Obama Camp, Getting Down To Business, Slams Hillary On Tax Returns
Obama campaign advisers are already making good on promises to confront Hillary much more aggressively on new fronts, hammering her on a conference call over her failure to release her tax returns.
And in the process, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod got off a pretty good line mocking Hillary's recent "change you can xerox" howler:
"There is no reason she cannot realease her 2006 returns. Talk about change you can Xerox. You can Xerox your tax returns."
Obama advisers, clearly signaling to supporters that they will take aggressive steps to contain whatever momentum Hillary has coming out of yesterday's wins, charged that her refusal to release the returns suggested that she would be less than forthcoming as president.
In response, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson sought to shift the discussion back to the Rezko story, a tale the Hillary camp will be hitting on relentlessly in the weeks ahead. "Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15," Wolfson said, speaking of the Clintons. "Instead of making false attacks, we urge Senator Obama to release all relevant financial and other information related to indicted political fixer Tony Rezko."
As Ben Smith notes, however, "neither campaign has produced any evidence that there's some particular, damning piece of information in the documents they're asking for."
Being above the fray does not mean being a passive punching bag. Independents and cross over Republicans would love to have Obama land a lot of counter punches on Hillary. If he allows her to just continue to sucker punch him, and he does not, in turn, knock her on the ample seat of her pantsuit, then he will be perceived as too passive, like Carter, Dukakis, McGovern, and Stevenson.
He has to fight back when attacked, or voters will consider him to be a patsy.
March 5, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there's nothing damning, release the tax returns.
March 5, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is anyone supposed to know what's in the tax returns if they haven't been released? Obama's camp released a memo that highlighted lots of info that is included in tax forms.
For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:
Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
Amount of income for spouses by source
Amount of stock gains and losses
Gross income for the couple
Amount earned from stock dividends
Amount of household employment taxes paid
Personal exemptions taken
Charitable contributions made
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/03/fighting_fire_w.html
March 5, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
More from the Obama campaign memo:
"Senator Clinton has also claimed that she is too “busy” to release her tax returns. Given the fact she is able to loan her campaign $5 million, you would think the Clintons would be able to hire an accountant. The reality is that she wants to keep this information hidden from voters. The people of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and the rest of the country should wonder why."
March 5, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the point here, not whether there is evidence of wrongdoing, but the question of full disclosure? Clinton loaned her campaign $5MM from a joint account. As I understand it, Bill Clinton is allowed to draw a salary from his foundation and the Clinton Library, which has, as we know, some heavy hitter donors. If that money has found it's way into their accounts, isn't that something we should know about now?
Likewise, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 should be pretty easy to produce. Their net worth has increased exponentially since Bill left office. Better to get this out there sooner than later. After all, vetting is apparently the order of the day.
March 5, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see.
Obama releases financial information about his coordinated house/land purchase with Rezko --- or --- Hillary releases tax information that has been prepared by top tax professionals knowing that she was a candidate for public office?
Sen. Obama loses that trade-off in a very big way. He keeps the Rezko story on the radar. He ran from a press conference rather than address questions about the house/land deal.
March 5, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you've already answered the questions being posed, why answer them again? The Rezko thing is such a dead end for the Clintons; at this point, it's only a bogeyman they they love bringing up whenever they don't feel like discussing real issues. Think some guy who can't afford health care and is living paycheck to paycheck gives a damn who Tony Rezko is?
March 5, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko keeps coming up in the media. Let's not totally blame Hillary for that--no matter what she said in a debate. Obama likes transparency and he's going to have to have news conferences about this with details--maybe even a campaign ad as a "counter the falsehoods" kind of thing.
Lawyers have a disadvantage since they can seem evasive on things like this. Bill and Hillary certainly seemed evasive with the press--Whitewater was one thing they were evasive about.
It's simply not doing his campaign any good to "seem to be" less than transparent. Do this over and over and over again as needed.
Tries one's patience...but I think it's needed.
March 5, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree entirely. No one should be mentioning Rezko more often than Obama. Once this story is thoroughly aired out, all its taint and power will evaporate.
March 5, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If there's nothing damning, release all records on Rezko," replies the Clinton campaign.
Here's the deal on transparency. Gather and release all known documents on Rezko and demand the tax return data plus something else.
Axelroad is better than this.
March 5, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What haven't they released?
March 5, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, Obama needs to take the time to sit down and gather copies of every damned document known to him about Rezko and his involvement with him--including the land deal.
Put it in a briefing book; have Michael Moore do a documentary about it...who cares but make it accurate, detailed, thorough, completely transparent, and completely available.
This mess keeps coming up and Obama HAS to get in front of it. The charge of transparency and release of all Rezko records may be bogus as hell but there's no reason for Obama not to have a news conference a week devoted to Rezko if that's what it will take to shut folks up about it.
This is long overdue.
March 5, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont think having Michael Moore do a documentary on it would be the most accurate way to show it....
Would probably be damned entertaining though.
March 5, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. You have to specify what documents you even want. Obama is asking for a specific set of documents: Bill and Hillary's Tax returns for 2006 and 7.
You on the the other hand are asking for something like an Iraq WMD hunt: You don't know what they are or where they are but you're demanding they be turned over.
Figure out what specific documents you want, and ask for them.
March 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic voters do have a right to know. Didn't all the other candidates release their tax returns? Seriously. I don't know.
The issue would go away quickly if Clinton released the documents. The Clinton campaign seems to be more willing to try and deflect the issue. It'll be interesting if Obama will be successful in getting the press to change the story at all. One would think that the press would be very interested in what is inside those documents.
March 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the other candidates released their tax returns.
We also still don't know the donors to the Clinton Library or the Clinton Foundation, who apparently include some of the Saudi heavy hitters. Not good news for our dependency on foreign oil or Middle East wars of choice.
March 5, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, Democrats, talk about policies and solutions, not this sort of crap.
March 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the problem there is that Barack did that while HIllary didn't. Doesn't mean Barack has to stoop to doing things exactly like Hillary (i.e. darkening Barack's face in their campaign ads), but he has to hit back hard in the areas she's vulnerable.
March 5, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
BREAKING NEWS : OBAMA FIRES TIM RUSSERT AND JOE SCARBOUROUGH
HE KEEPS CHRIS MATTHEWS AND KEITH OBERMAN(hints they may be gone after pennsylvania)
jack cafferty may be in the running to replace them
March 5, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know what she's hiding under those pants!
March 5, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If there's nothing damning, release the tax returns."
Or if there is, don't?
March 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they haven't been disclosed, how can the other side produce evidence of damning information? The records are the evidence; the fact that the Clintons have failed to disclose is damning enough.
March 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering that the average person in this country is fairly guarded about their own tax returns, I doubt the bombastic demand for Hillary's tax returns is going to get much traction with voters in the upcoming contests.
March 5, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering that the average person in this country is fairly guarded about their own tax returns, I doubt the bombastic demand for Hillary's tax returns is going to get much traction with voters in the upcoming contests.
Actually it's a pretty common practice for candidates to release their tax info:
On the one hand, I'd be a bit surprised if there was anything to find in HRC's, but on the other, why the stall?
March 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Common practice to release tax returns, yes. Aggressive confrontation that matters to the public? I'm skeptical.
Why the stall? It's the Clintons. Is anyone surprised? I don't think so.
This strategy is an egghead legal/accounting angle. Obama needs to hit back with an emotional strategy, not an egghead one. Only eggheads care about egghead arguments, so this will have no impact whatsoever on Clinton's voter base.
And anyway, she's not going to release them until after PA, so it's wasted effort.
March 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This strategy is an egghead legal/accounting angle. Obama needs to hit back with an emotional strategy, not an egghead one. Only eggheads care about egghead arguments, so this will have no impact whatsoever on Clinton's voter base.
Clinton's non-egghead voter base? That almost sounds like a back-handed way of saying "low information voter."
March 5, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, dumb so-and-so has something to hide arguments always work.
Ask Hillary's biggest supporter in Ohio, Gov. Ted Strickland. It was his main campaign issue in 2006.
March 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, let me recast what I'm saying as an attack strategy that appeals to the intellect vs. one that appeals to the emotions. I have this dichotomy in mind after watching a clip of John Kerry defending Obama against Clinton, and I thought, Uh-oh. The Kerry Kiss Of Death. Before the March 4 primaries, Obama had the edge with appealing to voters' emotions, but Clinton managed to successfully steal some of that edge from him with the 3 a.m. ad in Texas. However, Obama also squandered some of his emotional "capital" himself by bungling his response to the NAFTA issue. Obama is prone to the same (disastrous) eggheadedness as Kerry was. It's the flip side of Obama's "cool."
March 5, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. False equivalence.
We know Hillary and Bill filed tax returns that they won't release because, well, we don't have them, yet we see they're not in jail for tax evasion. To counter this, Wolfson, conjures up the notion that there is "financial and other information related" to Rezko that has not been released without telling us what, exactly, he thinks this information is and what basis he has for believing it exists.
And, true to form, Ben Smith says that real documents that are known to exist are equivalent to hypothetical documents that Wolfson basically just pulled out of his ass during a conference call and TPM compliments him for his perspicacity.
March 5, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, good point. I'm happy for Obama to hammer Hillary on just this issue all the way until PA.
What are Bill and Hillary trying to hide?
March 5, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's going to be hard for the Clintons' to keep kicking the tax returns can down the road.
March 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 15th? Obama asked for Clinton's 2006 tax returns, not her 2007 tax returns. That excuse makes no sense. I'm not usually one to complain about unbalanced reporting, but come on Greg, where's the journalism here? When people offer excuses that make no sense, it's reasonable to assume that they're hiding something. But instead of criticizing Wolfson's lameass response, you note that the Obama campaign has produced no evidence of anything damaging in the returns. Isn't this the same crap for which TPM always criticizes MSM--dutifully reporting the he-said, she-said without calling out senseless positions?
March 5, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg left the "journalism" in his other pant suit. which he never wears, oddly enough. Greg's rarely worn pant suits=EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 5, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A DRAMATIC GRAPH OF HILLARY CLINTON'S RECENT METEORIC RISE IN WEALTH...
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
ALSO INCLUDEDS A LARGE COLLECTION OF LINKS TO ARTICLES ABOUT BILL CLINTON'S RECENT CORPORATE WHORING.
March 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko financial information --
How was the deal financed by Obama and Rezko?
Was there a mortgage and did anyone have a co-signer?
Was collateral posted and who owned the collateral?
What sworn/notarized financial statements were provided to the bank (assuming a mortgage)?
How was the sale of the house and land coordinated? Did they use the same real estate lawyer?
March 5, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me help you out. Check out the chicago tribune website and search rezko. You'll find about 300 stories answering all your questions, that have been asked and answered over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Then call your doctor to see if they discovered a cure for rezko tourette's syndrome yet.
Now, how about all the docs and info on the 130 million dollar payment to the clintons from the kazakhstan uranium deal with the dictator. Or how about all the "donor" information to the clintons' "foundations." How about the whitehouse docs? Or how about an explaination and press conference by clinton explaining in detail what papers she pryed from vince foster's cold dead fingers?
March 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
they have been asked but not answered ....read todays editorial in the chicago sun times.....he refuses to sit down with investagative reporters to answer questions
March 5, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't have to. I'm sure it was written by sweet who obviously has an agenda, like you. As I said, go back and look at all the stupid articles written by the tribune. They went through this crap with a fine tooth comb and he has repeatedly answered the same stupid questions over, and over again. I'd get sick of answering the same questions over and over again.
How about the 130 million from the kazahkstan uranium deal. Any of that cash wind up in the clintons' campaign?
March 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair questions. Here's my answer:
Obama took out a mortgage. The real property secures the loan (no other collateral). No evidence of funds of any kind received from or provided by Rezko as downpayment. I assume Barack and Michelle are joint tenants.
Rezko's wife took out a mortgage after putting down, I think $125M as a down payment. Subsequently sold the property for a profit of $50M.
No such thing as sworn or notarized financial statements. Probably tax returns and bank accounts to establish downpayment.
The parcels were legally separate, so the most coordination that would be needed is same escrow agent.
Have you never bought property before?
March 5, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean $125k and $50k, not $125M and $50M (or else land prices in Chicago have skyrocketed!).
Some people don't have any interest in the answers to these questions. They just want to throw stuff at the wall and hope some of it sticks.
March 5, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Small nit: "M" should be "K" no?
The adjoining property was eventually sold for $575,000. Obama bought the small adjoining portion from Mrs. Rezko for $104K, which was well over the appraised value.
March 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Publicus:
Pretty good guesses but unless the documents are released, or Sen. Obama answers the questions, we will never know the true nature of the house/land deal. (And the method of house/land closings vary from state to state. In Virginia, the broker does much of the work, but it may or may not be different in Chicago.)
March 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael A and Publicus, I don't have a real disagreement with what you're saying. However, I'm not the one who needs the answers. Instead, I want to know if the females and older voters who never stop voting for Hillary would be influenced by Obama's answers.
The issue is not going away--no matter how much it may try one's patience. Obama will have to answer over and over and over. Have news conferences about it.
The one thing he can't do is use his lawyerly training and instincts to evade. That's what the Clintons did and think how well that's worked out.
This stuff is going on with or without Hillary's support. It has to be dealt with--perhaps over and over and over again.
My two cents.
March 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was trying to come up with a game plan on this issue as well. I tend to agree that he should do a news conference on it. What he should do is get all the stupid articles together in a binder and hand them out to all the press people. Say see, how many times do I have to go through this, but I will for the hundredth time and answer the stupid questions again. Maybe that's how to deal with it.
I would also have a blow up of the house in the binder. Its a very modest middle class house and speaks volumes about who he is and where he comes from. It sure isn't a clintonion mansion.
Then spin it at the end for the clintons to answer the questions about their "donors," the 130 million from the kazakhstan uranium deal, the whitehouse papers, etc.
Maybe that's a plan.
March 5, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a plan. I'm not even sure that one news conference would be enough. It's going to have to be done over and over and over getting every little ole nit pick factoid dealt with until there is a silence when Obama or an aide asks "Next Question?"
Bore these damned people with details. Stay patient and answer every little ole nutty detailed question with full and complete accuracy and full and complete patience.
Really, Obama has to END this made-up stuff on Rezko.
March 5, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, that's the thing about this nonscandal. The mere fact that the questions have been answered isn't good enough because the answers given don't feed the Clintonites/MSM irrebutable presumption that there must be something scandalous that's being hidden.
blockquote>How was the deal financed by Obama and Rezko?
The deal wasn't financed by Rezko and Obama. Obama financed the purchase of his house with alittle-known, highly arcane financial intrament known as a "mortgage" from a mysterious business known as a "bank" called "Northern Trust."
Rezko financed the purchase of the adjoining lot with a separate mortgage from a different bank, Mutual Bank of Harvey.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0611010273nov01,1,5370479.story?page=2
See above. They each had their own mortgages. As to cosigners, see below.
Okay, follow along with me here. They each had their own "mortgage", each from a separate lender. Now I realize that these mortgage thingees are insanely exotic financial instruments that are far outside the experience of most people, so bear with me. See, in a mortgage agreement, the property you are purchasing actually serves as the collateral for the loan. No, really, its true. And, interestingly, (okay, I know this sounds shady too) lending institutions do not ordinarily ask for additional collateral or cosigners when the appraised value of the house is at or above the amount lent. Yes, I know, I know, it's all highly suspicious that one of these "banks" would do something like this, but there is simply no evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, this is not a rational question. When you take out a mortgage, banks ask you for your own financial statements. Banks do not ask for the financial statements of people with whom they are not doing business. Now I realize that in their highly active fantasy life, Hillaroids imagine that there just must be a financial statement that was submitted from Jimmy Hoffa or Tony Soprano somewhere in the Obamas' morgtage papers, but--and this is hard to grasp, I know--there is no rational basis for believing that the bank that lent the money would have had any interest in obtaining that information in order to write a fully secured mortgage.
As to the first question, how is that relevant to anything? What possible wrongdoing can be connected to the manner in which the closings were coordinated, given that Obama has acknowledged that they were, in fact, coordinated at the owner's insistence. As to the second question, a) They had different realtors who dealt separately with the owner. No way would they have ever had the same lawyer. The reason you involve a lawyer in a house purchase is so you'll have someone to sue if there's a defect in title. If there was going to be a title dispute, it would have been between the two of them.
And that's the thing about this nontroversy. No matter how many questions they answer, the MSM and Hillary's people can always think of more and, however irrelevant the answer to it would be to anything, they can spin the fact that it has not been answered as being sinister and troubling.
"Senator, what color was the paper that your mortgage lender used for its application form? Was it the same color as Mr. Rezko's mortgage application? Why don't you know? Are there any other colored papers in your desk? Did Mr. Rezko ever use paper that was the same color?
"Senator, did the smoke from your fireplaces cross the property owned by Mr. Rezko's property? Did he give your permission to let your smoke cross his property? What did you give him in return for letting your smoke cross his property? Nothing? Do you expect us to believe that?
"Senator? Why did you pay him more for the strip of land you bought from him than its appraised value? Yes, we know you said you wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but were you not aware that trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety might later be construed as improper? Why didn't you pay him more than he paid for it? Are you against capitalism? Do you think profit is bad? If you did think about paying him more than he paid for it, was it because you had a preexisting arrangement?
Senator, is it true that Jimmy Hoffa is buried on that property? Why has it taken you this long to deny that Jimmy Hoffa was buried there? Who else isn't buried there? Why did you conceal that?
What are you trying to hide Senator?"
March 5, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Obama's financed their help with the Real Estate firm of McAuliffe & Jordan.
%20%20Financial%20Engineering%20in%20the%20Clinton%20House%20Deal">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E5D8133AF937A3575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1>%20%20Financial%20Engineering%20in%20the%20Clinton%20House%20Deal
Just a thought. If one lives in glass houses, best to keep one's yappers shut.
March 5, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are they saying they haven't filed taxes for the last 7 years??
March 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary releases tax information that has been prepared by top tax professionals knowing that she was a candidate for public office..."
So just release 'em already. If they are squeaky clean, having been prepared by the nation's top professionals, release the damn returns. If there is nothing squirrelly about the returns, it's immediately a non-issue. Releasing them shuts everyone up about this issue - if the returns are "clean." Delaying their release only serves to keep this dialogue, and its accompanying speculation, going.
March 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm not releasing the tax returns until I'm the democratic nominee" sounds very ominous (to put a word to it). It's like when someone tells you to try something they cooked. You say halfway through eating it, "This is good. What's in it?" And they say with a cryptic smile, "I'll tell you when you finish." Whether or not there's anything wrong with the tax returns, that stance was very off-putting.
March 5, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Common practice to release tax returns, yes. Aggressive confrontation that matters to the public? I'm skeptical.
I'm skeptical too, but then I thought the 3AM phone call ad was silly, so what do I know about what will resonate?
March 5, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why release something that is clean....knowing you will cry about it until you are blue in the face about it until I get you right where I want you. Where I want you is at a point where you are in a Rezko phase that I can now talk about it. You bring my tax issue up I bring the Rezko issue up. I know my tax issue is clean....do you know you are clean??????????? Gotcha!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 5, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only clean, but articulate.
March 5, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tax returns/Rezko equivalence is apples and oranges. Obama has released his tax returns; Clinton has not. Rezko has nothing to do with tax returns. Apples to apples for Rezko would be, for Clinton:
Hsu
Kazakhstan uranium deal
First lady library files
Whitewater
The $17 million fraud trial in LA
Peter Paul
Ron Burkle
Mark Richards
Whitewater
and so on...
March 5, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why release something that is clean....knowing you will cry about it until you are blue in the face about it until I get you right where I want you. Where I want you is at a point where you are in a Rezko phase that I can now talk about it. You bring my tax issue up I bring the Rezko issue up. I know my tax issue is clean....do you know you are clean??????????? Gotcha!!!!!!!!!!!! Bad move.
March 5, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did the clintons spend the 130 million from the kazakhstan uranium deal on? Any of that money given to the campaign? Are they owned by a kazakhstan dictator now?
March 5, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chicago Sun Times:
Sen. Obama, time to call us about Rezko: (312) 321-2417
March 4, 2008
Jury selection began Monday in the trial of political influence peddler Tony Rezko. This would be the time -- before a single witness takes the stand -- for Barack Obama to finally share every detail of his relationship with Rezko.
Rezko stands accused of funneling state business to companies that lined his pockets and made campaign contributions to Gov. Blagojevich. Rezko allegedly directed $10,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate.
The criminal charges against Rezko in no way implicate Obama in any wrongdoing, but they do raise the question of dealings between the two men.
As recently as Sunday, on ABC's "This Week" program, Obama's campaign strategist, David Axelrod, insisted that Obama has fully responded to every question posed by reporters. But this is not so.
For months, Sun-Times investigative reporters have had a standing request to meet with Obama, face to face, to get answers to questions such as these:
• How many fund-raisers did Rezko throw for Obama?
• Obama is donating $150,000 to charity that Rezko brought into the campaign. But how much in all did Rezko raise?
• Did Rezko find jobs for Obama backers in the Blagojevich administration or elsewhere?
• Why did Obama only recently admit -- after Bloomberg News broke the story -- that Rezko had toured his South Side mansion with him in 2004 before he bought it?
Dribs and drabs of people's lives have a most unfortunate way of coming out in trials.
March 5, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC claims time and time again that she's been fully vetted. HA! Unitl we have those tax returns that is simply and plainly false. The last time the Clintons "released" all tax records(in 1992) prior to an election the conveniently left out the 1978 and 1979 tax returns. The tax returns that showed Hillary had made a 10,000% cattle-futures profit that caught the VRWC attention.
So is Clinton not releasing her tax returns because something may appear scandalous? But that really isn't the issue is it? We have been promised the returns, on or about April 15, so she evidently has no interest in keeping them private for the GE. The conclusion I can draw from the very Clintonesque dodge is that she is keeping them secret from Democrats. She planned on having the nomination sewed up by the time she released the documents. Democrats would be stuck with whatever she and Bill have been up to since they left the White House. We would be left to defend the Clintons. Again! No thanks. I'll pass on that one. I did it for eight years. I'm sick of all the obfuscation and dodging. The Clintons need to come clean. Now.
March 5, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No tax returns until April 15th? That gives Obama six weeks to hammer her about them. While I am sure the returns are in compliance with IRS regulations, they are bound to raise lots of questions.
From what I have read, Clinton's income has increased dramatically in the last six years. Her blue collar supporters might not be so inclined to identify with her when they see that she made tens of millions in the last couple of years.
If the Clintons have been enjoying 20+% returns from hedge fund investments and other exotic investment vehicles out of the reach of a 401(k), that also will not go over so big with her base.
Any foreign income from speeches, consultancy etc is generate media scrutiny.
Rezko, Rezko. Whitewater. Whitewater.
Obama ought to nail her on relatively unknown New Square Four scandal. Her husband pardoned four Hassidic Jews from upstate NY when it was politically expedient for his wife's senate campaign. The New Square Four were nasty lowlife crooks who stole $60 million from the NYC Board of Ed and they didn't deserve a pardon.
March 5, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personnaly don't want Rezko becoming the equivalent of Whitewater. Hillary was the idiot on Whitewater--she dragged her feet in a lawyerly fashion until, by God, about everybody in the media thought there was something going on.
My lesson from that? Take non-issues like Rezko and provide all of the accurate and detailed answers with the patience of Job. Repeat and repeat until the story dies out. Answer every damned little nit-picking question until the story dies out. Repeat as many times as necessary.
This should have already been done by Obama and his staff. It's not too late to get it done NOW.
March 5, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"..will be made available on or around April 15"
because maybe it takes a year from when they were filed for the Xerox to warm up?
March 5, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secrecy and hypocrisy:
Not releasing her files...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351
...while bemoaning about how secretive the Bush administration is.
March 5, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"April 15th? Obama asked for Clinton's 2006 tax returns, not her 2007 tax returns. That excuse makes no sense. I'm not usually one to complain about unbalanced reporting, but come on Greg, where's the journalism here? When people offer excuses that make no sense, it's reasonable to assume that they're hiding something. But instead of criticizing Wolfson's lameass response, you note that the Obama campaign has produced no evidence of anything damaging in the returns. Isn't this the same crap for which TPM always criticizes MSM--dutifully reporting the he-said, she-said without calling out senseless positions?"
Another superb post!
March 5, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
""..will be made available on or around April 15"
because maybe it takes a year from when they were filed for the Xerox to warm up?"
Defies simple logic doesn't it?
March 5, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the 5m came from Bill Clinton dealing with Dubai. Well, before he gave up dealing with Dubai Bill was a paid agent of the crown prince of Dubai. That in addition to the roughly million dollars they gave his library, in addition to the probably $600,000 in speaking fees he got, and in addition to the scholarships for Dubai children they endowed through his library and loan to Hillary. Therefore, show your TAX RETURN.
March 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi
March 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. When Obama claims to have fully disclosed all the details of his relationship with Rezko, and then more information comes to the surface (such as his touring the property with Rezko) it really damages his credibility. He's got to do better than his last media conference on this topic.
March 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 23rd is "on or around April 15th," so they may just hold on to them until after the PA primary.
March 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully now that the media has embarrassingly fallen for Hillary's media-baiting ploy they will stop their lovefest and actually start to question their Clinton-approved reality. I want real questions, and I want a real picture of how this race stands, because Hillary did not have a huge "comeback" last night, and she is just as screwed as she was yesterday morning. My full post-election rundown:
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/28045053
March 5, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, at least Obama only bought Rezko a cigar.
March 5, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another negative attack from Obama, that is overlooked by the media
http://attacktimeline.com/
March 5, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Then you can respond in the weekly news conference held on the Rezko matter until the only attendess are the folks wanting an Obama autograph--and that would not be the media. Wear the media out on this stuff.
This isn't hard, it's just trying.
March 5, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest a tag line for Obama campaign:
"What will their political enemies put us through if we give them another chance?"
Flash cuts of the Clinton baggage - Ken Starr, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, impeachment moments, Monica, right wing talk show hosts sound bits, embittered citizens expressing their visceral negativity toward Clintons - on and on...
Negative isn't aimed at Clintons - it's the baggage they bring and we can be assured won't go away.
March 5, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, 12 million people don't seem to care about Hillary's "baggage."
March 5, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, I am an Obama camper, and I could care less about those old scandals. However, the First Lady records are very pertinent to Hillary's 'experience' claims.
What I think is worth caring about are the eight years since those old scandals were hot. The Marc Rich pardon, Hillary's brothers earning $ by facilitating pardons, the money web enmeshing the Clintons since 2000 and the source of a tens of millions of dollars rise in their income, the Hsu matter, the dishwashers donations, Hillary going to bat [hiding behind Schumer's name] to overturn tariffs on products from the far east. A whole lot of information is hidden by the Clintons who expect us to buy Hillary without looking under the hood and kicking the tires.
March 5, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Times Online:
"Where does Nadhmi Auchi fit in?
Mr Rezko ended up in prison in January for violating bail by failing to declare a $3.5 million loan from Nadhmi Auchi, a British-Iraqi billionaire who was convicted of corruption in the Elf scandal in France in 2003. Mr Auchi was involved with Mr Rezko in a pizzeria business in the Midwest as well as a 62-acre property development in Chicago, and had lent millions of dollars to him.
An earlier $3.5 million dollar loan to Mr Rezko was made only weeks before Mrs Rezko bought the garden next to the Obamas’ new house. Mr Auchi says the loan was for business reasons."
March 5, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
130 million dollars from kazakhstan uranium deal. Where did the money go? Was some of it given to the clintons' campaign. Is there a side deal with the kazakhstan dictator to get favors from a clinton third term in the whitehouse?
Now these are serious questions and issues, not rezko.
March 5, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appears as Hillary win with Negative attacks has poisoned this forum. It is not a positive sign when the only way to win is to destroy the character of your fellow democrats.
Perhaps it would help if we tried to be more civil to each other in the forum and let our respective candidates do all the mud slinging. ( Somehome me thinks that once the mud slinging starts, it is hard to stop a free for all. )
March 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
meh. Who cares about her tax returns, nail her on her leadership skills...she is weak in that arena IMO.
March 5, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
ready
I think they care, just need to be thinking about it more.
March 5, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush administration refuses to release any records of how they got telecoms to comply with the Protect America act.
In fact, records and emails, even evidence against those held at Guantanamo, have been suppressed to thwart any fair judicial review into wrongdoing over the last 8 years.
So when Hillary is asked to release her tax return, well, if the Bush administration witholds records, why can't Hillary?
So says BushCo, so say the Clintons.
March 5, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sad.
Barry Obama got his clock cleaned last night and now his message guru Dave Axelrod is changing the Obama theme from "Hope" to "Despair", from "staying above the fray" to "launching baseless personal attacks".
I want my "new kind of politics" back! :(
I feel like I've been suckered in by Obama. My "Hopes" have been squashed.
-signed, Obamaton concern troll
March 5, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is his clock cleaned when he's still ahead?
Trolling is certainly a kind of politic. Just not ours.
March 5, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of full disclosure, I must say I am 100% behind Hillary in this campaign. She is clearly the best qualified democrat running.
However, I feel compelled to offer this friendly advice -- this is a loser issue for Obama. The Clinton's tax return's for goodness sake -- that's the best this guy can do is the tax returns? Obama, you are about to learn that once you open that door a whole host of monsters are going to come rushing through looking for you Mr. & Mrs. Obama and Mr. Rezko and Mr. Goolsbee and the Canadian consulate, etc.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have been trashed by the best, the RNC, Mr. Obama you’re no RNC and the harder you try to be the farther you'll fall in the eyes of democrats everywhere.
March 5, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think these issues, while late, are being addressed by the campaign.
Unfortunately, for you, they aren't ending as well as yours.
March 5, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mikey500's "friendly advice" sounds like Hillary talking points. At it's worst, Rezko is a Chicago scandal. At it's best, it is nothing at all. The Clintons have made mega-millions since leaving the White House and with Hillary in the Senate with highly questionable international transactions involving foreign governments. The Clintons have used those millions to subsidize Hillary campaign.
The nation needs to know where the Clinton millions have come from? There is no honest reason not to release her tax returns.
March 5, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary tribe love to use Rezco as a smoke screen to obscure Hillary's suspicious refusal to reveal her finances.
The Clintons have become multi-millionaires since leaving office in 2001. How much of that wealth has come from Bill Clinton's lucrative "consulting" and "speaking" fees paid by corporations and foreign governments? How much have come from the highly questionable business deals? As a former president, Bill Clinton receives national security briefings. Is he free to sell his well informed perspective to the highest bidders?
What is the Clintons' financial relationship to the secretive Clinton Library and Foundation? Does Bill get a salary? Expenses? Staff support? Do those benefits subsidize his campaigning? Who are the Clinton Library and Foundation donors? Are there conflicts of interests with Hillary's Senate roles? With national security interests? With Hillary's campaign?
When Bill travels internationally does the Foundation pay his expenses? What about when travels international lending his stature as former president to help "friends" broker lucrative mega-million dollar business deals? When those friends subsequently contribute mega-millions to the Clinton Foundation, what percentage is kept for "operating expenses?" 10 percent of $120 million = $12 million. Is there evidence of money for influence quid pro quo?
As NYT columnist Frank Rich wrote in January: "Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. 'What’s your recommendation?' Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”
Did Maggie Williams, Hillary's current campaign manager, earlier manage the Clinton Foundation?
Now that the Clintons have loaned Hillary's Campaign $5 million, citizens must demand information about their income and sources, information about conflicts of interest with Clinton Library and Foundation donors, and Hillary's White House Records.
Voters must have this information immediately. Anything less will appear to be a cover-up.
March 5, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol! Best Analogy of the Day Award.
March 5, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
party-of-one,
I offer it as friendly advice; please take it or leave it. As a Hillary supporter I hope Obama does go overtly negative (he's been running a covertly negative campaign all along).
My larger point is that Obama will become everything he's been campaigning against, and when he does, he's finished -- a hypocrite no one can believe in.
March 5, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it...what is the big deal about tax returns? I hope Obama and his campaign keep hammering Clinton on her returns, because it's a narrow, stupid issue that voters other than the whipped-up partisans on the internets don't give a hoot about. Going after her on this issue will make Obama seem negative, narrow-minded, desperate, and desperate to get the focus off of the financial murkiness surrounding him.
Most voters really DO NOT care about the Clinton's tax returns, especially because the Clintons have promised they will release them.
I sort of wonder if by promising to release her returns later Hillary is pulling a nifty jujitsu move on Obama. By harping on this issue, he's taking the bait. Really, voters want to hear about substantive issues, particular concerning our tanking economy.
March 6, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's no fool. She knows a great deal about her family's business dealings would all of a sudden be available to the average voter. I've already downloaded and printed out the Obamas' 2006 return, and while interesting, there's certainly nothing scandalous about it.
I find Hillary's comment "well, I HAVE been sort of busy lately, but I'll try to have them released by April 15th". First of all, does she really think we expect her to take time before sdhe goes to bed to photocopy each page of the return herself, while she's yawning in exhaustion? All it takes is one phone call to her CPA, and the deed is done. I've faxed many, many returns to banks, attorneys, mortgage brokers etc. and it's just no big deal.
I can only assume there's information in the supporting documents that could be quite embarrassing. Suck as tax shelters---limited partnerships---stock sales----and donations (or the total lack thereof). Rumors have abounded that the Clintons are entirely too thick with the Saudis; perhaps the returns verify that.
One last thing: I really expect her to try and release just page one and two fof Form 1040 and say "there! I've done what you asked!"
March 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
2007 returns must be filed by April 15. But people are asking for her 2006 returns, which should have been prepared a year ago.
March 6, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in 2000, Wolfson was demanding to see the tax returns of Hillary Clinton's rival for her Senate campaign:
"In recent months, the team has been trying to focus public scrutiny on Lazio. Wolfson himself, along with a Democratic State Committee member dressed as Uncle Sam, showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem in August, taunting Lazio with the first lady's New York property tax returns and challenging him to release his returns. In any other campaign, it might have been the candidate who seized such a photo op; but with his boss invested in preserving her dignity, it occasionally falls to Wolfson"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDB1739F934A2575AC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
March 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Bill was going up against Herbert Walker .. experience didn't matter.
When Hillary was running for Senate in 2000 on nothing but name recognition, experience didn't matter.
Now when she's going up against Obama, not only does it matter but it should be your deciding factor.
What are the odds that if she's ever matched up against McCain, it suddenly won't matter anymore.
March 6, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC like Bill before her knows that the records have to be released if she is the nominee. Do you really think she is hiding records of donations to the KKK or something ridiculous. More likely they will let everyone scream and scream that they must be hiding something until it hits fever pitch then show the records and then laugh as all of the "there must be something bad" screamers are presented with a yawn. Be careful what you ask for.
March 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink