Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama and openness
Here again, I quest for Obama's supporters to consider their man as critically as they do Clinton.
There's been a lot of talk on here about Clinton not releasing last year's tax returns. I agree,
we want our politicians to be transparent - it's slightly hypocritical as we want things from them that we would not give ourselves, but hey - they're the ones running for office.
McCain hasn't released his tax returns, but I'm sure you're all equally incensed by that.
Now, Obama is pushing this tax return issue hard, and has released last year's tax returns, but only last year's. There
are 20-30 years of Clinton tax returns in the public domain, and $50 million wastefully spent in the '90s says that she's never done anything fraudulent.
We aren't we clamouring to see Obama's history of tax returns, especially during the period he was closest with Rezko. Do we only care where his money came from last year? I think it's a dangerous tack for Obama's camp to take, making an issue out of this, unless they release all of his records for the last x number of years.
Anyone out there agree?
Comments (14)
If and when Hillary releases her 2006 return, I will join with you in asking BOTH candidates to release prior years.
March 17, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is that the Clintons income spiked dramatically AFTER her husband left office, and there are several cases brought and allegations made against them for unscrupulous fundraising and financing. As for Obama and Rezko, the Chicago Tribune has infact reviewed his tax information, and this last weekend their editorial board came to the conclusion that there is no story to be found, so your point is mute.
March 17, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The word is "moot", not "mute".
March 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice reiteration of the talking points.
the CLintons' "20 years of tax returns" are meaningless if they do not cover her years as a Senator, and the years where Bill actually made some money. So this premise is a total ruse. It is completely reasonable to ask if the money Bill has made has any bearing on her Senate votes or how she would conduct herself as President. Let's remember, there was plenty of unfounded nonsense thrown at the Clintons during the '90s; but campaign money, Hillary's brother shilling for pardons -- these things were true. So there is a history of playing fast and furious with how money filters to the betterment of the Clintons. "Old news", maybe. Norman Hsu is recent news, and gets far less coverage than Rezko. No matter how much the Obama-haters want to spin it and use the one shady Chicago contributor (God, people -- it's Chicago! If that's all there is against Obama in Chicago, he's truly a miracle candidate), there is no wrongdoing on the part of Obama. None. Examine it -- of course. But to find one shady campaign donor, after the pattern of shady campaign deals of the CLintons over their entire career -- come on.
Obama is releasing all of his tax returns, I believe this week or certainly within the next few weeks.
Bill's foundation and library coffers have to be examined to ascertain if there are conflicts of interest, potential favors, etc. He's introduced a uranium miner to the dictator of Kazakhstan, who then received a lucrative mining deal. Then gave a huge sum to Bill's foundation. These are issues that may or may not have merit; but they must be in the public domain before we can make an informed choice about Hillary.
The Clintons were vetted in the '90's. They are almost completely unvetted since 2001.
We know for a fact that the sheer dollar amount of Hillary's earmarks are one of the highest in the Senate, throughout her career. Her refusal to divulge them is patently dishonest. Obama divulged his, and took some nasty hits as they were picked apart. It's interesting that those "journalists" did not mention that Hillary refused to divulge any of this information.
Obama has been more transparent than any politician in recent history. Hillary is on her way to her usual secretive pattern.
And the Constitution -- Obama has been clear that he will reverse the disastrous damage done to the Constitution by Bush. Hillary has been silent.
Hillary likes the idea of being the unitary executive.
That alone loses my vote for her.
March 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has asked for McCain's returns as well.
March 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should do a little research before you post.
The Chicago Tribune has copies of years of Obama's returns. And most definitely the years that this house deal was going on.
What isn't in the public domain are the clinton returns from when they left the white house till now.
What isn't talked about is that the clinton's needed a friend to put up collateral to buy there house in NY.
March 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
To answer your question...
No, but thanks for asking.
March 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want Clinton to release her tax returns because I suspect she's done anything fraudulent. I want to see who she's taking money from. It's critical on the issue of universal healthcare. Obama's mortgage is small beans when compared to a radical proposal for healthcare. I won't believe any talking points until I know Hillary isn't going to simply give the healthcare industry a profit bonanza with her mandate.
March 17, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has released his tax returns for the past eight years.
March 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you 100%. And I'm an Obama supporter. But from what I understand, he had released them to the Chicago papers when he was running for the Senate, and it is my understanding that he will be re-releasing them in the near future. I look forward to seeing them, as well as hopefully, the Clinton's. As well as the library donor lists, and the White House Records. I'm all for airing all the laundry now.
And while there are many years of Clinton tax records out there, the argument that that is a reason for not releasing the latest one holds no weight with me. And yes, much of the taxpayer money was wasted in the 90s. But, the last time the Clintons held out on releasing their tax returns was in the years in which she generated 99,000 dollars in cattle trading. I also know she was never charged with any wrong-doing for that, and I don't think she should have been. But in a general election, even the appearance (true or false) of impropriety is enough to create a "scandal", as we have all seen.
I also don't think it's hypocritical of us to request basic transparency. If I were running for office, I would be more than happy to release my tax returns. If you're asking people to trust you enough to vote for you, you have to do something to earn that trust. Fact is, the only reason not to release them is if there is something there you don't want people seeing.
March 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this reply, very informative, and I think we're agreed. The fact that McCain hasn't released his returns suggests it's not going to be a big GE issue, and it's probably unlikely that the Clintons suddenly began illegal activites the years Hillary began running for the Senate, but hey - full disclosure can only be a good thing!
Strange that Obama released his returns only to the Tribune? Maybe it's standard practise, but sounds dodgy to me! Why not go the full hog? If he does release them all publicly though, then good on him. He should then feel free to bash Hillary over the head with them, for whatever mileage he thinks can be made out of the issue!
March 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
foreigner,
Here you present us with another spin, twist of truth and lie!
Bad try on changing the subject, it doesn't work:
The issue is that Hillary hasn't released her tax returns (and many other documents) and even after your attempt at turning Obama into the culprit,
she still hasn't released her tax returns (and many other documents.)
After we hear you ask for the release of her documents, you might become believable. Not before.
March 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said I agreed with those wanting her to release her tax returns in my third sentence. Sorry if that wasn't clearer.
March 17, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary gave her campaign $5 million of her own money. Why shouldn't we know where that money came from? We have campaign finance laws because it is imperative that we know who is contributing to a candidate's campaign. So, if (and I'm not saying they are) Bill and Hillary are receiving money from people who stand to gain from her policy proposals, we should know. Again, I'm not saying that's the case - but it is possible, and we won't know for sure until she releases her tax returns. Since she could completely end the issue by releasing them, it should worry Clinton supporters that she won't.
In 2000, Hillary called it "frankly disturbing" that Lazio (her NY Senate opponent) wouldn't release his returns, by the way. I'm just saying. And she wonders why people call her calculating.
March 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment