Matthew Yglesias (March 05, 2008) - Long Knives Drawn (Politics)

« How to Play Defense | Main | The Rush Factor »

Long Knives Drawn

05 Mar 2008 12:28 pm

Obama campaign gets ready to play: "TAX RETURNS: What does Clinton have to hide?"

The Clinton campaign has said that they have released copious amounts of financial information but there are many questions about their private dealings that could be answered in their tax returns but not in the information that is currently available. 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
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.

More to the point, I would think, given that the campaign has self-financed to the tune of $5 million it would seem to me that we want to scrutinize Bill's various business partners and other income streams in much the way you would any other campaign finance documents. Surely the vetted, tested candidate can stand a little sunshine on her multimillionaire lifestyle.

Permalink :: Comments (40) ::

Comments (40)

Look, Tax-Returns Smax-Returns! It hardly even balances the Rezko corruption trial currently going on...

If Obama REALLY wants to win, why doesn't he come out NOW for a total, complete, absolute withdrawal from Iraq within a year of taking office.

Bet he'd get the nomination if he did THAT.

And if he's willing to risk the nomination to avoid taking a position that alienates lots of his AIPAC-type donors, doesn't anyone really think he'll withdraw from Iraq if he were actually elected?...

Posted by RKU | March 5, 2008 12:39 PM

"Vetting" is only the process by which Hillary Clinton is made to look good. If Obama discloses things that reveal no scandal, it's not "vetting," as the process only concludes with the discovery of incriminating evidence. Therefore he can't run against McCain. If there is a scandal -- counterfactuall -- he can't run against McCain either. "Vetting" is simply another word for the state of being entitled to run against John McCain in Hillary Clinton's mind. As she already meets these criteria, HER tax returns have nothing to do with the "vetting" process.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 12:39 PM

FINALLY!

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 12:42 PM

"Look, Tax-Returns Smax-Returns! It hardly even balances the Rezko corruption trial currently going on..."

Way to beg the question. How can you know if it "balances the Rezko corruption trial" if you haven't seen them?

Posted by spanky | March 5, 2008 12:43 PM

Hmmm. I like the effort but not the style. I don't really think listing what "might be learned" is effective. This should be a longer term strategy designed to back Clinton into a corner and keep the story in the media.

Day 1: simply demand release of the returns
Day 2: reiterate the demand and talk about the importance of knowing all there is to know before we choose the nominee
Day 3: reiterate the demand and question what's taking so long
Day 4: reiterate the demand and insinuate that she's stalling because she has something to hide
Day 5: reiterate the demand and speculate on what she might be hiding and list what might be learned.

I think the longer Clinton stalls and fails to release these records the worse she looks. OTOH, as soon as Clinton releases these records, questions about possible conflicts of interest can be raised.

Posted by Just Karl | March 5, 2008 12:50 PM

I hope this signals the start of some hardball on the part of the Obama campaign. When it comes to things to choose from, the Clinton's' misdeeds are similar to a smorgasbord of wildly fat-laden foods at a southern Ohio all-u-can-eat.

Posted by Myron | March 5, 2008 12:51 PM

Yes...

Now that Obama has a comfortable lead and Ohio and Texas didn't deliver the knock out blow, thanks to Republican crossovers, out come the big guns.

I've been pleasantly surprised about how effective the Obama campaign has been - except for the NAFTA non-event. Now, not only will Hillary be beaten she will be humiliated.

Posted by Peter K. | March 5, 2008 12:53 PM

Look, Tax-Returns Smax-Returns!

Rezko Schmezko!

I'll go you seedy donor for seedy donor.

Let's say Rezko cancels out Marc Rich.

Who about:
Norman Hsu
David Rosen
Sant Chatwal
Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie
John Huang
International Profit Associates
James Riady
Roger Tamraz

Who balances them?

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM

This is the best you got? Some Free Republic-style fishing expedition into personal finances?

Wow, that's weak. And tired, too. The blogosphere's best days are clearly behind it.

Posted by Jim J | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM

Matt -- please tell us where the blockquote is from, or provide a link.

Posted by live | March 5, 2008 12:56 PM

I want to know all the stuff the Clintons are hiding at the Clinton Library, since they won't let anybody look at the documents.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

Posted by blah | March 5, 2008 12:57 PM

I don't like the idea of Obama running attack ads. It dilutes his message.

This is the media's responsibility and the media is failing.

Posted by TH | March 5, 2008 12:59 PM

1. Tax returns are fair game and not negative at all. Financial transparency is an accepted convention for candidates for public office and Clinton is only choosing not to release her returns because she knows they'll be damaging to her.

2. Experience? What experience?
This is the line Obama should have taken months ago. But unfortunately the media has bought into the change/experience binary and cannot bring themselves to see whether there is any *evidence* that Clinton's assertion to experience is anything more than an assertion.

Look to Obama to argue the following: if you want to argue experience, you need to be forthright about your past--which includes White House papers, Tax Returns, and Library Donors. If you don't want to be forthright about your past, you can't consistently argue experience.

Posted by wj | March 5, 2008 1:01 PM

It hardly even balances the Rezko corruption trial currently going on...

And what exactly is it about the Rezko trial that needs balancing? You see Rezko waved about by the Clintons like some sort of talisman despite the fact there's no story there. It's reminiscent of how right wing crazies hurl Vince Foster at the the Clintons.

Posted by J.B. | March 5, 2008 1:09 PM

You see Rezko waved about by the Clintons like some sort of talisman

This is my impression as well. They seem to think Rezko has some earth-shaking, election-shattering significance that it just doesn't have. I suspect that this is the sort of thing that clinton supporters console themselves with and mention it to each other, without realizing that it has no relevance outside of their rarefied Clinton-supporting circles.

Posted by Tyro | March 5, 2008 1:15 PM

Obama has to be careful that he doesn't sink to Hillary's level and destroy the whole rationale for his candidacy. If it just becomes a flurry of charges and counter-charges, a lot of voters will just figure the two candidates are equally bad, and they might as well go for the one with more experience.

The one attack Obama should push is going after Mark Penn for being a union buster. That could cut into Hillary’s working class support.

Posted by RC | March 5, 2008 1:19 PM

Hilarious. Ever since they lost Iowa, the Clintons have been trying to drag this race into the mud, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. To take one example, the Saudi Royal family are donors to the Library. Now there's a paragon of democratic, feminist virtue.

In my mind the Clintons are a cornucopia of hypocrisy and sleaze.
What we see is the tip of the iceberg. The journalistic hacks out there should be salivating.

The superdelegates aren't going to end it? No problemo.

Posted by Peter K. | March 5, 2008 1:23 PM

Why do the responses of all the Obamabot commenters lead me to suspect they've completely resigned themselves to having Obama run for *reelection* in 2012 on a promise to withdraw America from its Occupation of Iraq (and Iran?) within a couple of Freedman-Units...

Posted by RKU | March 5, 2008 1:28 PM

Because you are the type of idiot who likes to insult people with the term "Obamabot" rather than use your brain.

Posted by blah | March 5, 2008 1:37 PM

Just to back up blah, anyone who thinks that Obama can sew up the nomination by moving further to Hillary's left on the war either hasn't been paying attention or doesn't have a whole lot going on upstairs.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 1:51 PM

Does Obama really want to go to the mattresses with the Clintons? What about his wife's $200k raise in her diversity sinecure after Obama got elected to the Senate? What about her seats on corporate boards?

Michelle Obama has a lot in common with the pre-Senate Hillary Clinton: both sought to feather their nests with money-making opportunities that came to them not because of their talent or ability but because of the political careers of their husbands. One difference with Michelle is that despite this charmed life, she has a nasty chip on her shoulder.

Posted by Fred | March 5, 2008 2:28 PM

Does Obama really want to go to the mattresses with the Clintons?

The expression is "go to the mat." I really don't need that mental image right now.

Posted by hello | March 5, 2008 2:41 PM

It's both, hello.

"Go to the mattresses" means to wage all-out war, used in mob movies.

Posted by Trevor J | March 5, 2008 3:04 PM

What has Clinton done that is oh so negative? NAFTA was a self-inflicted wound. Obama's people made 3am into a bigger deal that it should have been and being hysterical just drew attention to it. And let's not forget that he's not "going" negative - he has been negative up to and including D-Punjab and Harry and Louise 2008.

If you want negative, I'd suggest asking Harold Ford about the ads that were run against him in TN. Or that upstate NY congressional candidate who had ads run against him that said he called a phone sex hotline on his official phone when he just misdialed one time. That's negative. This is nothing.

And the block quote comes from a memo circulated by Obama's campaign.

Posted by Columbia | March 5, 2008 3:39 PM

As the Obama campaign already knows, the Clinton campaign will be posting her tax info on the 15th of April. The senator's other tax related info (2005/2006) has already been put out as per requirements. (this was covered on This Week w/ George)

Posted by kat | March 5, 2008 3:54 PM

Good for Obama for fighting back. His campaign needs to start making (what I thought was) the obvious point that Hillary's "vetting" ended the day Bill left the White House. I'd be really interested to know what he's been up to over the last 7 years.

Posted by John | March 5, 2008 3:58 PM

As the Obama campaign already knows, the Clinton campaign will be posting her tax info on the 15th of April.

Oh, how do they know this? And why has she waited until the primary is almost over?

Posted by blah | March 5, 2008 3:59 PM

Because Axelrod was in on the same conversation as the spokesperson for the Clinton campaign.

They were both talking to George Stephanopolus and talking over each other.

Posted by kat | March 5, 2008 4:07 PM

The Obama campaign knows this because this appears in the same memo MY (selectively) posts:

"I will release my tax returns," Clinton said during the debate. "I have consistently said I will do that once I become the nominee, or even earlier." Pressed about the timing of releasing her tax returns, campaign aides were more reticent Wednesday, indicating that Clinton would not release the sensitive financial data during a hotly contested primary, but only at tax filing time. [AP, 2/27/08]

And April 15th is the normal time to release this info because ... that's the filing deadline! I don't see Obama releasing his senate financial disclosure forms two months before they are due.

Posted by Columbia | March 5, 2008 4:07 PM

Here's the link to the full memo. funnily enough, they add news stories about how B. Clinton released his returns, i guess to pressure HRC to do the same. But he released his returns on (or v. close to).... April 15th!!

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/03/fighting_fire_w.html

Posted by Columbia | March 5, 2008 4:11 PM

What does "on or about April 15th" mean exactly?

Does April 23rd, the day after Pennsylvania, count as around the 15th? And will she be releasing all of her tax returns since 2000 at that time or just 2006/2007.

What is the problem with releasing 2006 and prior returns right now. Presumably they were filed long ago. All it takes is one phone call.

Posted by swarty | March 5, 2008 4:43 PM

Heh - i just noticed that the memo berates Clinton for being "too busy" to release returns. Wouldn't think the Obama campaign would want to return to the discussion of what the candidates have been "too busy" to do this year ... not sure that helps him.

Posted by Columbia | March 5, 2008 5:08 PM

To be clear up front: I doubt there's anything that explosive in the tax returns, but I'm sure there's something that's mildly embarrassing, on a level with Edwards' absurdly overblown haircut. That said, it baffles me that a candidate can run on an explicit promise of being "vetted," and then refuse to release her tax returns until after she's the nominee (incidentally, that was her official stated position up until Russert pressed her and she said "maybe before." The "on or about April 15" is a further refinement of this position).

On a broader note, I like how Obama supporters are all dismissed as mindless hippie drones -- while the shrewd, skeptical HRC backers accept lines like "We will release our tax returns April 15, because that's when they're due." I don't know about anyone else, but I actually file a tax return every year. And my accountant even keeps a copy! And can anyone explain to me how HRC was able to get away with saying "I don't have time right now to release my tax returns"? Yes, I see, no one else can do that for you - you have to copy them out by hand while you sit up at 3 a.m. in your pantsuit and glasses, taking phone calls on your bat-phone. I like Hillary and will vote/raise money/campaign for her if she's the nominee, but please, please don't tell me that her supporters are the clear-eyed realists. They are willing to accept transparently false excuses that would make my 4-year-old roll his eyes.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 7:28 PM

Why hasn't Obama released his schedules and calendars from his time in the Illinois legislature?
How many meetings did he have with lobbyists, shady developers, corrupt officials? What about all those lunch dates at the Capitol Steakhouse, Malander's and the Renaissance hotel? Is he hiding corruption or personal indiscretions?

Posted by his dog ate them | March 5, 2008 8:36 PM

Kevin: