Last Night's Tax Return Comments: Dumbest Foodfight Ever?
Forgive me if this shows up twice and I'll spare everyone the usual bitching. I'm sure they're doing everything they can to make it not do this thing where it suddenly decides you're not logged in the moment you hit "Submit."
I just fininshed reviewing the comments over on the Clintons Taxes post from last night at TPMEC. Not excluding my own contributions to the argument, I believe it may well be one of the stupidest, if not the stupidest, foodfights I've ever seen here.
"Stupid" being defined as tossing all perspective and objectivity out the window in favor of scoring points, no matter how unfair or illogical.
To the Obama supporters: yes, many of you figured that if she put these off so long, there must be something truly, career-endingly, nefarious there. Frankly, I went on record days ago saying the only embarassing thing in them would be how much money the Heroine of the Single Middle Aged Waitresses and Rust Belt Working Guys has made since 2000. However, I fear that some few of you have let your disappointment at the lack of a knockout blow in the returns get the better of you and, frankly, you're now flirting with the kinds of stupid we usually associate with a Hillaroid with Rezko-Wright Tourette's syndrome.
However, to the Hillarenes trying to distract attention away from the Clintons' vast fortune by arguing about charitable contributions, spare me your rightous indignation. Go live in downtown Chicago with two kids and four Ivy League size student loans to pay off and see how much you have left over for charity. Surely some of you have such loans. Surely some of you remember (or know now) how those loans will suck the financial life out of a young family anywhere, much less in hideously expensive Chicago.
Seriously, how many people attacking the Obamas for their charitable giving before his books started selling have been in, the situation where they look at what they make every April and wonder how they can be so broke when they're making as much as they made last year? That's what "middle class" is in America today and that's where they were. As their income rose, their charitable giving rose. No surprise there. You can't donate what you don't got and you don't got what you've got to pay back to the banks and the government.
So come on all you Hillarites digging at the the Obamas charitable donations, dig into your tax records, disclose your AGI and tell me what percent you donated to charity the last seven years? No? I didn't think so.
And yet, you guys think you're scoring points by comparing the percentage of their income the Obamas gave to charity when they were in the "struggling to stay in the middle class" salary range to what Bill and Hill were giving when they were hauling in seven and eight figures a year? Are you kidding me? It's easy to give away ten percent of your income when you're making five or ten million in a year. ( And as to what Bill and Hill gave back when they were scraping by on Bill's governor's salary and Hillary's partnership distributions, let me remind you that they had no student loans, free housing, free medical care, and a compelling political need to be seen to be generous.)
So far, there is nothing shady about the Clintons returns as far as I can see. (Caveat: it looks like there's still some digging to be done in some of these partnerships and the cross pollenization between Bill's foundation and his speaking fees.) Bottom line is that Bill and Hill made a buttload of money, they overpaid their taxes by not take advantage of even rather straightforward means of reducing their tax burden, and once they had a boatload of money, they started giving it away, mostly to their charitable foundation which, in turn, actually does good stuff with it.
Good for them. They set a fine example of good citizenship for rich people everywhere and cast shame on every country club Republican factcat asshole who thinks he can take it with him, and employs platoons of accountants to keep his top marginal rate lower than his secretary's.
But before we fall all over ourselves praising them, let's recall that it's also exactly what you would expect from politically savvy Democratic politicians who know they're making a lot of money and will have to release their tax records some day. As with everything else in in their lives, their finances reflect exactly the kind of clever political calculation that is both their greatest strenght and their greatest weakness. Calculation that leads to socially beneficial behavior is a net good for the world and I'm glad they did it with their finances, just as I've been glad when they've turned their calculation toward the achievement of other public goods.
But let us not get carried away with our praise. the fact is that once the dough started piling in (and their friends paid off all their legal bills), the Clintons had the luxary of being able to structure their finances specifically to keep from exposing themselves to reproach and criticism for using tax dodges or making immoral investments or not giving a respectable amount to charity and they did so. Their proper reward for doing so is the one they sought: i.e., not being reproached or critisized for for using tax dodges or making immoral investments or not giving a respectable amount to charity. I'm certainly not going to do that.
But I'll be damned if I'll stretch "not reproach or criticise" over into fulsome praise. If they wanted my fulsome praise, they should have given 60% of their AGI away between 2001 -2007 and then found a way to struggle by on the measly 35 million that would have left them. (Shucks, 80% would have left them with 17.5 million).
I am not critisizing them for not doing so, because, hell, I have no idea if I would be able do do so if it were me. I suspect not. I can see how 87 million dollars could easily turn me into someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about the good opinion of my fellow man, gives nothing at all to charity and spends all his waking hours not devotred to hedonistic dbauchery thinking about ways to screw the IRS.
No, I'm not critisizing them. I'm just saying that that's the kind of giving that would have been truly praiseworthy. And, I also note that that's the kind of giving that would have scored Hillary some big points with her base in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Texas, and with people in general, and that would have led her to release her tax returns back before Iowa. Honestly, from both a political calculation and a genuine generosity standpoint, I don't think the Bill and Hillary of 1993 would have flinched at doing that. For them, I think they would have said, "seventeen million, eighty million, what's the difference, really? We'd have trouble spending either amount before we died." The Bill and Hillary of 2006, however, are different people.
But then, aren't we all?
Great diary! Many of my thoughts exactly. The only thing $110 million signifies to me is that these are not your daddy's Clintons, so to speak.
In 1992, they were the bright new things with the best and the brightest on their team, an outsider's perspective, a fresh approach, and at least one leg still in the workingman(woman)'s world. But that was 16 years ago. Nowadays they are filthy rich and two of the most powerful people on the planet, and though that's no reason to disqualify them (in fact for many Clinton supporters I can see why that may be an asset), I myself much prefer the new guy who, until a few years ago, was still paying off student loans. In many ways, the Clintons of 1992 were much more like the Obamas of 2008 than the Clintons of 2008.
Either way, the information derived (so far) from these returns should not be an indictment of the Clintons. Rather, to me, they are an interesting peak into the ways in which an ex-President and a famous Senator can so quickly accumulate wealth.
April 5, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, with that much dough, I guess the Clintons can afford health care. I wish they had taken health care more seriously in 92 when handing it to Hillary meant certain failure. I'm not surprised that becoming rich has been important to them. When it comes down to it, I've never believed that the Clintons care about the public welfare. If Faust could offer Hillary a choice --you can be president but no healthcare for Americans, or, Americans can have health care but you'll have to just go back to New York and be a rich senator, I have no doubt that she'd take the first option.
April 5, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
steve, "Stupid" being defined as tossing all perspective and objectivity out the window in favor of scoring points, no matter how unfair or illogical.”
“For them, I think they would have said, "seventeen million, eighty million, what's the difference, really? We'd have trouble spending either amount before we died." The Bill and Hillary of 2006, however, are different people.”
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. After months of endlessly flogging the Ken-Starrish smear, “They must be hiding some criminal secret by not releasing tax returns (or WH schedules or library records or hundreds of thousands of other documents that might provide an appearance of something; a politrick going back decades, the requisite contrition comes down to, “Well, hell, they got a lot of money and aren’t generous enough”? If the TPMEC argument over the tax release was stupid, what's this?
April 6, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice diary, I agree with 98% of what you said. Though I think that part of the frenzy over the tax returns was of the clintons own making. I mean, if there really is so little incriminating in them, why did they wait so long, and stir up such controversy by witholding them for so long? I dont imagine wed have heard more than a days worth or stories about them had they been released in november.
April 6, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you've about summed it up. I would be willing to put my CC/AGI ratio up there but it's in the 5-7% range for the last decade. In fact, if anything, mine has gotten worse as my donations haven't risen as fast as my income.
I think if anyone is going to make an issue of this, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence that any candidate on the horizon is likely to set a better standard, particularly in terms of "cashing in" on the opportunities that are open once public service ends.
April 5, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
sj,
Regarding AGI vs. CC: I'd better not ever run for office, I guess (reason #5,684). I don't even claim my charitable contributions on tax returns, unless it's money I've contributed for something the freakin' government should have paid for in the first damn place, such as the donations I made to Red Cross and United Way, etc. after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; and to Operation Helmet, (which provides troops protection that's far superior to the helmets issued by the U.S. military), U.S.O. supplies and calling card funds, etc.
You know, I didn't feel the angry need to start doing that until the Bush Administration took over...
April 5, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ours are not nearly so good, and we've bumped them up this year. But it's difficult--we're saving for college, for retirement, paying for child care, paying student loans, increasingly rising property taxes, a shocking gas bill. There's just not that much money left.
As for post-presidencies, shall we take bets on GWB's percentage of giving? I would say he might give $50 to Scottie Rescue, but that's probably it.
April 5, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
As usual--yours are clear-eyed and balanced observations, delivered with acerbic wit. Thanks.
April 5, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer to call it a "pissing match".
Reading that thread was one of the few times I felt embarrassed to be an Obama supporter. People were presuming the Clintons guilty before being proven innocent. Honestly it wouldn't have been out of place to have seen it on some right-wing forum circa 1999. Now whenever Clinton supporters want to accuse "Obamabots" of being raving, cultish "kool-aid drinkers" they'll have that thread to drag up as proof -- and I don't think I'd be able to disagree.
Who knows, maybe there IS something suspicious about her tax returns, or maybe there isn't. We don't know until we've had a chance to objectively look over the returns. Jumping to conclusions based on some preconceived bias or hatred makes us no better than the Bob Barr's and Kenneth Starr's of the Lewinsky witch-hunt. I didn't support witch-hunt politics against Clintons back then, I don't support them now.
April 5, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Steve.
April 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, there has been a lot of hopefulness among Obama supporters to find a gotcha. I don't agree with some of your points, in particular the comparative level of giving the Obama's report. I wrote my own post about this earlier this morning. My wife and I consistently give more than want Obama's have, even on years when we had a net negative AGI. Obama has shown that he doesn't walk the talk, but this is his and Michelle's choice and reflective of their personal values and character. Like you, at the end of the day I think this is simply something each poster should compare and contrast with their own level of giving and circumstances.
As someone else posted elsewhere on TPM, nothing here folks, let's move along...
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 5, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
at least bother to read his post before trolling on it.
April 5, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
I would caution you and others against assuming the charitable contributions listed on a tax return are reflective of anyone's "personal values and character," or of their generosity.
You and your wife have more charitable contributions than the Obamas "even on years when we had a net negative AGI," and I think that's admirable.
But two things aren't reflected on tax returns: CCs that one doesn't claim (see my comment upthread), and time spent volunteering and working for charitable causes.
Those of us who don't have the cashflow (distinct from gross or net income) to afford a high level of charitable contributions often express our generosity through volunteerism.
April 5, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right and I did not mean to ignore it. I know a number of people who give tremendously through volunteer work.
My only points are that there is no gotcha obvious in the tax returns and for all of the rantings of Obama supporters for Clinton's returns, the only obvious difference is reported charitable contributions. Obama suddenly comes up very short. This is an embarrassing footnote to the food fight over tax returns.
But really, there are better ways to compare and contrast candidates.
April 5, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, those weren't your "only points."
You said: "My wife and I consistently give more than want Obama's have, even on years when we had a net negative AGI. Obama has shown that he doesn't walk the talk, but this is his and Michelle's choice and reflective of their personal values and character." (italics mine)
I argue that CCs on a tax return are NOT necessarily "reflective" of a person's "personal values and character."
But I'll give you credit: this is much subtler smear tactic than the ones you use on your website.
April 5, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wnodering if the cable channels will make any mention of the fact that most of this huge charitable donation was only made last year after she declared her candidacy?
April 5, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although the $3M the Clintons gave in 2006 is indeed "huge", it is not "most of" the total charitable donations ($13M) the Clintons have given to their foundation.
April 6, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
I could really give a buzzard's germs how much you and your spouse give to charity. Please pin a brownie button on your ignorant ego!
If you really want to compare yourself to Senator Obama, why don't you get off your coward's couch, take a sabbatical from your 'activities' and run for POTUS? You seem to have all the solutions to make this world a more hateful place.
By the way.. I noticed you changed your avatar. Sending a code are ya? Duly observed and noted.
Take care.
April 5, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in the middle of a thread discussing how stupid it was for both sides to be trolling in last night's discussion, you...jump in and immediately start posting the same trollish nonsense.
Nice to see that you're consistent.
April 5, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also wish you good luck maintaining your charitable contribution levels now that the twins have arrived.
April 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
The twins?? Is this an inside joke? Let me in on it!
:-)
April 5, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a response to Matthew that didn't get attached to his comment through the miracle that is the TPM commenting system 3.0.
Matthew has mentioned he has new twins (are they girls or boys, Matthew?) in the house.
April 5, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! So it wasn't a snark, it was serious! In that case, I'm glad I didn't make a smart-ass remark.
Congrats on the new kiddoes, Matthew.
April 5, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only got about 15-20 comments into that thread before I got turned off and stopped reading (that happens a lot in horserace Obama vs Hillary threads actually).
But I thought here would be a good place to put down my thoughts on the whole tax return brouhaha and the timing.
1. They knew there was nothing especially damaging there.
2. Nonetheless they knew the optics of the $100mil+ they earned would be a little uncomfortable.
3. They knew they had to release them, but the pressure to do so was not, at least yet, all that punishing.
4. So they figured that it would be worthwhile to wait to see if they could use it to distract from something more uncomfortable.
5. Hence, they chose to release the returns on the day that Mr.-Penn-Goes-To-Colombia comes out.
But the bottom line is, as Fmr-Steve alludes to, I'm sure they expected to be asked for their returns some day, so it's hardly surprising that they wouldn't allow themselves to be caught with any bombshells in them.
April 5, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you say other than this: I think they were and are very worried about how this would play in Ohio and many of the Super Tuesday States that Matter, and how it will play in Pennsylvania. I'm sure they've polled and focus grouped it (because, hey, its them) but when times are getting bad, and salaries are dropping it's got to be worrisome.
Generally speaking, Americans, and in particular less well-off Americans, don't begrudge anyone wealth if they feel its earned. Better still, if they're already kindly disposed toward you, they are likely to think whatever you got is earned if you didn't inherit it. People rarely say "I was for him/her before I found out how rich he/she was." The problem for the Clinton people is that the whole thesis of their campaign is that people are too stupid to deal with the truth in an adult fashion, so I can easily see them spending hours in PowerPoint filled meetings dedicated to how this will play in Akron and Scranton.
But, on the other hand, I doubt its going to help her "understands the problems of people like me" score in the next round of polls. Man not hurt, but it ain't gonna help.
April 5, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't quite get it though. Clinton allowed Obama to hammer her on it for a while. There have been plenty of negative news days on which she could have previously published her returns.
My thinking is that she wanted to wait until after PA because her new wealth won't play well with blue collar voters but that she decided it wasn't ultimately worth the pounding that she was getting from Obama. But that's just speculation.
April 5, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I thought my embarassing wealth was a problem (and the press sure as hell made it one for Edwards) and I couldn't put it off until after I won the nomination when people would be comparing them to Cindy and John (which, I'm sure you recall, is what she was saying before Ohio), then this is when I'd do it. After Super Tuesday, after Ohio and Texas and on Final Four weekend. The 15th is absolutely the wrong time to do it. Too close to the Pa primary for any furor to die down.
April 5, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they waited to release them to get a bounce of the "Obama's campaign = Ken Starr for hounding us" narrative. That's why they'd planned to release them 3 days before, like they'd said.
But then, through the magic of triangulation, they figured out $110 mil doesn't fly well in PA, so they put 'em out with time to dissipate.
April 6, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
But they allowed Obama and the press to make a huge deal of it. Now everyone's going to be going over them really carefully. If they'd released them ages ago and stipulated their wealth, maybe no one would notice, or at least it would have died down.
Of course, I guess they were planning on having the nomination now, so maybe they were going to slip it in early on in the general. Or just assume McCain would never release his....
April 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do candidates feel the necessity to release their tax returns?
This reminds me of the dumb trees out there. If the trees would only cooperate they could share the sun and concentrate on good things: propagation, fruit production, etc. Instead they compete with each other to grow taller and taller, wasting resources building huge trunks, just to get 1% more sunlight.
Politicians are the same. If just one politician discloses tax returns, then they all have to. Otherwise we'll hear the incessant, "Where's Abe Lincoln's tax returns?" In other words, tax returns become a weapon.
What's in a tax return of any interest? What does everyone look at first? Charitable contributions, which are no one's business. The clever politician gives as much as possible to charities not for charity's sake but to look good.
Feed the vultures.
April 5, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think where a politician gets his or her money, whether they are dodging paying their fair share and how much they make are questions of legitimate concern to voters.
April 5, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is my thought exactly. It is important to know who is paying what to a politician. I am delighted to see that Sen Clinton's income is coming from sources that are all on the up and up, but I do want to see that in the actual black and white of the IRS' forms, and not merely take a candidate's word for it.
April 5, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh-oh. Did you swipe that analogy from that Rush song--"The Trees"??
OMG, and they're a Canadian band, too! Does this count as plagiarism in Canada?? Boy, I guess you didn't read what TPM poster "Genghis" had to say about Canada's tough criminal penalties for plagiarism.
April 5, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you have a crush on that post. You seem to be stalking it.
April 5, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do. Not that your other posts aren't brilliant too.
I'm just fixated on the diabolical Canadian mastermind who discovered the efficiency of inflicting Celine Dion on prisoners and "detainees" to achieve psychological mutilation.
April 6, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't had the pleasure of reading the responses as you have. I never read them. I just post what I want to say and never look back for fear of getting sucked into an endless cycle of arguing. I'm really just here to say what I want to say.
Thank you for pointing out that there wasn't anything scandalous in the Clinton's tax return, which surely must have been a big disappointment to Obama and many of his supporters. Perhaps they'll find something yet. Who knows? But it also sounds like you are saying even though they aren't tax cheats, they still suck. Ok, if that's what you want to say. If I was looking for kind words for the Clintons I certainly wouldn't be reading the blogs. It's amazing how much they are hated on the blogs and on liberal radio. Still strikes me as odd, considering how wonderful the Clinton years were. I mean, what did people dislike about the Clinton years? The peace, or the prosperity? But I've gotten used to the constant slams against Hillary.
I do hope people will give her credit for still being on her feet after all the crap she's taken.
April 5, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm hesitant to post this, as it sounds like you won't be reading it.
But just for the record, I supported Bill in 2000, and as it was my first election I was eligible to vote, it means something to me.
I supported Bill all through the impeachment, and actually though Gore should have used him more.
That said, these seem to be "new" Clintons. Bill has just gotten mean, and Hillary - well, I don't trust her.
Also, ironically, Obama reminds me more of Bill than Hillary does. He has the charisma to win a general election, and a great political intelligence that is helping him beat the Clintons, which I'm sure you agree, is no easy task.
April 6, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right! And as billysumday said at the top of the comments, the Clintons of 1992 seem to be more reminiscent of the Obamas of 2008 then the Clintons of 2008 are.
I really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts here today and sharing my own. God Bless and warm thoughts to all things Clinton and Obama and all of us faithful supporters. There are a lot of places where this discussion would get us arrested. Ain't America the best?!!!
April 6, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
NC -
Thanks for well-reasoned post.
I'm reserving my judgment until the docs have been thoroughly analyzed. I think perhaps we underestimate how their 'withholding' propensities - past & present - and other less than transparent behavior - leads some to assume the worst.
The dump on a Fri @ 4pm on MLK assass 40th anniv & start of Final Four wknd was certainly designed for it to disappear into the notorious timing wasteland ether of hopeful news buriers everywhere - and certainly did not help their cause.
And the lack of 'cross-pollination' ability (to which you refer) can't be minimized. If we can't see Library & Foundation & campaign donors simultaneously w/ their income sources - context is hopelessly lost.
I think the best approach is to ignore the weekend dump and give this a week to percolate up or down.
But you must acknowledge that some of us are merely judging the Clintons through a prism we've all come to know all too well. So I'm sure Ohio & Texas played into their delay calculation re offending their base - but if I'm not an amnesiac, then their track record would indicate that there's there there. Time always tells.
But thank you for balanced post.
April 6, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thnx for your post, TCFKANCsteve.
Last night’s thread did indeed feel like the dumbest foodfight ever.
I am not bothered the least little bit that Bill and Hillary Clinton made the kind of money they have, since Bill Clinton left the WH.
What makes me fire breathing mad is the knowledge that Chick Daney....er...Dick Cheney and George Dumbya Bush will have the potential to make more. They will make millions more after they have saddled us all with:
1) Trillions of dollars in national debt and a wrecked economy.
2) A broken education system.
3) A deteriorating infrastructure which they did nothing to fix.
4) A military stretched dangerously thin.
5) A perilous environment which they insisted on not addressing.
6) A hurricane destroyed city right here in the US, which they never did anything to rebuild.
Dumbya and Dick’s corrupt administration's destructive legacy will continue to engulf us while they leave the WH and rake in the $$$ because of their contact networks. They will leave the WH with nary a glance backwards at what they have left us in the midst of or what we will endure as we dig out of this hole.
In the face of that, what Hillary and Bill and Michelle and Barack earned and their financial worth and charitable donations is a non-issue, IMHO.
Now Dumbya and Dick’s political disciple, Grandpa McCain’t, claims that Obama or Clinton will raise taxes on the American people. Someone should point out to McCain’t that the war itself has been and still is a craptacular tax hike.
April 6, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
NC -
Addendum - forgot point re Clinton income scrutiny & why fair game.
I think the Clinton camp's bait & switch & deflect has really started to rankle. In that ala NAFTA/Columbia kinda way - the 'IRS return-hide & seek' dance raises same smell.
Their hammering away at Obama/Rezko - which was debunked, debunked & debunked finally w/ Obama's Chicago paper sit-down w/ total open-ness after the Clinton campaign accused him of all manner of impropriety - for a zero smoke or fire, paltry financial deal.
All the while pathologically hiding EVERYTHING -from 1st lady papers (until lawsuit lost) - to library - to foundation - to tax returns - all through the thick of the primary campaign.
Hitting your opponent is one thing - but when it repeatedly leads backward to hypocrisy - it starts to stink to high heaven.
April 6, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrific article! Funny, not too much lean one way or the other, thoughtful. Thanks. I don't think I would have ever thought of keeping $17 mil and giving the rest to charity, but there are probably people who are better then me. I agree that there are a couple of things that the media will dig into a bit more, but I see no need to guess unless there's proof later on.-------I do think that the Clintons actively create much of their bad press. If there's nothing to hide, why drag it out so long? If you don't want pictures of yourself looking tight and angry and shrill to be a headliner on national news, don't call the press over and give a tight, angry speech that ends with, "Shame on you Barack Obama." Don't embellish stories that you know are on video tape. Between the two of them and their supporters, (think James Carville), they're initiated a lot of their own negative press. Mrs. Clinton did it again yesterday in Eugene, Oregon when she became frustrated with a question from the audience and said that she was criticizing the war before Obama did. Again the video tape--He's on the news tape on October 2, 2002 saying that he opposes a "dumb war" and she's on tape October 11, 2002 on the senate floor giving a speech about her vote for the war. She says that other then the vote for war, that Obama has voted the same as she has every time for the war. 1) Once our soldiers were there, they had to be supplied until we could bring them home. 2) AND THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. On September 6, 2006 the Feinstein/Leahy bill to discontinue the use of cluster bombs in civilian populated areas, (i.e. villiages, towns, refugee camps), came up for a vote in the Senate. Cluster bombs are notorious because one third of the people maimed and killed by them are children. Senator Clinton voted to keep using them. Senator Obama voted to stop using them. That is an important difference for anyone, but especially for someone who campaigns on her advocacy for children.
April 6, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "struggling middle class, paying off student loans" is a bit misleading. Since 2000, the Obamas income has been over $175,000 placing them in the top 2% of US taxpayers.
Like many, they probably did not pay off their student loans as soon as they could because these loans had favorable interest rates. None of this is wrong in any way.
However, as a "feel your pain because we've been through it" campaign set piece, it doesn't ring true.
April 6, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harvard Law, Harvard Law, Columbia, Yale. Fourteen years worth of Ivy League loans (okay, I have no idea what tuition was like at Occidental). 175K isn't going to go far, on those, especially with two kids and especially with no help from the folks.
These schools charge tuition, and steer you to financial aid, based on the assumption that you'll be making 125K or more as a first year associate.
April 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nice thing about being from the cynic's side is I don't care who made what or how much they left to charity. As long as the amount they stole out of the government pool is 4 digits or less, I just care what they're going to do in the next 4 years.
April 6, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
why do you persist in promoting the ridiculous fallacy that the wealthy cannot act in behalf of those less blessed?
saying the only embarassing thing in them would be how much money the Heroine of the Single Middle Aged Waitresses and Rust Belt Working Guys has made since 2000.
why is that embarrassing? it ought to be admirable in this new gilded age.
it is only democrats who seem to insist that populist politics should be practiced only by the poor and working class. it is a meme that's picked up by the right wing lunatics and used as supposed evidence of hypocrisy.
it's ridiculous. it's a fallacy. she's not my candidate, but i could not care any less how much money she makes if her politics are right.
stop. please.
April 6, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care how much money she makes nor do I think being rich precludes one from acting on behalf of the poor, but I do think their wealth will be a turn-off to some working class people who thought of her as "one of them," which is how she's portrayed herself.
I don't think it's fair or right, but I do think it's real.
April 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I blame my participation in the tax return food fight on being a little drunk (some of my later posts were actually from a bar).
I apologize if I offended anyone and I pledge that this error in judgment will not happen again.
April 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
At last we now have a glimpse into HRC's delusional thinking about the WH... get elected, screw the country, and then bilk it for millions of dollars for years on end....
April 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having fortunately missed the drunken food fight, it looks like this one is a bit of a retread.
I will say this. The IRS has a list of dates when things like income tax statements are due. If Hillary were like me, she'd have filed for an automatic 4 month extension, but obviously I'm too irresponsible to run for President anyway.
Short of that, there's no requirement that candidates do their taxes early, give a particular amount to charity, belong to a religion, be poor or rich, or do a million other things that people seem to think candidates should do. Candidates are supposed to fight and beat each other senseless, spend lots of money, promise lots of things they can't do, and complain and make excuses when things don't go their way. Somewhere in all they're bobbing and weaving they're supposed to give some idea of what they'll do, which special interests will grab onto and praise or trample on as if the world will end. Believe it or not, this year is no different. May the best actor and panderer win.
April 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink