dick Cheney with the energy policy. When Bush and Cheney took office, the price of oil was somewhere around $24 a barrel now it is around $104. Whine about that. OR how about Valarie Plame, the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War, Alberto Gonzales and the Attornies he fired and all the other things Bush has screamed executive privilaged on. That's what's important.

Posted by: catmom | March 7, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"I have trouble getting excited about this right now. They aren't due until April 15th. My 2007 taxes aren't completed yet, so I could disclose them if I was asked. This is a disengenuous issue. According to the article, the Clintons previously disclosed their statements from 1980 on during the 1992 campain."
Posted by: Scott | March 7, 2008 09:41 AM

Who the heck cares about your tax returns. My tax dollars pay for her job. She needs to disclose her tax returns. And if I find out that her campaign may have profitted from Bills speaking engagements in Dubai.....(insert cus words here)


Posted by: Anonymous | March 7, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Of course, the Clintons have not been upfront about releasing tax returns. When and if we see those returns, it will be too late to change anything. Mrs. Clinton does not know how to tell the truth about anything.

Posted by: w4npx2 | March 7, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Wall Street Journal Editorial,

Senator Clinton has said she'll make her tax returns public only if she wins the Democratic nomination. Mr. Clinton has said he'll disclose his future donors only if she is President. Once again they're trying to block disclosure until it's too late to inform the judgment of voters.
____

God, how stupid can the Clintons get? Only dumb, uniformed and uneducated Clinton supporters are fooled by them.
http://s.wsj.net/article/SB120364037189484545.html

Posted by: Conrad1 | March 7, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

scew the clintons it was they who DEREGULATED THE BANKS IN THE 90'S which is the root of this huge SUB-PRIME mess and the REASON gas is going to $4.00 a gallon and oil is now at $106.00 and going HIGHER bush has been to busy fighting terrorists something that ass ape bill should have been doing instead of chasing skirts around the office neither one of them is worth a crap as a co-president...womens issues dont mean squat if you dont have a home.

Posted by: alan | March 7, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON IS THE ONE WHO DEREGULATED THE BANKS IN THE 90'S ......not bush ....
that is the cause of the SUB-PRIME MESS .....and the ARABS are getting their money back out from those bad paper investments by jacking the price of oil SKY HIGH .....learn a little economics 101 bill and hillary and get a clue ...
it wasn't bush who mismanaged the economy it was HILLARYS trust fund easty friends in new york city that OWN THE BANKS.....!!!!!!!!!
HER MAIN DONOR BASE

RELEASE YOUR RECORDS YOU CROOK.!!!!

Posted by: alan | March 7, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

goldie2 wrote:
She must release the tax returns before she gets the nomination. And all her records as first lady, too. That is part of her experience argument. Of course she probably has scrubbed the tax return and the records, so we will never know. But the Repbublicans will find out. Bush is still in charge of the IRS and everything.

_____

You are right. Democratic voters have right to know now rather than wait until the mid April. Why is she so reluctant to do this now, unless she is trying to hide something or taking time to hide something? Just ask your accountants, Hill, to xerox returns from 2001-2006.

Posted by: conrad1 | March 7, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

if Hillary is running as her own candidate why do all her supporters keep mentioning Bill Clinton's term? You all keep saying, it doesn't hurt that Bill is with her. OK so basically you are saying she may not have the experience, but she has a good back up to help her out when the going get tough? hmmm I guess this means many of you just see Hillary as a puppet and hope that Bill will be the one running the show behind the scenes. It sure sounds like it, when so many Hill supporters talk about Bills legacy and how bill would be beneficial to her presidency.

Posted by: KT | March 7, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING HILLARY MONSTER? RELEASE YOUR TAX RETURNS IMMEDIATELY. AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW AND YOU BETTER DO IT NOW.

Posted by: briancraj | March 7, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

It is simply amazing the naivete of the voters,putting back a cheating, lying money and power hungry couple in the White House. Weren't eight years and months of Monica Lewinsky enough. Frankly, I was ashamed to be an American. And to think that their shameless behaviour is still being defended.....by people, who are like them. They are procrastinating with publising their tax return, until they clean up the data (Dubai money, they have been given as a campaign donation)....I don't put anything past those people born criminals and carpet baggers.

Posted by: clarymagyar@cox.net | March 8, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Hillary must not have been too good a student if she hasn't learned honesty is the best policy. Fortunately they have no credibility left. And the two of them will be gone soon.

http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html

Posted by: kravitz | March 8, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

I find it odd that today all over the news we heard about the MONSTER comment, but only one news program NBC News with Matt) talked about the issue on the photo that surfaced with Hillary, Bill and guess who, yes, Tony Rezko. Does this mean that the Clinton's had dealings with Mr. Rezko also?
Kind of makes you say hmmmm.

Posted by: thelastmanstanding | March 8, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

I really believe that HRC would be even further behind Obama if it wasn't for the uneducated masses who are voting for her. It is particularly telling that the rednecks are voting for her in the primaries in order to get her in the general election, where they feel they could beat her. They are really afraid of Obama.

Posted by: Marcus Pryor | March 8, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

The voters have every right to see Hillary's tax returns since they left the White House. Some of Bill's hefty speaking fees could have been an alternate form of political donations offered by big corporations, foreigners and lobbyists. We need to know where they made their millions before we cast our vote.

Presidential spouses do not have to report gifts received. Bill can become a very happy cashier at the White House, while Hillary pays back with her presidential power IF they move back to the White House.

We really should consider an amendment to limit terms for the same couple. Women did not even work outside of home before, neither did they have voting rights. In this day and age after the Clintons, we now know we should set term limits to the same couple so they won't mistake the White House as their permanent home.

Posted by: dummy4peace | March 8, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Interesting: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open ?slots? in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume?. Sounds more like an organized crime family?s rap sheet.
Feel free to check these records for yourself; better still, read a little more, and try and stay current before posting assinine comments: Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience: Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . . My last point: Obama needs name recognition, he needs to be among the people, so people feel like they have access to him. HRC's debate challenge is more about the fact that her campaign is running low on money and she gets free air-time without spending anything. Would you give up the chance to see 20,000 voters up close and personal to be on a televised debate? No way! Obama, stick to your guns. Debate on your terms, not Hillary's! Go Obama 2008!

Posted by: plb | March 8, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Trial date to be set in Paul vs. Clinton on February 21, 2008
By Kathy Miller | The Hillary Project
Posted 2 weeks ago email to friend


tool name
close
tool goes here
The Case Management Conference hearing in Paul v Clinton et al on February 21, in Los Angeles Superior Court will finally set a trial date in the long delayed civil fraud case and it will set a schedule for discovery that will include the sworn depositions of the entire Clinton family and the Clinton hierarchy of the Democratic Party.

A trial was set for March 2007, but it was delayed due to an appeal of a lower-court's decision to dismiss Sen. Clinton as a defendant. The California Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Sen. Clinton, nevertheless, will be required to testify under oath along with her husband as material witnesses.

Seven years ago Peter Paul began whistleblowing to the government and alerting the media of numerous illegalities committed by Hillary and Bill Clinton in order to win Hillary's first election to public office.

The multi-million dollar donor to Hillary's Senate campaign that caused Hillary's finance director to be indicted and tried in May, 2005, for hiding his contributions, and whose complaint to the FEC resulted in a finding that Hillary's campaign broke the law resulting in the only FEC fine imposed against Hillary's campaign, will begin the discovery process leading to a trial in Los Angeles later this year of the Clintons and others for destroying Paul's public company.

The lawsuit claims that Peter Paul was fraundulenty induced to make a 1.2 million in-kind contribution to Senator Hillary Clinton's 2000 senate campaign in exchange for former President Bill Clinton to be a rainmaker for this company once he left the White House. Paul claims that former President Clinton backed out of the $17 million deal, and his company collapsed.

Paul contends Clinton has filed four false FEC reports, in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. Clinton, Paul asserts, continues to hide from the public false statements about his contributions and her relationship with him, made to the Post through her spokesman Howard Wolfson. Clinton vowed publicly she would not take any more money from Paul, but one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

Paul's allegations that his $1.2 million in donations were hidden by Hillary's campaign have been corroborated by the Justice Department, FBI and FEC General Counsel- while the lying has been done by the Clinton appointed Judge in the Rosen trial, Hillary's lawyer David Kendall has maintained Hillary's campaign filed accurate reports until the campaign admitted hiding more than $720,000, and her lawyer Lyn Utrecht in false statements made to the FEC General Counsel denying Paul's contribution of $1.

In May 2005, Sen. Clinton's former finance director, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in the conciliation agreement. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign for the fundraiser that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.

Witnesses to be deposed include former President Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, Gov. Ed Rendell, Kelly Craighead, Howard Wolfson, Terry McAuliffe, and a host of A list Hollywood celebrities including, Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Olivia Newton John, Brad Pitt, and Cher.

The case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period.

The cover-up of the largest campaign finance fraud in U.S. history will soon be exposed.

The complete corrobation of the records can be viewed at Hillcap.org

Posted by: plb | March 8, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone actually doubt anymore that the Clintons are dirty? HRC said today that she is not "in the pockets of the Saudis." You sure about that, Hillary?

Posted by: d_shushan | March 8, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

It is incredible how many people are still tossing incorrect statements about Obama. Please remember all statements that Hillary makes are only true for a week. If you echo them during that first week, fine. You sound as intelligent as the rest of their press corps.
If you echo them after the first week, you just sound like you don't know what's going on.

Just to recount for those who missed:
Obama did not call Canada about NAFTA; that was Clinton.
Obama has known Rezko longer than the Clintons; "as far as we know." But, that is the extent of their association.
The purchase of Obama's house is a matter of public record and he disclosed it months ago when it first came up.
He added a 10 foot strip of land to his yard, and Rezko sold the remaining property to somebody else.
The Clintons took money from Rezko also, and they are in a picture with him.
And as was the case with their illegal Whitewater land deal they just "didn't know about it."
Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary, contrary to her statements.

All of these are known verifiable facts. Clinton lies have a lifetime of about 1 week. Please use factcheck.org to make sure you don't use stale lies.

Posted by: Dan | March 8, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Ah yes...those who continually bring up the "booming economy" of the Clinton Presidency. Was that the same economy that was built on the dot-com bubble? Was that the same economy that allowed companies like Enron to thrive? Oh yah - Those are fantastic things to be proud of - an economy built on a bubble that was bound to break and make things worse for all of us!

As for the article at hand, her constant refusal to release her 2006 tax returns just gives credence to the belief that something bad looms in them. If there was nothing to hide, then why hide it? Only one who has something to hide, tries to hide it...

Posted by: TimR | March 8, 2008 5:08 AM | Report abuse

As far as Hillary's "35 years of experience" - do a fact check! Her "helping refugees from Kosovo" amounted to nothing as the borders were opened to Kosovar refugees BEFORE her visit to Macedonia.

Her "women's rights in China seen as human rights" amounted to nothing more that a speech given by her (and by her own words - "speeches don't put food on the table".

Her "helping the peace process in Norther Ireland" amounted to not much more than "bringing other groups to the table".

The factsare that she has not negotiated ONE SINGLE TREATY! The fact that she blames the White House for not releasing her White House calendars as First Lady - and the White House's admission that they have not received any request from the Clintons to release that information - prove that her "35 years of experience" mean NOTHING!

Posted by: TimR | March 8, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

Yes, the Clintons should release their tax returns. The returns for Bill Clinton's foundations should also be released. I'm sure the RNC already has all this information in a drawer just waiting to pounce. All of this information is most certainly available electronically and could be released with a click of the SEND button.

Also, the press should go over Hillary' Clinton's record as a public defender in Arkansas, her apathy while on the Wal-Mart board, her time at the Rose Law Firm, and her real experience in the White House. The RNC has all of this and is just waiting for the right time to release it.

Posted by: LisaSt | March 8, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

to me, the big issue here is how the clinton campaign has absolutely no sense of shame and just reeks of hpocrisy. i want to see why she has not filed too, but i am more offended by her unrelenting attacks on her opponents (sending protesters dressed as uncle sam?!) while refusing to play by the same rules!!

really... what does this say about her level of integrity? she does this stuff with her tax returns, then she tries to change the rules on FL and MI, after she sent a signed pledge to follow? She tosses around negative attacks, then claims foul at one mailer that had been out for weeks? they rail on obama about Rezko for weeks, yet they flat out refuse to disclose on taxes, release documentation on her time in the white house (while blaming it on bush), etc.

their complete lack of shame and absolute hypocrisy simply amazes me, and i cannot see how her supporters continue to ignore this kind of stuff...

Posted by: jim | March 8, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons application of a double-standard on this issue, as others, is clear. And, it is clear that her tax returns should have been released long ago. It is clear that she does not want the scrutiny that she demands be applied to her opponents. And, it is very clear that she is willing to destroy the democratic party in order achieve her goals.

Posted by: BBurlison | March 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

5 Pinnochios for Hillary. Some "b__%$&$#" and "monster" remarks for a woman with 35 years of experience from spectators.

Hillary doesn't do the actual filing and preparation. It's a given she has taken us all for a fool. That's what one gets if you nominate someone to carry the Democrat banner AND LET HER TAKEN THE REINS.

Tired of lies, she could apply for a comedienne's slot with SNL playing Pinocchio? if they could invent some viable character for her there.

Posted by: FORESTMAIDEN | March 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

To the parents out there - would you be proud of your children if they acted how Hillary Clinton has acted in this campaign? the tears before primaries she was on the verge of losing, surrogate attacks, code words and whisper campaigns targeting her opponents race, ethnicity, AND religion (the trifecta!), planted questions, and the do-anything to win approach? Would you honestly reward that?

I havent even discussed her behavior during the presidency of her husband, when she destroyed the reputations of the female victims of her husbands abuse of power. Or her relationship with dick morris, or her role in whitewater?

Is that how we want to treat each other? Is this the behavior we want to promote?

Hillary Clinton as President will be bad for America. Plain and Simple.

Posted by: maq1 | March 8, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Very clever Hil.
Let's see:
- If you release your returns on 15 Apr, the press and BO get a week to dig up something (true or not) to beat you up before the PENN primary.
- If you don't release your returns on 15 Apr, they get a week to call you all kinds of nasty names and speculate wildly about what you might be hiding.

Either way, you have no time to rebut.

Looks to me like you're setting yourself up again.

Posted by: js4 | March 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

After reading some of this nonsense. i think we have a number of republican writing these blogs.

Posted by: bevaloo | March 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

After reading some of this nonsense. i think we have a number of republican writing these blogs.

Posted by: bevaloo

nope... i am an independent, looking for the best candidate! i am tired of being cynical against all politics, and i was feeling somewhat positive after seeing someone with a positive message like obama. now... i think he should be scrutinized like the rest.

why i am writing is because i see the same old crap that had made me cynical in the past actually WORKING.

really frustrating to watch, no matter what party you side with.

we need to demand better. just not sure how to get it.

Posted by: jim | March 8, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

You know. The Clintons are not murderers. I am not sure where you got that information from, but it's sounds as though you are not taking the time to do due deligence here.

Now as for tax records. It does takes time.
And, when they are released, perhaps it will be a let down to those of you that won't find anything to be weird about.

Although, there are those who have no idea of what they will read, I am sure. I am sure that what ever anyone finds, whether it's of real importance, will make much to do about nothing.

I even read how someone thought people would not give donations to a campaign candidate if they thought they were rich enough themselves.

There are some very uneducated opinions on how things are done in taxes and in campaigning. I certainly hope people do better at researching, or educating before making any more strange comments.

Posted by: cyberaim | March 8, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should win awards for her calculated behavior, but I wouldn't want her to be President. I think we should reserve her for where she's likely most effective working back office deals in the Senate.

If she wants to help our economy, perhaps she can provide details of how she can get record returns on her investments! Unfortunately, the lesson will be that of how political clout is bought in our country.

We don't hear that much about the Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich during his last week in office. Marc Rich had been indicted on evading $48 million in taxes, and had fled to Switzerland. Not surprisingly, Marc and Denise Rich have been major contributors to Clinton campaigns over the years! That kind of leadership we can do without!

Posted by: postfan | March 8, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Given everything from Chinagate to Bill's nuclear dealings with Kazakh dictators, something's up here.

Posted by: Pete Finley | March 8, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is obviously hiding something and she is deceitful by saying she been too busy to release her tax returns. Given the magnitude of this issue she should get four Pinocchios for being secretive about her finances. And she has the audacity to say that she has been fully vetted. NOT.

Frank Rich talked about this a month or two ago in a Sunday New York Times piece entitled the Billary Road to Republican Victory. Isn't it obvious that Obama is the better candidate.

Also at this stage of the game, if Billary steals this thing, Blacks and the young voters are not going to show up in November. In that case I bet that lots of us not so youngsters will also skip the general election too. Billary just does not stand for what America should be all about- integrity, etc.

We had Bill for eight years- that is enough of a Clinton in power. With 300 million people in the US one would think that someone other than a Bush or Clinton has the talent to be President.

Come on people, wake up. ...No wait a minute, how about Jeb in 2016 (after eight years of Hillary. Then Chelsea or maybe George P Bush can get the coronation. We could even change the Constitution to require that a Bush or Clinton always be Prez. Maybe even George P and Chelsea could get married ......

Posted by: Doug M | March 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

HRC should make public complete income tax returns filed since the Clintons left the White House. Considering that her husband is a former President who would be returning to the White House, her situation is especially important. He has been making millions from speeches and questionable deals (Alcoona, Tony Giustra, Peter Paul).

Moreover, should HRC win the Presidency, her husband should suspend all business dealings - including those on behalf of the Clinton Foundation - for the length of her term. The risk is too great that he would conduct personal business while living on the taxpayers' dime in the White House. Considering the extraordinary possibility of a former President being the spouse of a President, protocol needs to be in place to ensure that his role is the same as past First Ladies. That includes revoking security clearance.

Posted by: JR | March 8, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win

Obama, as many recognize, now seems to be in a box of his own making.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and places the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: Where any attack will be immediately associated be in the voter's mind, and accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected--be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: when attacked, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink", abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence, of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments", thus disempowering her already factually shaky appeals to foreign policy superiority--with a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack--rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain--and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 8, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Here is the bottom line: It is a defensible principled position to say that your tax returns are private and you will not release them. It is a defensible principled position to say that the public has a right to have them. What is completely indefensible and unprincipled is the current Hillary Clinton position which is: Yes you have a right to seem my tax returns. . right after the election (or so close that the press will be unable to do any meaningful reporting.)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has sadly demonstrated in this campaign what appears to be a lust for power that leaves me suspicious of her. People speak of a need to vet Obama better. But this seems misguided.

The divisive campaign she has waged is significantly harming the Democratic party as well as her own and Obama's chances of winning in the general election. The racially charged comments in South Carolina, the attempt to seat the delegates in Florida and Michigan after agreeing they would not be, her highly innacurate and deceptive comments about no one winning in the general without winning the Ohio primary, all suggest a degree of corruptiion which calls for serious vetting.

After 8 years of a corrupt and divisive Bush administration, will the Democrats then turn around and elect their own corrupt and divisive candidate just when the whole country is clammering for change?

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | March 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

If documents detailing her role in making decisions contained evidence supportive of her claim to experience, Hillary Clinton and her husband would have made sure they met the light of day long ago.

What is she trying to hide?

Will the Republicans be able to answer this question even if her own partisans can't?

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 8, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's reluctance to release her income tax returns and White House records (including phone records)show a Bush tendency to secrecy. We don't need to continue the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle of secrets and division.

Posted by: Jennifer | March 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

IS IT 'MISS ANN' OR MS. CLINTON -
In 2008, pretentious outrage and passive-aggressive campaigning works. Unfortunately, for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is an experienced practitioner and perpetrator. Fair competition is threatening for a self-entitled Senator Clinton.

Many Blacks subconsciously recognize this characteristic as the 'Miss Ann' syndrome. I could retire wealthy with a dollar from every Black woman confiding their frustration about some White women using these tactics in the workplace. The civil rights and feminist movement never fully erased the 'Miss Ann' mindset. Most Black women I know swear the feminist movement was historically the White women's movement, and is alive and well in the new millennium with Ms. Clinton.

So, how does America's first relatively untainted, very capable and broadly likeable presidential candidate in 20 years, who happens to be a Black man, overcome? Well, the word among us 'Brothas' on and off the street is simply this: Don't play a game using your opponent's strategy.

When Mrs. Clinton pretentiously hypes outrage over false issues, Senator Obama should ask her to explain the preference for negative campaigning. When she denies the behavior, he should ask how will her tactics genuinely bring Americans together.

Surely, Senator Clinton will attempt to sidestep, distract or dismiss the validity of the questions. She may even complain in her best 'Miss Ann' plaintive voice about feeling attacked. Mr. Obama should end the topic with an emphasis on why voters prefer constructive competition rather than negative campaigning.

Hypocritical, schizophrenic, and passive-aggressive behaviors frustrate and scare me when picking a president. When they all come from someone that may lead our nation during war and peace, guessing is not an option. After fact-checking their websites, choosing between an erratic versus a stable candidate is easy.

Senator Hillary Clinton makes me nervous about "day one." Senator Barack Obama makes me hopeful about "change."

Dennis Moore, Chairperson,
dennis@DCIndependents.org
District of Columbia Independents for Citizen Control Party (DCICC)
http://www.DCIndependents.org

Posted by: DennisDCICC | March 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

It is so sad how Hillary has her supporter thinking she is being browbeaten into rushing he '07 taxes, and how unfair it is. No offense but the polls keep saying she get more votes from the uneducated. People hear bit and pieces (only what they want to here) and just run with it. It makes no sense. She scares me!

Posted by: sweetnikki | March 8, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse


Hello? No. Wait a minute. Obama is making this stink about the Clintons and ALL HE SUBMITTED was the 1040 Form WITHOUT any Schedules or back up ? So we just go at face with what he filled in on the 1040. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black from my perspective!! There is nothing on a 1040 that "DISCLOSES" anything. Hope you're back from your time away and can manage to get an article written about this double standard. The Clintons have years and mountains of tax things. Bottom line, I'm not too interested unless someone else finds something wrong. But now that I know this - IT IS OBAMA WHO ISN'T DISCLOSING. He is such as scheister. Such a totally bogus and dishonest man. The more I see, the more I know the more I cannot believe the hoodwinking this man is about. God bless America. And give us Hillary.

Wow. Just his 1040 and - is he supposed to come up with anything more??? I think it should be demanded.

How is his wife making THAT kind of money? She's an imbecile.
Suspicious.

Posted by: Thinker | March 8, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

If Barack Obama is even half the things he holds himself out to be he would be ashamed of the people representing him on these blogs. Accusations based on on nothing more than the desire to make someone look bad, thinking that will make him look good. If Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton had done even 1/10 the things they have been accused of it is impossible to believe that they would not be in jail.

The Republican Party and Ken Starr spent 80 million dollars of taxpayer money investigating every aspect of their lives and in the end was only able to come up with a very personal indiscretion on the part of Bill Clinton. 80 million dollars and unlimited resources of the government to look at any and all records of the Clintons. It is unbelievable that the people who follow Obama are still rehashing things that have been over and done with for 8 years.

If we spend 80 million dollars investigating Barack Obama, I wonder what we will find.

Why is it that the Obama supporters don't want the questions about him investigated.
Are they so afraid they might find out that some of the accusations are true and thier idol will topple off of his pedestal.

There were people in Rezko's slum buildings having their heat turned off while Rezko was donating large sums of money to Obama's campaign.

And what is the explanation on why, when Obama wanted to buy a Million Dollar Plus Mansion Rezko on the same day bought the attached lot. The Rezko's never used it, sold a portion of it to the Obama's and put a security fence up around the properties, and just to be a nice guy, Barack Obama has the property landscaped.
Sounds to me like Rezko bought the property for Obama.

Tax Return? 1040's tell you nothing without the schedules.

No matter what is in the Clinton returns it will be made out to be something suspicious.

Give me a break. Politicians are politicians. Barack Obama is no different except that he is holding himself out to be above everyone else. That makes him a hypocrite.

The man tells people, He is the Hope of our nation, He is the new politician, He will bring change, as though no-one before him has ever brought change. He seems to think that he is better than everyone else.

Someone who has that kind of opinion of himself is dangerous.

Hillary Clinton is not perfect, she is a real person, with real flaws. She has paid her dues and put in her time. She has more experience in every area than Obama.

Try to stop with the Hate when you say you are supporting the candidate of Hope.

Hillary Clinton is the Best Hope for our country. Our country needs someone who can actually bring about the change we need.

Posted by: cheryl | March 9, 2008 3:23 AM | Report abuse

The depth and breadth of Barack Obama's crossover support and primary victories are evidence that the only obstacles between the Democratic Party and Barack Obama winning the presidency in a landslide are the Clintons and party bigwigs.

The Clintons would have us believe that Hillary and Bill have been thoroughly vetted. If this were ture, then why don't we have answers for:

FOREIGN CLIENTS: How will Hillary know whether Bill's advice serves U.S. interests or the interests of his Russian, Chinese, Indian, Kazakhstan, Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman or Brunei clients?

MONEY: Do the Clinton Foundation's, Clinton Library's, Clinton campaign and Clinton's income tax records show a proper accounting for the funds received for charitable, public and political purposes versus the Clinton's private income?

PARDONS: Will Hillary "reject" contributions or compensation from persons she pardons unlike her husband Bill who accepted contributions from Marc Rich the partner of Viktor Bout (the merchant of death), and her brother Hugh Rodham who accepted compensation from drug lords who were pardoned by Bill?

As a Republican leaning independent, my support of a Democratic candidate for president will "stop dead in its tracks" if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket.

Posted by: John Patrick Smith | March 9, 2008 6:27 AM | Report abuse

It is interesting that Barack Obama says he will unite people.

This is the first time In MY Adult Life that I can remember large numbers of people in the Democratic Party saying that if one candidate wins they will either not vote or vote Republican.

I have never seen anyone devide our nation as much as this man has done with his talk of uniting. I know that I have voted democrat my whole life, but I Will Not vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by: cheryl | March 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

seed of change is a Clinton troll
ignore the posts

he/she/it does come back under other names but the SEED of CHANGE moniker is a troll

Posted by: alison | March 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I would venture to say that most of the individuals who are participating in these commentaries are under 40 years old because most of my peers do not use computers let alone respond to these questions. Most information being shared here has been spoken or writen in the news.Historically, the Clintons were set up in the news by Republicans such as Bossie. The media supported him for awhile until many of his claims went unsubstantiated and his videos were doctored up. People need to be impeccable with their words. Don't just repeat things because they sound good. Taking things out of context is just wrong. The Clintons have been under scrutany for many years. She will release taxes like she always does. It is ultimately her responsibility to make sure everything is in order not her tax advisors. As for Obama...I would be highly surprised if he is dishonest either. I agree with those that say this is a divertion. Many bloggers wanted Obama to fight back and this is his way of doing it. He knows that because of falsehoods from the past that soundbite copiers will jump on Hillary's honesty. That's a price she pays for her experience with skewed reports and accusations. He hasn't been abused enough by the media because his slate isn't full. To both candidates...if you are impeccable with your word you really will prosper. I really, really, really like Obama, but my vote is with Hillary. She's smart and tough and honest.

Posted by: Evelyn | March 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA another corrupt Chicago Politician
http://poligazette.com/2008/03/09/was-there-an-obama-daley-deal-on-the-presidency/

Among his seedy past:
This behavior is not unusual for Obama if you examine the record. To wit:

1. His very first race for state senate, he used the time honored Machine tactic of challenging the nominating petitions of every other candidate, getting all 4 of them removed from the ballot.

2. He cultivated a relationship with the ancient President of the Illinois State Senate Emil Jones who told a colleague in 2002 after the Democrats swept into office "I'm gonna make me a senator." Jones then proceeded to give Obama credit on the passage of 26 key legislative measures - almost all of which had been pushed by other state senators for years - thus giving Obama a record of sorts to go with all that charisma. Obama calls Jones his "political godfather."

3. While in the Senate, Obama has had numerous opportunities to live up to his promised "post partisan" reforms and has never - repeat never - participated in any bi-partisan agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans on any issue. He has gone so far as to reject the outcomes of those compromises on immigration reform and an agreement on confirming federal judges.

4. When faced with a choice between supporting a mayoral candidate who stood for clean government and the corruption of the Chicago Machine, Obama chose old fashioned power politics.

Obama's political career is replete with examples of opportunism, cynical deal making, hack politics, and business as usual relationships with crooks and scam artists like Tony Rezko. His entire presidential campaign is built on a lie; that he is a different kind of politician and will be able to change the way business is done in Washington.

When given the opportunity in the past, Obama has usually chosen doing things the old fashioned way. Why in God's name should we believe him now? Did he try and "reform" Chicago politics? Did he try and "reform" the Senate while his colleagues worked on bi-partisan agreements on vital issues?

You can support the man's policies without holding him up (and throwing in our faces) the idea he is some kind of "new" politician who will change everyone's lives. And if he keeps pushing that meme, he will look like the emperor with no clothes as facts about his relationships with various shady Chicago characters come to light, giving the lie to his grandiose claims like "We are the change that we are seeking."

More to come on OBAMA's nexus with Rashid a Palestinian/PLO player.

Posted by: ere591 | March 9, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

From CNN:

Obama Supporters Becoming Cult-like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNJ-T1GSkTs&feature=related

Obama Supporters a Cult?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLceSHJlA7w&NR=1

Posted by: obamaphilia | March 9, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse


Hellary - pack your bags!

Warmonger! Go fluff McCain some more!

I will never forgive MONSTER for her war vote.....

Free the Clinton Tax Returns!

Posted by: Rubiconski | March 10, 2008 4:21 AM | Report abuse

This cult like junk going around it a bit much. Lets get together and work for a win in Nov.

Posted by: lylepink | March 10, 2008 6:02 AM | Report abuse

Hillary gets a pinocchio for pretending to do these returns herself. The fact that she portrays herself as a beer drinking single mother to the good people of Ohio and Pennsylvania, just to take their votes and forget about them when she gets into the White House is deceptive enough. The fact that she goes to great lengths to do so in order to avoid releasing her taxes makes it even more suspicious.

Posted by: Andrew | March 10, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Elaine,

A tax return is "stupid stuff?" Don't you think we have a right to know how many millions they've earned from lobbyists, foreign govts. and others since Bill exited the White House under a mountain of debt? Or maybe they've earned it honestly. We don't know and that's the point. We need to know. It is important stuff. It goes to the very heart of who she is.

Posted by: emme | March 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary
When are you releasing your tax returns ? ANYTHING to get elected.Lie, cheat steal.What a great President she will make.hahahahahaha....Go Barack...as soon as you get to the White House,open up the doors and windows and let the stench out..

Posted by: goglesby | March 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

obama has released one tax return (2006), not ALL tax returns. fact check needs to check its own facts

Posted by: tex | March 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

THE AMOUNT OF COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG IS AMAZING. It just goes to show what a hot issue Clinton's tax returns is.

Posted by: Ruscle | March 10, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that the Obama's and the Clinton's are at different places in their lives ... and also that Barack Obama hasn't been much of a financial success by himself - he didn't make it as an attorney and so he spent most of his grown life as a state senator which for most is a part-time job and they usually have a second career going whether as an attorney or law professor - he had neither. Though I did read that when he was elected to the US Senate for some strange reasons his wife received a salary increase of close to 3 times more than she had been making the day before when her hubby wasn't a US Senator - guess they figured having friends in high places was worth making she was happy??

Meanwhile the Clinton's comprise a successful ex-partner attorney turned US Senator (Hillary) and an Ex--President who's on the high-end of the speech circuit.

Obama's finances are going to make him look like a kid even though he's closing in on 50 years of age while Clinton's are going to make them look like the wealthy people they have recently become.

Posted by: kec132 | March 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we should send this story to Howard Wolfson to put where his mouth is for calling Obama and his Staff by using Kenneth Starr's attacked . I know back then when Bill Clinton was running for 1992 . The question is does he have any experience on anything which he have very little but he got the smart people to work with when he was President.I think Obama can do the same if he gets the smart people. I think Hillary had too many problems to deal with people. I tired of clinton. Its time for new faces.

Posted by: Kevin | March 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

According to the six degrees of Kevin Bacon style charges which Clintonistas have been making charges against Obama , if we were to use this on Hillary and Bill,seeing how she withdrew money from a joint account, we should check all the tax returns of Elliot Spitzer, a close New York backer, the prostitutes in the prostitution ring he was involved in , every deli that ever sold them a sandwich, the guy who sold the deli their bread and that guy's mailman.That's how the Clinton camp has been throwing around accusations. Maybe they should just shut up before they get burned more on the hypocrisy level and just release the income tax returns for years 2000-2007.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary hasn't finished filling out the job application yet.

Tax returns please. And what about the Clinton Foundation donations? And the Clinton pardon information that was redacted?

Don't the American people need to know who the Clintons owe favors to before they choose?

Check out this New York Times story about what Bill Clinton did to get one of the large donations to his Foundation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?bl&ex=1201928400&en=34871ee7da314ab4&ei=5087%0A

Posted by: Doctorvandermast | March 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Given what the Clintons have been through, I am not surprised that they are leery about disclosing information that might lead to more witch hunting (remember Whitewater? nothing came of it).

Posted by: alee21 | March 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear America,

As a U.K. citizen looking in on this election campaign from the outside I must applaude Senator Obama as both a human being and a man of his word.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated an incredible level of restraint, despite the lowest form of political mud-slinging and provocation resorted to by the Clinton campaign.

A level of restraint that would be required daily, by the next President of the United States, the leader of the free world.

I would suggest to the broader American public, and particularily to those States still to vote for their preferred Democratic nominee (Pennsylvania and Mississippi included), that such restraint should never, EVER, be seen as a sign of weakness. This IS strength.

This is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a Christian MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is an AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MAN of Strength.

I WOULD TRUST SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WITH THE CARE OF MY CHILDREN.

I WOULDN'T TRUST MRS HILLARY CLINTON WITH THE T.V. REMOTE CONTROL, NEVER MIND ANSWERING THE PRESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE AT 3 AM.

The restraint shown by Senator Obama recently, in the face of outright lies and misleading remarks, is indeed the sign of an intelligent, considerate leader, concerned with making the RIGHT decision, and not simply just 'a' decision.

Poor decision making at Presidential level by George W Bush (gun holder) and Mrs Hillary Clinton (supplier of bullets for that gun in 2002) has led to the catastrophe for Americans' that is Iraq.

1. Thousands of brave American lives lost. For what?

2. America,'the home of the brave', relentlessly bombing some of the poorest children in the world from the safety of 50,000 feet. For what?

3. Tens of Billions of American Dollars spent funding No's 1 and 2. Dollars that could have been spent on such lofty ideals as free Health Care for every single American and investment in American communities to create jobs for American citizens. For what?

George W Bush has presided over the horror show that is Iraq.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON FULLY SANCTIONED THIS HORROR SHOW WITH HER INABILITY TO MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION ON IRAQ IN 2002.

Mrs Hillary Clinton's actions FAILED AMERICA and FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, on an unimaginable scale and at a time when it mattered the most. With the blood of those brave soldiers and those children on her hands, can she be trusted? Can she?

I THINK NOT!

The United States' ability to restore itself to former glories must surely rest on the broad, restrained, articulate, considerate, common sense shoulders of Senator Barack Obama.

Mrs Hillary Clinton displayed so much personal weakness and failure on matters of integrity during the Texas and Ohio campaigns that she must surely never be trusted.

Why did she allow her campaign to trot out 'that picture' of Mr Obama?

She is weak, and rested her political fortune and reputation, with that of white supremacists pandering to the lowest common denominator.

SHAME ON MRS HILLARY CLINTON! SHE SHAMED HERSELF, AMERICA, AND HUMANITY BY STOOPING TO THAT INCREDIBLE LOW.

You can only blame so much on a shambolic campaign strategy team.

Mrs Hillary Clinton must accept personal responsibility for the worst example of fear mongering and subliminal racism I have seen in my entire adult life. It was disgusting.

This fear mongering and subliminal racism was designed, constructed and deployed via the media by Mrs Hillary Clinton's campaign to manipulate the free thinking minds of the American public. I know it, YOU know it, and they including Mrs Hillary Clinton KNEW it!

(Even I can see that from here in Scotland, thousands of miles away)

Have the Mrs Hillary Clinton campaign team really resorted to such lows as doubting Senator Obama's devotion to the Christian Church, in order to 'win' some votes?

YES THEY HAVE. SHAME ON THEM , AND HER.

Mrs Hillary Clintons failure to confirm this unequivocal fact is abhorent at best.

Have they assessed (wrongly I hope), that the majority of Americans believe the Fox 'News' channel is fact?

IT WOULD APPEAR SO.

If this is how Mrs Hillary Clinton reacts, responds and decides at a time when her own political future is at stake, what DISASTROUS decisions will she make and sanction if she ever becomes occupier of The Whitehouse?

AMERICA!

I love your country.

I have visited it many times.

I love your people.

I love, appreciate and understand the constitution on which your fantastic country is based.

I embrace it in my own life and not just as some romantic notion.

I believe in freedom, real freedom.

Your country is being scared to death by sections of your media.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON IS TRYING TO SCARE YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN.

Don't succumb to that fear.

You are braver than that.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES MORE.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES THE OUSTANDING NOMINEE THAT IS SENATOR BARACK OBAMA.

YOU'RE LUCKY TO HAVE HIM.

EMBRACE HIM AS A NATION, SIT BACK AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FLY.

your truly

j.dreczkowski@hotmail.co.uk

Posted by: j.dreczkowski | March 10, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is using teh April 15 date to suggest that she has until then to relaese her tax records. That's true ---for 2007. What about 2004,2005, 2006 ?
Didn't she file them? Or did they get misplaced like the billing records of years ago.
There is NO legitimate reason why she has not provided her returns from 04, 05 and 06 as Obama and McCain have done. This is more doublespeak from the Hilldebeast. There is obviously something she is hiding or she would have provided these long ago and there would be no story . So we get to wait until AFTER teh folks in PA and who knows where else have voted and THEN we find out where she and Bill have nmade all their money--and it isn't just on book deals. If it were , she would have released this long ago.
Oh and why are the Fact Checker and the other reporters giving her such a pass on all this?

Posted by: jmsbh | March 10, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Clinton: "I was just toooo busy going low on my opponent to bother showing where my $5 million loan came from....I'm just another ordinary Joe like you folks who write yourselves $5 million dollar checks!" Yeah...

Posted by: Michael | March 10, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS

and did I mention that I'm.... SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS SICK OF THE CLINTONS

Etc.

Posted by: SICK OF THE CLINTONS | March 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Yes. The Clintons should release the tax forms immediately. I question whether they really plan to do so before the PA primary.
I'm tired of the doubletalk, innuendos, and underhanded tactics that the Clintons are engaging in now to win at all costs (I thought Democrats were different from Republicans??) . I'd have much more admiration for Hillary if she gracefully bowed out of the race and listened to the will of the people.

Posted by: Deborah | March 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

WHERE INDEED ARE THE TAXES HILLARY?

Why aren't Democrats enraged by Senator Clinton's antics in this primary? For the first time in many years the Democrats have a great chance to put a president in office and steer this country down a better path but they seem to have chosen the go the route that is normal for them, to shoot themselves in the foot.

Senator Clinton is doing her best to take a huge bite out of that chance. She has remarkably been able to turn public attention away from the fact that she cannot take over the delegate count at the end of the primary election with the press help of course, but again the press is not hitting her on the subject of her taxes, years ago if a candidate dared to state that he/she would reveal their taxes after a primary the press and the American people would have been outraged over this subject, but the press seems to want this.
If anybody is wondering why the question of the Clinton papers keeps coming up is that it would be very interesting reading to see the so called experience that she claims in those eight years of office held by her husband, besides all of the fraud and scandals that she had a hand in. No I am not Billary bashing, I just want to know the facts which should be the American way, and wonder why the press does not. Her only chance is to go negative with her fellow democrat in hopes that he chokes on something, aka, CANADA, that the press keeps harping on, the Canadian government backed up what Obama said, but that was not good enough for the press, I just wish they would do their job..
Her goal is to make him look incompetent that the aka (SUPERMEN/WOMEN) super delegates believe he won't be a strong enough candidate and select her over the will of the voters who chose Senator Obama.

I am not a republican, but I do believe that Senator McCain has more integrity and is more trustworthy than Senator Clinton will ever have, and again state that he will get my vote if the Democratic Party is not fair.

Posted by: Beverly Sims | March 10, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

he isn't releasing anything pre 2006.....

BTW I found a fantastic article...A MUST read for EVERYONE "The Hussein Dynamic" at http://savagepolitics.com.
Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!

Here is an excerpt: "The issue of Barack Obama's religious definition has captivated many Americans to the point were charges of terrorism and counter charges of racism have been thrown into the fray of the discussion, aimed at either side. To many Liberal Americans, whether or not Obama is a Muslim (or was a Muslim) is irrelevant to the feelings of "hope" and "change" that he inspires in them, which they consider to have a higher merit than petty religious or ethnic associations. To many Conservative Americans, the mere allocation of any candidate within the realm of Islam is sufficient reason to vote against him, irrespective of the details that may lie in the penumbra of his personal story. Either way, it is impossible for any citizen to make an intelligent assessment of either perspective, without knowing the details and the relevant information regarding Mr. Obama's past. Unlike the Mainstream Media, who has automatically assumed that Obama has no relation to Islam, in a vague attempt to paint themselves as "reasonable" and "progressives", most thinking citizens should not follow suit. There is ample evidence to make any reasonable citizen conclude that the Obama campaign and the Media have been hiding some crucial elements of this candidate's past that should become widely known and discussed in the open. Let us then ask ourselves; Is Barack Obama a Muslim?" get the rest at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171

Posted by: elsylee28 | March 10, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

why the hell should Clinton do something that Obama wants?

He didn't debate, he whines aobut the press, he's a baby.

get over it obama fans.
Clinton is stronger than Obama

Posted by: trey | March 7, 2008 09:27 AM

I have trouble getting excited about this right now. They aren't due until April 15th. My 2007 taxes aren't completed yet, so I could disclose them if I was asked. This is a disengenuous issue. According to the article, the Clintons previously disclosed their statements from 1980 on during the 1992 campain. Why has Obama only disclosed his returns since he has been in the Senate? What is he hiding? See, it is a silly arguement. Why aren't we discussing their actions on the environment or something meaningful? And, who cares who donated to the Presidential library? Please worry about real issues and not disclosure of documents that aren't even due yet.

Posted by: Scott | March 7, 2008 09:41 AM

I've got just one question.

How is releasing tax returns going to solve our dire needs we are having in the US right now?

Has anyone read the job reports this morning. Our economy is in a nose dive.

Is Obama going to get a better grip on our economy because he has disclosed his tax returns?

I don't think so.
___________________________________________Since you don't get it let me make it clear for you. This is important because it speaks to INTEGITY a fundamental quality we should all want in our leadership. Without integrity every decision they try to make will be questioned, the house and senate will fight them and bring our governemnt to a stalemate just like it did during the last 4 years of Clinton's presidency. Hillary dosn't have it...how can you have integity to claim winning when there was no contest. You have no integrity when you say Obama is not qualified but then says he can be VP, you have no intgrity when you cry about Obama speaking to CA while all the time you know you had too. I can go on and on but thsi should be enough for america to wake up and realize the last person we need in the WH is the Clintons, they can not be trusted!!!!

Posted by: Keith | March 10, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Big Pinocchio here: her tax returns for 2000 through 2006 have been filed--What's all this about April 15?

Posted by: Harper | March 10, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary said she would release her returns soon. Democratic voters deserve to know what the Republicans will see when she does. Paying high speaking or consulting fees to a candidate's spouse is an easy way to circumvent campaign finance laws.

Posted by: Doublepops | March 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama comes up again

As a state senator, Barack Obama was consulted on the makeup of a state board...

At the center of controversy in the Tony Rezko trial. The defense showed a 2003 memo to jurors today listing Obama's name, among others, including Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, as having discussed the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.
Among the recommendations on that memo included Stuart Levine, who will act as the government's chief witness in the case. Levine has admitted to taking part in a kickback scheme while he served as a member of the board.
I will post that memo later today when it is released. The government has accused Rezko of stacking that board to ensure that Levine and others would vote his way to make money.

Also today, Jill Hayden, who headed boards and commissions for Gov. Blagojevich testified that Rezko or "T.R." as she said he was referred in the office, held powerful sway over appointments to 300 boards. She said she dealt with Rezko often and that his recommendations, more so than others, usually stuck.

Posted by: dave51 | March 10, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I have some very taxing questions for Obama, as many Americans do. The problem is the media refuses to ask them! And Obama has a free pass. How democratic!

Posted by: Texan2007 | March 10, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should release her taxes when Obama fully explains the sweetheart house deal he got from Tony Rezko.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | March 10, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

To the question of whether or not Hillary needs to release her tax records I answer most definitely. NOW!

Posted by: Bobbie | March 10, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are not releasing their tax returns because people would be shocked that they make money with book deals, appearances, etc...What shocks me is how this election has become a vicious attack on the wealthy--assuming that all wealthy people rob the middle class of their earnings. Not all people with money are evil. Some of these people provide insurance and 401 k plans to their employees. The only problem is that the CEOs of corporate America who get away with stealing investor's retirement plans give all people with money a horrible name. I would suggest that Hillary Clinton speak out more freely against the top 1 percent of the population who actually does derail the middle class before she releases her tax records.

Posted by: Marina Gipps | March 10, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Will St.Obama find his records from the IL state senate, will he find all the records that deals with Resko, will he release Michelle Obama thesis that uses racial under tones. I suspect not. St. Obama is now playing politics by asking for Clinton's tax return. I thought he was different. So much for HOPE.

Posted by: Locmar | March 10, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

The records show that the Clintons have had a problem with ETHICS for a long time: telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, does not come easy to them. In that respect, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are not much different from Messrs. Bush or Cheney or...Rove for that matter, but Senator Obama IS. Change starts here.

Posted by: gmoralez | March 11, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton dynasty is a corrupt machine that pretends to be middle-class while socking away multimillions gained from off-shore companies. The Clintons are funded to the tune of multimillions by Middle Eastern potentates and Eastern European despots. Hillary manipulates white working class resentments while she is able to "loan" herself FIVE MILLION dollars of HER OWN money to buy the presidency, a "good investment," she says, looking forward to billions to be made by the Clinton family in the near future. Their daughter works for a hedgefund company, but Hillary pretends to trash corporate capitalism, while, wink, wink, she takes in multimillions from lobbyists. The Party and nation have been winking too long at the Clintons' voracious appetite for power and wealth. When are we the people able to throw the scoundrels out and change our country towards a more perfect union?

Posted by: shirleylim | March 11, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

If someone you were debating demanded your check book, would you drop everything and submit? No, you wouldn't. You'd likely thumb your nose. At least Sen. Clinton is gracious as she thumbs her nose at her opposition. I say..who cares about her 5 million, I want to know where EACH AND EVERY dollar originated from monies raised on the Internet, online, ON BOTH SIDES! Now we're talking!

Posted by: thinktank08 | March 11, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Say it again!

OK, I say..who cares about her 5 million, I want to know where EACH AND EVERY dollar originated from monies raised on the Internet, online, ON BOTH SIDES! Now we're talking!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

One more time!

I want to know where EACH AND EVERY dollar originated from monies raised on the Internet, online, ON BOTH SIDES! Now we're talking!

The numbers are staggering and,frankly, unbelievable.


Posted by: thinktank08 | March 11, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Think Tank, calm down...check the FEC website. It won't have Hillary's $5 million "loan" because it's her own money.

"35 Years of Experience"

What a complete joke. This woman has accomplished nothing on her own in her entire life. If her name was Hillary Rodham and she never married Bubba, she would be senior partner at a big Chicago law firm (I'll grant you that she's bright). But to somehow say that proximity to Bill Clinton (whether in the same bed or sometimes not....) qualifies her to be president is a pipedream. Exactly what did she do in Beijing..oh wait, she gave a speech...supposedly what she alleges Obama's campaign as being solely based on. She was instrumental in the peace process in Northern Ireland? Umm....no. George Mitchell was integral to the peace proces. Bill Clinton, yes.

The only things Hillary has ever managed, her health care task force (disaster) and this campaign (pretty much a diaster when you are effectively the incumbent) prove that she is not a leader. Never has been. Never will be.

Monica spent some time with Bill Clinton. Is she qualified to be president?

Posted by: KAM3 | March 11, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for reminding us of her hypocracy with the Lazio thing...

Posted by: fake1 | March 11, 2008 6:54 AM | Report abuse

We are allowed by US law, to file our taxes for the preceeding year, by April 15 at 11:59p.m. There are thousands who have not yet filed their taxes and are not "hiding" anything. It takes time, which we are allowed, to get them prepared.
So get off it!! Obama is not what we need.
If he is nominated, I will, with pleasure, vote for the other candidate.

Posted by: OHIO | March 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

It is imperative that the public know to whom a President is beholden. Look at the situation we are in now with oil man Bush. Bill Clinton doesn't get those big speaking fees for nothing. The donors hope to be in a favorable position should Mrs. Clinton gain even more power as a President than she has as a Senator.
Of course she wont release the financial facts. That opens up a whole new topic of debate within the campaign. To whom is she beholden?

Posted by: sushimorgan | March 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, tax return records are part of the political office process. If it doesn't matter, why did she say in her 2000 debate that her opponents failure to make his returns is "frankly disturbing." I don't think Clinton can claim to be for the working class American if she's making combined income somewhere near $100 million, which I think she is. The Clintons will do any and everything to win, lies, racial comments whatever.

Posted by: Jay | March 11, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 7, 2008 08:21 AM

"Obama's house purchase in conjuction with Rezko makes it critical that Obama shows his property purchase detail.

What will happen to the unusable lot next to his house. Since Rezko just sold 10 ft of the plot, that lot does not have enough space to build a new house.

Obama's house deal with Rezko has to be published if Clinton has to go extra mile on her tax papters"...

No no no SofC, for Billary Clinton, it will be the 1st yard, not extra mile pal.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Wake up USA!!!
Wake up Pennsylvania!!!

The Clintons will try to deceive Pennsylvania as made with people from Ohio and Texas. I find that they will show in public some false document 1 day before of the primary to convince undecides, ignorants, fanatics and idiots. Wake up Pennsylvania?
I think that is important transparency in the politic all time. They would must to show the documents since the start of the campaign.
Hugs from Brazil

Posted by: Dalmo1 | March 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

As an Australian, I sit back and absorb as much as I can on whats happening in the country the world once relied on.
America once represented what democracy, freedom, truth & justice was all about, but not anymore.
Yeah, you can blame Bush for the Iraq war which deep down we know is all about the oil (even Greenspan acknowledged it). You can blame him for Gitmo, condemned for the torture that is used with his and his administrations blessing (ask yourself, if torture is ok for america to use, god help future captured american servicemen), but from what I see written here and on other forums, it is the American voters.
I can not believe you fall for this political, mind bending crap Hillary Clinton vomits upon you, flip flopping daily to suit her agenda.
From what I see, the Bush/Clinton dynasties need to end. It's getting a little incestuous...
But what would I know, I'm Australian.

Posted by: Bob Buck | March 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

The truth is: if you get Clinton to be even nominated for president, this country is doomed. Because they (Clintons)only play dirty politics and the republicans will not tolerate them. What do you get? battle from front to back. Even Clinton's fans and followers are so passionate that they are willing to do just about anything to put the Clintons back to power. Anything goes, even destroying this beautiful country.

Posted by: urevtyr | March 11, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is Gollum and Barack is Samwise Gamjee.

Posted by: jl | March 11, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Tax returns "you can xerox". What's so hard about releasing the information?


Also, the Rezko crap that keeps floating around is just that, a bunch of mis-informed mud-slinging crap.

"Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid ``was the best offer'' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller....Rezko's wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price

In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard. She later sold the rest of the land to Michael Sreenan, who said by e-mail yesterday that he bought it in late December 2006 for $575,000."

source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aR8NLIoQEDc4

Rita Rezko make a quick $54,500 profit on the deal and even made a slight profit on Obama's purchase price, so enough about the Rezko land deal already. There is nothing there that will burn Obama any more than it already has.

Again, what does Clinton have to hide?

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.

Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...

$3,000,000,000 - $3 billion PER WEEK! - That is the amount we have been paying for the Iraq War- money that should have been used here, at home.

Add to this:

Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) so in actuality, we're the war is costing the United States MORE than $ 3 billion PER WEEK.

Higher oil and energy prices. Instability in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.

High oil prices mean high utility bills. Due to high oil prices, demand shifts to other sources of energy - nat gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?

Higher oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean higher prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?

Higher oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say 'Goodbye money!'

Our dollar is weak and is getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what, It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and is getting weaker.

Lastly, how do you think the world views our country because of this war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to Hillary's authorization.

Posted by: Sara_Bergstein | March 11, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:

• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?

• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"

• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"

• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

Posted by: Sara_Bergstein | March 11, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone sought more detailed answers from hillary about stories such as:

• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?

• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
•
Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"

• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

Posted by: Sara_Bergstein | March 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary: Do as I say, not as I do.

Posted by: wsealsjr | March 11, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Could there be another "whitewater thing" going on here? All she'll have to do if elected is pardon her self, her husband and anyone else so kind as to take the fall for them. Right? Bill did.
One more thing, (My opinion only) I vote John Edwards for vice president no matter who runs. Anybody over McCain, another bully like Bush with a chip on his shoulder and ready to use scare tactics with his own people to get his way. DEMOCATES ALL THE WAY!

Posted by: thinker | March 11, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

TRANSPARENCY NOW PLEASE ...

"some of Bill Clinton's influence-peddling schemes border on being illegal.

Voters have the right to see his and Hillary's income tax statement BEFORE being saddled with her as the Democratic nominee.

The Clintons want to re-occupy the Oval Office BUT the voters need to know how the Clintons amassed a multi million dollar fortune since leaving the White House ... especially in view or the fact that Bill Clinton peddled his influence in Kazakhstan for Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra for the country's uranium rights; He has, or had, a financial partnership with the Emir of Dubai and his buddy Ron Burkle.

Bill Clinton has earned millions 'consulting' for InfoUSA, an Iowa company that is under investigation for creating telemarketing lists used to fleece the elderly out of their life's savings.

The voters MUST know who is paying their bills - or are we prepared to 'buy a cat in a bag'?


Posted by: dopera2004 | March 11, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has said she will release the documents on or before April 15th. If she doesn't, roast her. Until then, how about dropping it in favor of an issue that actually matters? The woman isn't stupid enough to do anything at this stage in her career to jeopordize this election when it comes to the money loaned to her campaign. Once again the media supports Obama in his game of smoke and mirrors keeping the attention off of his clay feet and lack of substance.

Posted by: glosski | March 11, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

a lot of people have question about what happened to the lot rezko bought next to Obama's house.

1/6 of it was sold to Obama for 1/6 the price Rezko paid, and the rest of it was sold in the market for a 51k profit.

Look, this house deal of 1.3mil is small cakes compared to the $40 mils Bill made just recently off his international mining deal.

Besides Obama aleady gave proof that he used a book deal contract and mortgage to pay for the house, he didn't just get it from Rezko.

Posted by: airborne5982 | March 12, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Also Obama was very vocal opposing Rezko when Rezko was proposing to the city to build more casinos.

Posted by: airborne5982 | March 12, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Voters need to consider the Clinton Campaign's refusal to return the contributions from the company in the story (link provided) and the fact that she is stonewalling about releasing her tax returnswhile having the audacity to launch attack ads against Senator Obama for connections to Rezko when he has not been charged with any wrong doing and has given all of the Rezko contributions to charity in addition to releasing his returns. It's obvious which candidate has things to hide from voters and hopefully voters in Pennsylvania will get it right where other states failed.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:48 AM | Report abuse

Double standard at is finest! The Obama campaign need to hit harder on this deal. They should get old footage of her 2000 tactic againts Rick Lazio. You show those old footage with some nice caption you end it with some slogan like. "The rule apply to everybody Hilary even you!"

On another subject am sick and tired of CNN doing the same unrealistic prediction with the board. I want to more likely scenario.

Because lets face it if they make the realistic math the conclusion would be that it over! The best she could end up with realistically is under 200 pledge delegate behind Obama at the convention.

And the sooner CNN admit that and start doing the more realistic scenario on the board the better for everybody. It time to face political reality the super delegate will not overturn it! They are already taking Obama side his super delegate count is rising while Hilary is loosing ground.
It time to get real it time to wrap this up. More importantly it time for the Clinton to make a graceful exit while we still have some respect left for you.

Posted by: John Nolet | March 12, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Some wonder why Clinton has Ed Rendell's support .It's pretty simple ,He was embroiled in the scandal involving tainted campaign contributions from Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu. Initially calling Hsu a "friend" and a man of "good character," Rendell returned nearly $40,000 in campaign contributions from Hsu, who was sentenced to three years in prison in California and faces fraud charges in New York.HSU is also a CLOSE'friend' of the Clintons ,Norman Hsu did a lot MORE than just pump $850,000 into Hillary Clinton's campaign bank account: He also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for local, state, and federal candidates who have endorsed Clinton or whose support she courted.Clinton or her aides directly channeled contributions from Hsu and his network to other politicians supportive of her presidential campaign, according to interviews and campaign finance records. There is nothing illegal about one politician steering wealthy contributors to another, but the New York senator Clintons close ties and WHERE the money is that HSU has helped her get is hidden at should be a concern as far as Clinton being 'honest '.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/26/hsu_raised_big_money_for_clinton_supporters/

Posted by: Shelobo | March 12, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I predict that "on or around April 15" in Clinton-speak means no sooner than April 23rd. (The day after the PA primary)

Also any suggestion that they are working on the returns can only apply to the current 2007 return. There is no defensible reason why her already-filed returns from 2000-2006 cannot be released immediately, and in fact the Clinton campaign does not even attempt to answer this. The question is whether reporters will pursue the issue in time for the remaining Democratic primary/caucus voters to give the facts due judgment in their decision to support a candidate.

Posted by: js | March 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Is this even worth opening to debate? Of course she should release all of her returns for the sake of transparency. This maneuvering is classic Clinton; it's pathetic.

Posted by: Dave | March 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr6kQV U cool ))

Posted by: zxevil160 | March 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I definitely find it interesting foreign citizens' inputs. Japan, Africa, some from Australia and the U.K. hmm? This is really interesting. I shall have to do more research ;)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Cohort:

Education, experience, wisdom, honesty, integrity, etc it comes in various shapes and forms among humans and I am afraid that a diverse group of people possess those characteristics. Had Obama taken Bush's place, he could've saved this country from the hole we are currently in.

We need whatever president is qualified and possesses those characteristics be the president is White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Male, Female, whomever. What this country cannot do is fail the country and our important citizens with that dumb logic you just put into text. Either we'll never move forward as fast as we should, or people like you will be left twisting in the wind to play catch up to everyone else while we all continue on to progress.

Race, something acquired by parents only does not give you more or less of the above characteristics I have listed in this here post; therefore, we shall not look to one's race for presidential qualification. Race does nothing for the country. However, the above mentioned characteristics does. May I also add that Obama is half white, and half of his family is white. That really isn't of importance but I only mentioned it in case you didn't catch his full background.

We are in 2008 now and the years are steadily progressing. So does this country need to continue to do so.

Obama or Hillary for president this year. We must change course.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Cohort:

Education, experience, wisdom, honesty, integrity, etc it comes in various shapes and forms among humans and I am afraid that a diverse group of people possess those characteristics. Had Obama taken Bush's place, he could've saved this country from the hole we are currently in.

We need whatever president is qualified and possesses those characteristics be the president is White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Male, Female, whomever. What this country cannot do is fail the country and our important citizens with that dumb logic you just put into text. Either we'll never move forward as fast as we should, or people like you will be left twisting in the wind to play catch up to everyone else while we all continue on to progress.

Race, something acquired by parents only does not give you more or less of the above characteristics I have listed in this here post; therefore, we shall not look to one's race for presidential qualification. Race does nothing for the country. However, the above mentioned characteristics does. May I also add that Obama is half white, and half of his family is white. That really isn't of importance but I only mentioned it in case you didn't catch his full background.

We are in 2008 now and the years are steadily progressing. So does this country need to continue to do so.

Obama or Hillary for president this year. We must change course.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

The press has really been giving the Clintons a free ride on their tax returns, Hillary's records as First Lady, and contributors to the Clinton library. C'mon, put a little pressure and let's get that information to the public!

Posted by: AJBF | March 12, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should be our President because she is White. We don't need a black President.

---
http://www.youtube.com/user/cohort227

Posted by: Cohort227 | March 12, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

It's not too clever to shun the release of tax information or the records of when she was a First Lady.The connotation is that there is something to hide.This fault in judgement should let Mr.Obama have the nod to be the Man by default.Havn't the American people learnt enough about the "tricky"Clintons.Kind of dumb Mrs Clinton(thought she was a respected lawyer??).

Posted by: jeff phillips | March 12, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Cohort:

Education, experience, wisdom, honesty, integrity, etc it comes in various shapes and forms among humans and I am afraid that a diverse group of people possess those characteristics. Had Obama taken Bush's place, he could've saved this country from the hole we are currently in.

We need whatever president is qualified and possesses those characteristics be the president is White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Male, Female, whomever. What this country cannot do is fail the country and our important citizens with that dumb logic you just put into text. Either we'll never move forward as fast as we should, or people like you will be left twisting in the wind to play catch up to everyone else while we all continue on to progress.

Race, something acquired by parents only does not give you more or less of the above characteristics I have listed in this here post; therefore, we shall not look to one's race for presidential qualification. Race does nothing for the country. However, the above mentioned characteristics does. May I also add that Obama is half white, and half of his family is white. That really isn't of importance but I only mentioned it in case you didn't catch his full background.

We are in 2008 now and the years are steadily progressing. So does this country need to continue to do so.

Obama or Hillary for president this year. We must change course.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Cohort:

Education, experience, wisdom, honesty, integrity, etc it comes in various shapes and forms among humans and I am afraid that a diverse group of people possess those characteristics. Had Obama taken Bush's place, he could've saved this country from the hole we are currently in.

We need whatever president is qualified and possesses those characteristics be the president is White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Male, Female, whomever. What this country cannot do is fail the country and our important citizens with that dumb logic you just put into text. Either we'll never move forward as fast as we should, or people like you will be left twisting in the wind to play catch up to everyone else while we all continue on to progress.

Race, something acquired by parents only does not give you more or less of the above characteristics I have listed in this here post; therefore, we shall not look to one's race for presidential qualification. Race does nothing for the country. However, the above mentioned characteristics does. May I also add that Obama is half white, and half of his family is white. That really isn't of importance but I only mentioned it in case you didn't catch his full background.

We are in 2008 now and the years are steadily progressing. So does this country need to continue to do so.

Obama or Hillary for president this year. We must change course.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

To CitizenXX :

Here in Texas I wish I could have voted for her 4 times instead of just 2 for Hillary.

You want to talk about playing the victim, read the Op-Ed piece by Prof Patterson in the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?em&ex=1205467200&en=98ff1f63a85c115f&ei=5070


Posted by: Tex | March 12, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Lets not forget Obama In Chicago. Too many unanswered questions.

Posted by: wakeupamerica | March 12, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's have not released a scheduled tax return since 2002. There is no reason they couldn't release,03,04,05,06 tomorrow and show where their millions are coming from. They have said that around April 15 they will release their returns. Come the 15th, they will have some excuse to postpone it past the 24th Penn. primary. Yes thats right, after millions of people have cast their ballots without this information.

All of the other Democratic candidates have made public their returns long ago. What's the story Hillary?

Do we need a President that at 3am gets a call about a major problem in the middle east, and derives millions of dollars of her income from that area?
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Not only that its a major security problem. Will she be bought?

Hillary needs to come clean with the American people.

Tax Returns-- White House Records-- Clinton Library Archives

WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?

Don't let her hide!!!!!

Posted by: david Hunter | March 13, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Our author is to be commended for writing

"Instead, she pointed to the annual financial disclosure forms that she files as a U.S. senator which are available here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf"

Going to the site is really interesting, and in some ways more informative than just an income tax return because you get to see the assets and approximate net worth. Bill Clinton made 7.7 million dollars giving 44 speeches through the year. Not quite as good as some baseball players, but close. They hold two assets worth anywhere from 5 to 25 million dollars, a Senate qualified blind trust and a Citibank account. So, yes, Hillary could loan her campaign the millions by tapping the Citibank account, nothing evil there. Their only large liabilities are two credit cards with balances between 15,000 and 50,000 that Bill's income should easily cover.

So while I'm not a fan of the Clintons and still want her to disclose her taxes, I really don't expect any bomb shells. Why she does not make the disclosure sooner rather than later is a mystery since the delay plays into the mistrust perception that dogs her.

Posted by: Rod Uveges | March 13, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton's have not released a scheduled tax return since 2002. There is no reason they couldn't release,03,04,05,06 tomorrow and show where their millions are coming from. They have said that around April 15 they will release their returns. Come the 15th, they will have some excuse to postpone it past the 24th Penn. primary. Yes thats right, after millions of people have cast their ballots without this information.

All of the other Democratic candidates have made public their returns long ago. What's the story Hillary?

Do we need a President that at 3am gets a call about a major problem in the middle east, and derives millions of dollars of her income from that area?
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Not only that its a major security problem. Will she be bought?

Hillary needs to come clean with the American people.

Tax Returns-- White House Records-- Clinton Library Archives

WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?

Don't let her hide!!!!!

Posted by: david Hunter | March 13, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Our author is to be commended for writing

"Instead, she pointed to the annual financial disclosure forms that she files as a U.S. senator which are available here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf"

Going to the site is really interesting, and in some ways more informative than just an income tax return because you get to see the assets and approximate net worth. Bill Clinton made 7.7 million dollars in 2006 giving 43 speeches through the year. Not quite as good as some baseball players, but close. They hold two assets worth anywhere from 5 to 25 million dollars, a Senate qualified blind trust and a Citibank account. So, yes, Hillary could loan her campaign the millions by tapping the Citibank account, nothing evil there. Their only large liabilities are two credit cards with balances between 15,000 and 50,000 that Bill's income should easily cover.

So while I'm not a fan of the Clintons and still want her to disclose her taxes, I really don't expect any bomb shells. Why she does not make the disclosure sooner rather than later is a mystery since the delay plays into the mistrust perception that dogs her.

Posted by: mleeb | March 13, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Book deals, speeches, where do they get their money. How Much. No other Presidents or First Lady's have received any money. Did any of the past build a library? Were monies donated. I would think Obama and his fan support had better things to do than to drool over someone eles assets. Have any of the obama fan group even bothered to check out what exactly Bill Clinton has been doing for these last few years. Why don't you check it out. Or would rather still stick to all the sex crap. It might broaden Obama and your minds and realize that Bill Clinton would be a asset to the White House in his aids and hunger organizations which he started thru his library. You know the library that everyone wants to know about the $$$. These organizations are all over the world that he works with. So if everyone is thinking he does'nt have anything to do THINK AGAIN.

Posted by: wakeupamerica | March 13, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I agree; 3.5 Pinocchios should be about right. Slam Lazio and do the same thing yourself. And it's going to be verrry interesting to see all of the various sources of the Clinton's estimated $51M+ nest egg they've managed to put away since leaving the presidency. You know, Hillary's stump speech says speeches never paid bills or put food on the table -- guess she forgot about Bill. DISCLOSE! The Clinton penchant for secrecy has been honed to an art form by Bush and Hillary's campaign shows her administration would take it to an all new level.

Posted by: omyobama1 | March 13, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Why has Obama only released tax returns from 2004?

And why is the tax return spoken of in terms of 'the Clinton's' re: Hillary, but not the 'Obama's' re: Barack?

Yet more double standards.

Posted by: Alice | March 13, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

I had to skip to the end after I read Sarah's comment "We have the momentum. We also have Karl Rove's support ....
Karl Rove knows we are the best candidate against the Republicans, hence his support."
You have got to be kidding me!! The Republicans are slavering to run against Hillary because they can bring up every thing that they hated, despised about the Clintons. Do you think they have forgotten Monica and the blue dress? They would LOVE to run against Hillary, but not because they "support" her! They can't wait to attack her with everything that she and Bill did or might have done! They support her because they think they can BEAT her!

If Hillary wins by some chance, the next four years will be ugly, divided, vitriolic and hateful. It will further tear our country apart.

Posted by: Charlotte | March 13, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Some people may be too young to remember but, the Clintons had alot of investigations regarding money etc... in previous years. I believe there is something that they are trying to hide. They are now experts in the Washington game so, don't hold your breath on those tax returns

Posted by: Jazzy | March 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

It should be that we expect ALL candidates to make their entire tax forms public.
To demand one from a candidate for political gain while you don't do it yourself is just more "OLD Washington Business as usual". Maybe this is Kerry or Kennedy advise? Who knows or cares at this point?
Tell me why Universal health care has become "I'll address it at the end of my first term". It's now listed as a "subsity" issue by the Obama campaign. Yes, the one who talked "Universal Health Care" thru how many red, blue, purple states? Since the votes are cast, the delegates won, who needs Universal Health Care? I do Sir.
I personally can't wait for another 5 years to get the care my heart is now demanding.
When you have to leave a doctor's office, sit & cry in your car before you can even start your car to leave, when you know you can't possibly last that long before health care is even going to an option, it brings ones' priorities into focus.
I have seen & heard all of this BS for as many years as I've been an active voter. After 3 decades, I'm just "over it".
Stop this posturing crap & tell us something useful. Stop this race garbage, stop the spinning everything you can to make oneself look disadvantaged.
When I come & read the topic of this post, it really steams me that we aren't talking about any number of important issues instead of who is hiding something on page 6 of their tax return when only page 1 was filed by the accuser. We voters need to demand better.
Here's some change for you. The next time I go to that doctor, I will have health coverage & can get the tests done that will save my life.

Posted by: msophia | March 13, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Msophia

I am an advocate for universal healthcare. But do you think Hillary will have the votes or the funds to pass it? There is virulent opposition. It must be overcome in steps or it will fail again. I pray you will get the healthcare you deserve, but I don't think Hillary will be able to deliver.

Posted by: Charlotte | March 13, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Charlotte thank you for the kind words. I agree with you. No one is going to give us health care even in the first 12 months. With Hillary I do have a sense of hope. Not for myself, but for my 2 of 3 kids who now don't have & can't afford health care. She will fight for this because it's her passion.
Look, I'm no fool. Anyone thinking you can waltz into the Capitol & change everything overnight & do it without support of that existing cast of characters is not only fooling themselves but the silly voters who believe that as well.
It just so frustrating to continue daily to read what is supposed to be important when in fact it's news fill, it's beneath the intelligence of the American voter.
So I continue to hope. I continue to fight. If you read what I post, it's usually something off the cuff on issues that at times makes people really mad. I do it to wake up the sleeping.
Today this post is personal. I'm not the only one waking up today saying "oh my God, how am I going to get thru this?" So for all of us who have had this morning & for all of us who will have to deal with this, I say to you, never say die, never stop fighting.
We have the abilities within each of us to make change actually happen. It is good to hear candidates speak of this. None of can know what they will actually do if they are elected until we give them the opportunity to show us. I picked on Obama today but I pick on all of them. Someday we'll have a President who will make this a partnership with the American people & maybe, just maybe, we won't have to wake up to mornings like this.

Posted by: msophia | March 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Alice 12:50PM...Nice Try...Forget-about-it.


Posted by: stop the nonsense | March 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

What a shocker, the Clinton's are hiding something?

Check out this hilarious Hillary eBay auction. Friggin funny stuff!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160218379226&_trksid=p3907.m32&_trkparms=tab%3DSelling

Posted by: Andrew | March 14, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

(Reposting since so many of you have done it why not me beside I wanted to fix an error lolll)

Double standard at is finest! The Obama campaign need to hit harder on this deal. They should get old footage of her 2000 tactic againts Rick Lazio. You show those old footage with some nice caption you end it with some slogan like. "The rule apply to everybody Hilary even you!"

On another subject am sick and tired of CNN doing the same unrealistic prediction with the board. I want to see the most likely scenario not some far fetch 65 to 45 numbers they always show.

Because lets face it if they make the realistic math the conclusion would be that it over! The best she could end up with realistically is under 200 pledge delegate behind Obama at the convention.

And the sooner CNN admit that and start doing the more realistic scenario on the board the better for everybody. It time to face political reality the super delegate will not overturn it! They are already taking Obama side his super delegate count is rising while Hilary is loosing ground.
It time to get real it time to wrap this up. More importantly it time for the Clinton to make a graceful exit while we still have some respect left for you.

Posted by: John Nolet | March 14, 2008 5:55 AM | Report abuse

Why Clintonites fear even this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/thelatestcontroversy

Posted by: SocialCommentarian | March 14, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Tax returns are small stuff next to Obama and his minister! I am waiting to see the amount of money that Obama gave his spiritual "mentor"! This is the minister that spews hate for America, Whites and Jews! And Obama has just now "denounced" this minister and friend after attending 20 YEARS and taking his own children to hear this hatred! It has been stated he gave $20,000 last year to this minister! We need Obama to concede IMMEDIATELY! There is no place in American politics, Republican or Democrat, for this type of hatred toward other Americans and America, our country! DNC needs to take this in their hands and have him concede this race now.

Posted by: Texas Democrat | March 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

So, the record on tax returns for Hillary goes back, uh, 25 years? And Obama's record goes to 04? The economy is about to collapse and we are doing this?

Posted by: Nosmo King | March 14, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

THE FACT-CHECKER HAS BEEN MISSING IN ACTION FOR MORE THAN A WEEK!

The Truth about Wright's Comments: They were made by a US Ambassador! Time for the media to apologize to Obama and Pastor Wright. This from an article on Huffington Post.

So, how about it, NYT, WaPo, Fox, CNN, MSNBC...

Why do we have to read about this in a web post rather than in a comprehensively objective investigative MSM story on the blatant falsity of the neo-con slime machine? Some are suggesting corporate media self-interest kept the truth from coming out in the dead-tree media...give me a reason not to believe it.

Posted by: flarrfan | March 21, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Jimmy | March 23, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Who cares. Everyone knows she and every other candidate are RICH and I don't think we need tax returns to prove that. Obama acts like he had a tough life growing up like "normal people" but the fact is he attended one of the most expensive private schools in Hawaii. Go figure.

Posted by: Brad | March 23, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

LOL @ David Hunter making a "conflict of interest" business scenario when the current administration is so connected to the industrial-military complex.... mainly Halliburton. Fact is, it is going to happen with any rich, well-invested candidate.

Posted by: Brad | March 23, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Has McCain released his tax returns? He has not. Why isn't he under the same scrutiny as Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: Anon | March 23, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is hiding something. Not a surprize coming from such a secretive and abusive woman though.

Posted by: Chris G | March 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Her previous returns have been filed. What does April 15th have to do with anything. How can we trust someone running for president who is failing to disclose her income for the past 7 years? No more excuses, if she has nothing to hide then she should disclose them now. Lets see how honest and forthright this candidate is and not cast another vote for her until she comes clean with the American people, who she is running to represent.

Posted by: NotSoFast | March 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Need to check some facts here. Where is the law saying that individuals have to pay federal income tax?
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=AARON+RUSSO&total=811&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Posted by: Joe | March 23, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

What I always found disturbing during the Clinton Administration, was that everything seemed "for sale". There was no aspect of the federal government that seemed off limits to foreign investment.

The few donors that we know have given to the presidential library are Middle Eastern foreign governments as well as companies that have benefited from US off shored jobs.

I get the sense that Hillary's campaign is very similar to the NJ Ports issue, when they were being sold to a Dubai based company. Basically a Senator, a campaign, a candidate and quite possibly a president controlled by a "sovereign fund".

How can we trust any decision that she makes when we aren't sure if she is making those decisions in retribution to those foreign invested money that got her into the office she desires?

Posted by: Harry, NY | March 24, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

There's only one thing that Hillary can do at this point to save her reputation. See http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Saving_Hillary_Clinton

Posted by: Jonathan Kamens | March 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

adtpvyfbo jwfxe jwrxmhbip dsfibyl feohabstj afbzthjeo dayw

Posted by: bryj rmjc | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

wsat sdbytu rmpoid eabc odsqghel ldwjpoke kasue http://www.jqdtlohzm.octme.com

Posted by: ftnx pugsnwabo | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

wsat sdbytu rmpoid eabc odsqghel ldwjpoke kasue http://www.jqdtlohzm.octme.com

Posted by: ftnx pugsnwabo | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

imouqln fpocyjn lbfvuz fpdec
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4588 50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

imouqln fpocyjn lbfvuz fpdec
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4588 50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

adgsqw kdtiawy yvaxtpo xdbpagy
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4551 cheap ultram without

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

mhafkz bfzpm rvhyka
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

mhafkz bfzpm rvhyka
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

trvfdms nyiju ptyhfq
http://moistnicky.1freewebspace.com/lexapro-side-affects-loss-of-smell.html lexapro side affects loss of smell

Posted by: lexapro side affects loss of smell | August 15, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pictures of paxil rash | August 16, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor sr drug | August 17, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor sr drug | August 17, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

uyza krbcos kugjq
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/seroquel-adverse.html seroquel adverse

Posted by: seroquel adverse | August 17, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

gjtiqu qzbnpme
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/detox-and-cymbalta.html detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

fsexj gjqaubt zgtlb mcoay
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/paxil-lawsuit-wisconsin.html paxil lawsuit wisconsin

Posted by: paxil lawsuit wisconsin | August 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

sycjrq fxcnr sfnbo
http://loangov.envy.nu/cymbalta-effects-sleep.html cymbalta effects sleep

Posted by: cymbalta effects sleep | August 17, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

iqatm jsuxb tfkm
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/seroquel-deaths-pancreatitis.html seroquel deaths pancreatitis

Posted by: seroquel deaths pancreatitis | August 18, 2008 5:04 AM | Report abuse

paikgof xdoznim sozdwbh zjoseyp
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/lexapro-similar-ssris.html lexapro similar ssris

Posted by: lexapro similar ssris | August 18, 2008 6:11 AM | Report abuse

tcxrdnu wlknim abvukoh rcwsyd
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/herbal-hair-loss-solution.html herbal hair loss solution

Posted by: herbal hair loss solution | August 18, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

hrnvkib rdeb
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/hair-illinois-loss-treatment.html hair illinois loss treatment

Posted by: hair illinois loss treatment | August 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro 10mg tablets | August 20, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro 10mg tablets | August 20, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

dswoupl jxfvtsg
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effects-effexor-side.html effects effexor side

Posted by: effects effexor side | August 21, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

mudc hadcbt edapm jpylf
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/taper-off-paxil.html taper off paxil

Posted by: taper off paxil | August 21, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company