So, about those Clinton tax returns. You know, the ones from 2000-2006 that will show how Bill and Hillary went from being debt-ridden public servants in 2000 to so incredibly wealthy by 2008 that they could stand to loan Hillary’s campaign FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. The tax returns that will show who is funding Hillary’s campaign (via that $5million loan), and who might be looking for influence in a second Clinton White House.
It is beyond ridiculous that Hillary has refused to make the tax returns public. This is a basic rite of passage for a presidential candidate. Heck, Hillary herself berated her first Senate opponent, Rick Lazio, for not releasing his returns. So why won’t she release hers?
It’s not like we’re talking about this year’s return; these are filed returns that go back six years. If Clinton said “go,” they could be produced today. Yet she won’t. She’s too “busy” (like she prepares her own returns, anyway). And now, we’re led to believe, they’ll be released ”on or around” April 15. On or around? What’s that all about?? Why set a date a month in the future? Why not today, or tomorrow, or - here’s a novel idea - several months ago, when Obama disclosed his? So far, there has been no good excuse.
When I hear April 15, this is what I think: one week before the Pennsylvania primary. And then I think… hmmm, “on or around”… seems like a pretty good hedge to delay the release of those tax returns even further, until, say, AFTER the voters of Pennsylvania go to the polls. Ten bucks says we don’t see a single Clinton tax return until the polls are closed in the Keystone State.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Howard // Mar 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Do you really think this is a huge deal? sure it speaks to the larger narrative of moving past the conflicts of the past, and it certainly begs the question why she isn’t releasing it - but at the end of the day, is this really a huge deal that should change opinions? my sense is no…
it bothers me when Clinton supporters blow things out of proportion to attack Obama - and i’m also not a huge fan when Obama does the same thing to Clinton… my sense is that this is a marginally legitimate issue that isn’t going to give Obama any real traction.
2 John Wells // Mar 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Howard, I certainly don’t think it’s the most important issue in the campaign, and it’s definitely not as important as policy, but it is, in my opinion, part of the narrative. It’s a matter of transparency and trust. How can someone running for president just flippantly decide when the voters can or can’t see who is funding her campaign? I’ve seen recent estimates that the Clintons are now worth between $10-50million. Where did all that money come from, and how much of it came from people, groups or governments that want to influence American policy? I think this is a perfectly legitimate inquiry, since the Clintons file a joint return and since they loaned her campaign millions of dollars. In essence, every Kazakh dictator who has put money in Bill’s pocket is funding Hillary’s run for the White House. I’m not saying that there is anything particularly bad in the returns, but how are we supposed to know that unless we see them? And, if there’s nothing to hide, why doesn’t Hillary just relase them and be done with it? The fact that she hasn’t certainly lends the impression that she has something to hide.
(And, to be fair, I should have included in the post the failure to authorize release of her White House records, which are really more important than the tax returns, especially since she is running on her White House “experience.”)
Leave a Comment