Obama Camp Lays Ground For Negative Attacks

***STORY UPDATES BELOW***

The Obama camp appears to be laying ground for pushing back against Hillary Clinton's latest campaign attacks, even if that means taking a negative approach themselves. The difficulty, as has been noted in the past, is maintaining the positive approach that has dominated his campaign while still drawing contrast with the Clintons.

Obama campaign manager David Axelrod claimed last night:

"If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.''

The Associated Press cites an anonymous Obama aide:

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama's team will respond to Tuesday's results by going negative on Clinton -- raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons' past.

And Obama is challenging Hillary's claims to be a better Commander-in-Chief:

"I hope people start asking is what exactly is this foreign experience she is claiming," he said. "Was she handling crises during this period of time? I haven't seen any evidence that she is more equipped to handle a crisis.

"She made the experience argument and her ability to handle a crisis, so I think it is important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it," he added. "She has made the argument that she is thoroughly vetted. If the suggestion is somehow that on issue of ethics or disclosure or transparency that she is somehow going to have a better record than I have or could (better) withstand Republican attack, then that should be tested."

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that some superdelegates worry about future attacks. Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, had this to say to the Associated Press:

"Despite Obama's impressive victories in February, Clinton's comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. "In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever."...

..."If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate," Brazile said. "But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

Story continues below

advertisement

UPDATE: The Obama camp has released a memo criticizing Clinton for refusing to release her tax returns. David Axelrod reinforced the message saying Clinton had "a history of nondisclosure," after promising that "the vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start."

Read the memo:

TO: Interested Parties FR: The Obama Campaign RE: TAX RETURNS: What does Clinton have to hide?

DA: March 5, 2008

The Clinton campaign today maintained that "the vetting of Barack Obama has just begun." The truth is, more than a year into this campaign, some very simple vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start.

In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted. When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton's refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process. Though her campaign has tried to kick the issue down the road, Democratic voters deserve to know, right now, why it is she is hiding the information in her tax returns from last year.

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.

The Clintons' record on releasing tax returns:

FEBRUARY 2008: Clinton Reiterated That She Would Not Release Her Tax Records Until She Is The Nominee And Not Before Mid-April. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she won't release her tax returns until she has the Democratic presidential nomination in hand, and not before tax filing time comes in mid-April. "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 ]

JUNE 2007: Clinton Does Not Plan to Release Her Tax Returns Until Next Year. According to the Washington Post, Clinton said through a spokesman that, "like past presidential candidates," she will "release tax information in the election year." [Washington Post , 6/19/07]

APRIL 12, 1996: Clinton Released His Tax Returns. President Clinton and his wife earned $316,074 in 1995, including the president's $200,000 salary, according to tax returns released Friday by the White House. The public release of the tax returns, three days before the April 15 filing deadline, shows that Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton are owed a refund of $5,656 on the $81,093 they paid in taxes, and will apply that refund to their 1996 income taxes. [UPI, 4/12/96]

April 15, 1992: Bill Clinton Made His Tax Returns Public. APRIL 15, 1992: Bill Clinton made his tax returns made public. [Los Angeles Times, 4/16/93]

Bill Clinton Released His Tax Returns In 1992 But Refused To Release Their Tax Returns From Before 1980. During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit. [WSJ, 2/22/08 ]

UPDATE: The Hillary camp has responded with a statement from Howard Wolfson:

Faced with many legitimate questions about Senator Obama's long-time relationship with indicted political fixer Tony Rezko, the Obama campaign has chosen to lash out at Senator Clinton.

Here are the facts:

Over 20 years of the Clintons' tax returns are in the public domain.

Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15.

This information will be in addition to 15 years of uninterrupted public financial disclosure reports.

Instead of making false attacks, we urge Senator Obama to release all relevant financial and other information related to indicted political fixer Tony Rezko.

Comments

[surfcitysteven]

Obama has to lay to waste this myth that the "experience" thing is the wonderful territory of his "two" opponents. Did their years of "experience" lead them to fall for the bullshit of a texan and vote to let him start a shooting war, against all the advise that our founding fathers wrote into the constitution, stating just who and why the congress alone should make that decision? Experience that tells them, in all their arrogance that the words of the founding fathers don't me shit to Clinton and McCain? After they are "experienced" enough to know better than every one else. Well look at where the "experience" of these two assholes has taken this country.

[nellie]

I agree. I think his judgment vs experience is a good start. But he needs to start talking about his own "lifetime of experience­." I think that's a good phrase Hillary trotted out. He should co-opt it. I mean, he's already a plagiarist, right? May as well take advantage.

[AjicNYC]

So feminist say they don’t have to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, Right? So what does that say about the African American Community voting 80-90% for Obama?

This is a real question please comment

[griffon2k]

I HOPE you're kidding.

African-Americans DON'T vote for someone just because they're African-American. We saw that with Al Sharpton in the 2004 primary season.

We have the same valid expectations of a candidate as any other demographic.

BTW, arguing that African-Americans somehow aren't intelligent enough to know to vote for quality over the color of someone's skin WON'T win Clinton any more African-American votes. In fact, it could cause her to lose the 10-20% or so that have still held in there for her.

[AjicNYC]

You did not answer the question. I don’t believe that answer

I guess I am just upset with the news reporting on polls and demographics and stereotypes. They just cluster our party into age, race, gender, education etc etc and I think that is insinuating on how we should vote. The News just repeats it over and over under 30 Obama, African American Obama Latino Hillary women over 40 Hillary. Drives me crazy, just let people vote how they want.

[AjicNYC]

So what would you say if it were reversd and 80-90% of women were voting for Hillary?

[ScandalousCandice]

Funny that you mention that because originally the black vote wasn't going to vote for Obama. They didn't know who he was, and they didn't think he had a realistic shot at winning.

Since the Clinton's injected race in to this issue, the voting became about civil rights. The Clinton's can thank themselves for losing that vote.

[Susan1968]

I can hear it now:

Q: "Senator Obama, why has your campaign refused to answer the Chicgao Sun Times questions about your 17 year relatioship with Rezko?"

Obama: "Hillary didn't release her tax returns!"

[nellie]

Q. "Senator Clinton, why has your campaign refused to answer the Chicago Sun Times questions baout your 17 year relationship with Jack Abramoff?"

See, I can make up stuff, too!

[Susan1968]

You did make it up.

However I did not:

Obama talks a lot, but answers little
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN | Senator hounded by Rezko questions

March 4, 2008

[EvoMan]

Obama supporters, fret not. She can't win. She won't be the nominee.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751

[nellie]

I'm not really concerned about the math. I wouldn't even mind if Hillary got the nomination IF SHE WOULD RUN AN HONEST CAMPAIGN. I can't help but be pissed off by the lying and the smears. It galls me that these tactics work. It just turns my stomach. The American voter has a lot to learn.

[Susan1968]

Gee, Obama people.

What do you think her tax returns will prove -- the Clintons are rich?

We knew that.

Is this all you have? Well, she said she will release them on April 15th when she files them with the IRS.

Happy?

[mcfried]

No she should have filed them years ago. Not sure why she won't release the last 2 years all the other candidates have. Don't you get it, it's the refusal that bothers us- why is she the only one not to release.

[griffon2k]

No. Why does she need to wait until April 15th to show them when others have already put out their own.

What reason does she have to withhold transparency?

[nellie]

Do you really want to see people get to work digging up dirt? If you're a Clinton supporter, you probably don't want to go there.

[JavaCityGal]

Agree -- be careful being so confdent, may come back to bite you. if there were nothing to hide -- she would have released them already to shut everyone up.

[EvoMan]

How many Clinton supporters condone this?

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746

[Susan1968]

With 15 years in advertising I can answer that.

Color in the same ad can change from publication to publicatio­n..

Two printers can print the same color brochure and the colors will look different in tone and intensity.

With my trained eye it's clear his face wasn't darkened. The entire ad had a dark filter.

If you wanted to make his face dark. You would NOT darken the background along with it.

But that's exactly what happened. The background was darkened too.

Now I have a question for you -- what if Obama, when born, had a darker complexion than he has now.

You wouldn't support him?

[EvoMan]

You ignoring the distortion. And we're not talking about press work here, we're talking about video and any ad person worth his salt checks out every aspect of the ad before it goes out. If there was darkening and distortion by happenstance, it would have been redone, or should have been. Perhaps they hired inept video editors.

You're last question is simply too asinine to answer. I've already proven that you don't know what you're talking about, so why should anyone listen to you now? Don't you have a poll to cherry-pick or something?

[LarBear]

EvoMan....
Oh WOW! The Clinton's ran an Ad that was, according to some supposed professional evaluation "It is my professional opinion that the film was made darker, and it has obviously been stretched. I will not comment on their reasons, as I can't offer an informed case for that. "
Wow! Wow! The Clinton's paid millions for an Ad that favored them with lighting, etc??? OMG... Should they have asked Obama to stand on his pedestal, with spot lights, Heavenly Music and dub a Halo over his head?

[ScandalousCandice]

Clinton is so sad and desperate that she had to go negative on Obama. But the case against her is so overwhelming and outrageous that this is sad to force Obama's hand to use it against her. I don't feel sorry for her. I feel bad for him. He has tried to keep is clean this whole time refusing to do what republicans do best. Lie and smear.

Clinton forcing Obama to go negative is like forcing a man to kill his dog. His long time old dog. His best friend. Now he has to shoot it because it has rabies or something like that. And it's sad. They are forcing him to go after her and give her that final blow. And we all in a feeding frenzy over this to see him do it. And again it's not like she hasn't deserved it. But it's sad.

[mcfried]

I agree it's sad, she makes me mean. even sadder this isn't even a lie or a smear but a legitimate question the press should have been asking.

[BluePearl]

regarding the MLK and LBJ:

LBJ told MLK to wait until he dealt with Vietnam and then he, LBJ, would push forward the legislation. MLK did not play along and marched and LBJ was then forced to move forward.

[AndriaSmith]

Maybe we should talk about how Obama was the only senator to vote against a bill to prevent sexual offenders from early release???­??!!!!!!!!­!!

[Susan1968]

Andria

Oh. interesting.

Can you site the bill, I'll add it to my arsenal.

[AndriaSmith]

1999

[EvoMan]

It's Susan! The cherry-picking poll troll! Hi Susan!

[EvoMan]

Maybe you should supply specifics, including specifics of the bill. Because, if you're talking about a bill that came before the Illinois Senate, the devil is in the details.

[Roose]

maybe the Clintons should have been selling the lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder.

[Monkeytime]

A sex offender calls the whitehouse at three in the morning...

Hopefully, your bill deals with mandatory minimum sentences, because there's a great progressive cause.

Sincere question to Hillary supporters: Do you consider yourselves as progressive?

My honest impression (I'm not being sarcastic) is that people voting for Hillary generally favor and propagate center right policy.

[mlaiuppa]

I'll see your Rezko and raise you a Hsu.

[Susan1968]

Your problem is ... the Rezko trial is going on now.

So remain in denial all you want.

I find it amusing.

[Iwanttruth]

A lot of my friends are talking about a Clinton/Obama ticket for the Fall

I thought they were crazy then but now I think that they may be on to something.

Clinton's got the experience! Obama has the excitement!

Like SNL indicated, she will get things done. He would be a great VP for her; the Dems could be guaranteed a claim to the White House for the next 16 years and our country would be on the right path for the economy, foreign policy, and health care! What more could we want!?

Myfriends are right!

[mcfried]

You must be a paid troll - are these Clinton talking points. This is a terrible idea how condescending to suggest the front runner take the VP slot. It's insane - this is the same woman who only this morning asked Joe Scarbourgh (sp) to be her VP. I know she was joking but have you ever really listened to that guy.

[Iwanttruth]

there is nothing reflecting Clinton talking points, just conversations I have been having with my friends; all of whom are Obama and Clinton fans. Honestly, she will get things done. What evidence is there that he will?

He had a chance to challenge the 04 elections in Ohio and he chose not to take a stand. He challenged the nuclear power industry in Illinois publicly but when push cam eo shove, he backed off and allowed Excelon (one of his biggest corporate donors) to se ttheir own parameters and "voluntarily" report their own waste violations. Cmon...isn­'t it funny that Axelrod is also and advisor and former board member of Excelon power co parent company?

Obama has a lot to learn. Watch Clinton and learn.

[JavaCityGal]

I wouldn't want Clinton and their scandals on the Obama ticket. Plus Clinton on any ticket only sics the Republicans on them. Obama is a smart cookie and will probably pick a VP like Richardson or Webb. Both of these have real experience, as opposed to Hillary's made-up experience.

[Iwanttruth]

Yesterday Clinton beat Obama in Ohio decisively. Many in the Democratic party indicate that either candidate will exceed all our expectations during the national elections. However, now that there have been questions raised about his claims of integrity and transparency, his supporters and his campaign are claiming foul play

While I agree that Barack Obama is very charismatic, and he can sure dazzle a crowd, he didn't win Ohio,and he doesn't win states the Democrats need to win to beat JohnMcCain in the fall. Hillary Clinton's win in Ohio, by such a largemargin, and her organization in Ohio, spells a win for Democrats in the Fall.

[mcfried]

Ohio - did you watch 60 min - not sure I'm comfortable with having a president they selected look at the last 4 year.

[Iwanttruth]

Huh? You don't believe the overwhelming win she had in OH???

[JavaCityGal]

Either Democratic candidate is likely to win the traditional blue big states. But Obama is energizing Democrats in the purple and red states, and that could provide a lot of help in a general election.

[KiwisCanFly]

I want to know more about this:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

Clinton's fraud case in Oct 08 in LA??????

I haven't seen anything in the MSM? Here are 3 interesting extracts from the article.

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government­."

Do u think the GOP may be very keen on Hillary winning the Dem. Nomination?

[Susan1968]

World Net Daily is a right wing nut group.

I checked a legal site -- there is no such active case filed anywhere. And there are no legitimate AP stories about this case.

All the information is from extreme right wing sites,

About the CON MAN Peter F. Paul (his middle initial must stand for FRAUD)

Under the Carter administration, he was convicted for cocaine possession and an attempt to bilk Cuban dictator Fidel Castro of $8 million.

He ascribes that to politics, arguing he was embraced by Ronald Reagan's kitchen cabinet, which "realized the problems I had were more related to being gung ho about removing Castro."

Paul's current felony -- his role in a $25 million stock scam involving Stan Lee Media, which Paul co-founded with the comic-book legend. Moore described it as benignly as possible: "Paul pleaded guilty to one count of violating Securities and Exchange Commission regulations on the trading of his stock. He insists his actions did not defraud shareholders, and that, in fact, he lost money in the transactio­n." Moore also fails to note that Paul faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $5 million for the charge to which he pleaded guilty.

Paul's LIES: Paul claims that "the Clinton Justice Department had him jailed while he was in Brazil and then extradicted [sic] to the United States."

In fact, as the U.S. attorney's office points out, the original indictment against Paul was not issued until June 2001, and he was arrested in Brazil in August 2001 -- months after the Clinton administration left office and, thus, no longer ran the Justice Department.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/wndpaul.html

Also this Wiki page outlines:

Paul alleged that Clinton was deceitful in this,[33] and retained public interest law firm, and frequent Clinton opponent, Judicial Watch to represent him in a series of civil and criminal lawsuits against the Clintons, the Clinton campaign, and ultimately the Federal Election Commission (which he charged was negligent in failing to convict Mrs. Clinton).[­34][35][36­][37] These charges were delayed, as courts held that Paul could not bring charges against the Clintons as he fought extradition from Brazil,[38] but proceeded once he was returned to the States.[39­]

Paul's claims have not found traction. An audit by the Federal Elections Commission found that neither Senator Clinton nor her Senate campaign had accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser[40], though the campaign was asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the party.[41] Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected,[42] and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.[43] Paul continued to press civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting"[44] his business, but the courts refused to allow him to sue Senator Clinton, with the appellate court specifying that her behavior had been "perfectly legal," and allowing her to recoup her legal fees from Paul.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul#_note-30

[KiwisCanFly]

susan1968
I've asked Politifact to check it out, hopefully they will do so.

[stlrfan]

Barcaucus may have a little problem when it comes to his neighbor and bestest buddy Tony Rezko.. Buckle up for real estate gate.

[KiwisCanFly]

stlrfan
no need to buckle up, read this link concerning the 8 things u need to know about Obama and Rezko

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

if u really want something to chew on then follow this link, if u dare!!! Clintons and fraud, unheard of??? The GOP are just drooling for Hillary to become the Dem Nominee. If Barack gets it, then that could seriously jeopardize their chance at the Presidency.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

[Susan1968]

Peter F. Paul is a CONVICTED FELON who once tried to extort money from Fidel Castro.

You want to use him as your weapon againt Hillary, go right ahead.

I'd love to see Obama mention this guy. "Obama loves FELONS!"

For the truth:

Paul's claims have not found traction. An audit by the Federal Elections Commission found that neither Senator Clinton nor her Senate campaign had accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser[40], though the campaign was asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the party.[41] Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected,[42] and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.[43] Paul continued to press civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting"[44] his business, but the courts refused to allow him to sue Senator Clinton, with the appellate court specifying that her behavior had been "perfectly legal," and allowing her to recoup her legal fees from Paul.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul#_note-30

Also see CON WATCH to learn more about Paul.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/wndpaul.html

[IndieGirl]

Please, Please, Please throw the kitchen sink, the dishwasher, and the stove at her, Obama! Where is her tax return, white house records, foreign policy experience (other then traveling with Bill as first lady)!