On Clinton's Tax Returns, a "Frankly Disturbing" Lack of Transparency, and Surrogate-ancholy

It's hard out there for a surrogate. Especially for a Clinton surrogate being asked why Hillary Clinton has not released the last eight years of her tax returns. As Congresswoman and Clinton surrogate Nita Lowey made clear on Meet The Press yesterday, the reason it's so hard to give a good answer to "Why hasn't Clinton released her returns?" is because there is no good answer.

Lowey gave it a shot, but it wasn't pretty -- or particularly intelligible. When Tim Russert asked about the returns, she opened with the main talking point the Clinton campaign has been using for weeks: "It's my understanding that there are 20 years of tax returns in the public view from both Bill and Hillary Clinton."

And she's exactly right. There are 20 years worth of returns that have been released. What's missing are the last 8 years -- years in which Bill Clinton has been making money hand over fist, and involving himself in all kinds of interesting financial deals (see Ron Burkle, Yucaipa, and the ruler of Dubai).

Lowey then quickly pivoted away from tax returns (clearly the 20 year line, as lame as it is, was the only arrow in her quiver) to make points about earmarks and the terrific work Bill Clinton's foundation has done on HIV/AIDS in Africa -- neither of which Russert had asked her about or have anything to do with tax returns.

Now, Nita Lowey is no slouch. She's smart and accomplished. But when you are sent into battle armed with little more than nonsensical blather, you are not going to end up looking very good. And Lowey didn't. And she seemed to know it -- her eyes belied a classic case of surrogatancholy.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly paired herself with John McCain as of late, making the case that they are candidates with a "lifetime of experience," so it seems appropriate that her refusal to release her tax returns is another thing they have in common.

While Clinton has been tossing verbal bouquets to McCain and attacking Obama for not being "vetted," Obama has been living up to his promises about making government more transparent. Not only did he release his latest tax returns in April 2007, he also just made public his list of earmarks, and sat down at the end of last week with the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times to answer all their questions about Tony Rezko. The conclusion of the Tribune?

"When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him. Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict... Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged."

It's a standard not being met by either McCain or Clinton.

As Sheila Krumholz of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics said of Clinton not releasing her tax returns: "What is the holdup? She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them."

Or as John Aravosis summed it up: "People with nothing to hide don't usually hide."

The main excuse we've gotten so far is that Hillary Clinton just has too much on her plate. "I'm a little busy right now," she said during the Ohio debate. "I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly work toward releasing, and we will get that done and in the public domain."

That was three weeks ago. Two weeks ago, Howard Wolfson promised the returns would be released "on or around April 15." But weren't the returns completed and filed a long time ago? Doesn't Clinton's accountant have time to print them out and make some copies (note to Clinton's accountant: many Kinko's are open 24 hours).

As Andrew Sullivan notes, "Did they file an extension for the past few years? If they didn't, the forms are available now."

And it's not as if the Clintons have attempted to make a reasoned argument as to why the returns shouldn't be released -- something about there being too much scrutiny of public officials. Instead they've gone with Classic Clintonism: envelope themselves in lofty, good-guy rhetoric while utterly failing to follow-through. And then smearing their opponents, such as their absurd attack on Obama's campaign for "imitating Ken Starr."

The Clintons have obviously done very well during the Bush years -- well enough that she was able to loan her campaign $5 million at a critical moment. Is it really Ken Starr-like to want to know where that money came from? Or to ask for a list of the donors who have contributed $500 million to her husband's library? Or to ask what her policy as president would be regarding the transparency of huge donations from foreign interests to her husband's charitable fund (see the $31.3 million donation and additional $100 million pledge to Bill Clinton's foundation after he helped a Canadian mining mogul secure a massive uranium deal with Kazakhstan)?

As a New York Times editorial put it:

"As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is unencumbered by hidden entanglements."

In short, it's well past time for Hillary Clinton to be as "vetted" as she claims to already be -- and to have this vetting done now by Democratic voters rather than later by GOP hit squads. She needs to live up to the standard she laid out for Rick Lazio, the opponent in her 2000 Senate race. At that time, she said it was "frankly disturbing" that Lazio was holding back on releasing his tax returns.

What a difference eight years -- and tens of millions of dollars (some of them from questionable deals) -- can make.

Comments

[AbbieXHoffman]

If you are going to post something with accusatory language like this, I suggest you spell out exactly what damage this is doing to the American people by not seeing these returns until April 15th? What do you think you may uncover? What exactly is the big deal here? They are rich, we know that.

If you think it's going to link to donations from special interests groups, say that?

Besides, Obama didn't release any of the underlying schedule, so what the heck did his tax returns tell us? NOTHING?

[dbuscemi]

Why aren't the networks making this an important issue?

It is certainly more newsworthy with regard to a Clinton's's affiliations than Rev. Wright's personal comments are regarding Obama's character. This is what the voters need to know. We need factual reporting, not "Brittney Spears" sensationalism.

[Jer1957]

Consider this fact. I am stupid and willing to give you anything you want--and probably work for the wrong agency--of course you will not notice my indescretion. Sayonara!

[indypete]

Ari, baby, I love you but there's no need to bash the Clintons... fox news is taking care of that at full volume. True they're trying to get a bit of traction on Obama too but aside from the Rev. Wright rubbish they seem to be unable to get anything going. Haven't even heard anybody use the 5th grade style "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" jibe lately. They must have realised it sounds infantile.

[dbuscemi]

A lot of us don't watch Faux News, though.

[visionar7]

If you can read you can check Hillarys web site which has stated for over a month that she will release them in April. When will Obama be releasing all his records of transactions and so forth from Rezko...or maybe his wife Michelle who gets a salary and stock dividends from Treehouse all the while her husband bashes Hillary for sitting on the board of Wal-Mart. the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.
As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".
According to the Obama couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 (£25,700) for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.­advertisem­ent
She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company. The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by "opposition" research teams working for rival White House candidates, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. They are collecting information about Mrs Obama's Treehouse ties. The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart is at best hypocritical

[gtt]

Visonar7, Such irony that you can be critical of Ms. Obama's status as a corporate board member because you learned it from her disclosed tax returns - which is a good thing because it allows all voters to judge for themselves - while contrasting that with Ms. Clinton's Wal-Mart connection which was learned years ago, and any similar recent income of her, or more importantly from her husband, are unknown because they refuse to release their tax returns for 8 years ! The Clinton's, who I have supported and voted for at every turn, are not very ethically minded. Senator Clinton's campaign has been just too devoid of concerns for what is right as opposed to what advantages her.
A good question for Ms. Obama to answer might be, did Treehouse receive any advantage from her husband while she has served on the board. Also, voters might be interested in learning of the general business practices of Treehouse, are they as rightwing as Wal-Mart ? That they sold products to Wal-Mart seems of little importance.
A final irony, the Clintons appeared to use the IRS over the years to attack political opponents, particularly the females that had claims against President Clinton. Most of them had IRS problems shortly after the claims were aired. I recall that a close friend of Senator Clinton was head of the IRS at the time.

[MNDADDY]

The CEO of the company who employed the passport breachers at the State Department is a foreign policy to Barack Obama. He is also a former CIA official.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html

[dtnorth]

As usual, Ariana provides the poignant antidote to the talking heads in the MSM that use irrelevant distractions that help sell their television ads. We should be concerned with candidates income and values. Who will the candidate represent if they win the election?

[Amathyne]

The sort of comments I'm seeing here and elsewhere saddens me very, very deeply. Hillary supporters tearing and scratching at Obama's -- Obama supporters tearing and scratching at Hillary's. No matter which of them ends up with the nomination, they will have my unqualified support. But I'm resigning myself to what was unthinkable just a few short weeks ago -- "President McCain" because a party that should be united and marching to an easy win in November has decided to tear its own soul out. It genuinly brings tears to my eyes because the laughter of the right will be our only reward for scratching each other's eyes out. For God's Sake, People! Hillary or Barack - EITHER is better than the alternative. But we've forgotten that, and meanwhile, McCain just goes globe-trotting, meeting with world leaders and looking presidential. How could we have come to this???? We had it in the bag and we are blithely throwing it away... again. Wasn't it just last month that the two had such a wonderful debate about real ISSUES and clapped each other on the back and said they were honered to be on the stage with each other? That night I would have sworn on a stack of bibles that we had it in the bag... now I'm wondering if I dreamed the whole thing... (Sigh) Hello, President McCain. (shudder)

[MNDADDY]

I feel your pain. I just want America's greatest treasure, our children, out of Iraq. NOW!!

I support who I do for that one reason alone.

[Pjsandiego]

Why don't you get Hillary to stop.
She's the one that is doing this and it is
becoming painfully obvious that she wants
OBAMA to lose so she can run in 2012.

WHAT A MONSTER!

[truthseeker111]

Does Arianna aprove calling Hillary a monster?
I am just curious if she has the guts to answer this question with a yes or a no?
I guess it's ok for Obama to make racist comments as long as he has made a great speech explaining why it is not his fault!! It is the fault of his grandmother, and older african americans, and white people that are frustrated and that do not want to heel our wounds be it in a hatefull environment!!
Do all Obama supporters aprove of him deflecting the fact he stayed in a church spreading hate and lies about AIDS and the US government and him making comments about just typical white people like he did the other day (because that type of comment is really the definition of racism) ?
I would like them to answer candidly of possible and explain why that is OK?

[Verseige]

Ummm Pjsandiego? It is EXACTLY THIS kind of crap Amathyne was talking about! And I agree! It is SAD! I have my opinions about who I think is better, as does everyone else, but this garbage of name calling, character assassinating between the commenters on these blogs and threads, Suggesting that one should just quit, because YOU think the other should win? NO The race is not over until they reach that 2025 (or whatever it is) delegates. They BOTH have the right to remain in it until ALL votes are counted and EVERYONE has a chance to vote!

Huckabee stayed in an unwinnable race and would have until McCain got his 1100 (or whatever the number was) to win. It is his democratic RIGHT! JUST as it is hers! Just as it was Obama's when HE was behind. People showed admiration for Huckabee when he stuck it out. Some called it silly, but nothing ugly and expressing the deep anger and out right hatred.

If you don't like her fine, that is your right. But posting stuff like that IS what is making this race so divisive, and when you are posting stuff like that then it is YOU, not HER causing the problems.

THIS HAS TO STOP

It is not easy for any of these people to run for president. Their entire lives are ripped apart by the world, and for the world to see. Not ONE of these candidates are perfect, nor is anyone of you, nor I. We all do the best we can with what we have to work with at the time when we make choices, and sometimes those choices get attacked as a candidate. As we just saw with Obama.

If everyone could just grow up and get back to the issues, and the things that are making us support or not support someone without the name calling and immature rhetoric that seems to so slyly and sometimes obviously get shoved in the comments, maybe the Democratic Party can come out of this with some dignity and a hope for winning the general.

If people do not stop this nonsense including the media, in what seemed like an impossible year for the Republicans, they will win. Simple as that.

[moonwatcher]

It looks like another four years of War in Iraq. Hillary should be happy about that. She has supported McCain from the very beginning. With the Democratic Party split, that's exactly what we are going to get. Four more years of a Bush like administration. Four more years of corporate lobbyists running the country. We can talk about Obama's minister, Hillary's and McCain's great patriotism, gays marrying, or we can talk about issues that affect everybody. The Recession we are in, the never ending war in Iraq. How we are going to continue to pay for that war. Who is going to make the sacrifices for that war both financially and militarily. What programs are going to be cut? What are they going to do about NAFTA or are we going to just watch people unemployed struggle to support their families. If these candidates can't be open and honest with us now with their own taxes, how can we expect them to be open with us about how they are going to run the country. I also have a question for Hillary supporters. Was it open and honest of the Clinton's to drag us through their own martial mess? How patriotic were they then?

[MNDADDY]

Bill Clinton was President. And, by all factual accounts, a good one. Yes, he was impeached by a very republican congress. So what? It was the beginning of the end for the Reagan republican assault on America.

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She is an individual. Her own person. Why can't Obama supporters see that as Obama and pastor Wright goes, so does Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. I"m comfortable taking the Hillary to Bill association into the general election. The question is for Obama supporters is, are they as comfortable taking the Obama pastor Wright association into the general election.

[Pjsandiego]

To compare a few statements from an ex-pastor with the land filled garbage
collection of the Clinton's life is laughable.
These people are evil and Clintonista's have got to come to accept this fact
and allow the party to move on.

[GLBorchert]

This could be the issue that kills Billary. But, I'd expect that the reason for the delays is that they are refiling amended returns - cleaning them up. Chance are we'll never be allowed to see the real returns.

[MNDADDY]

Be sure you stoop is clean before looking at mine. Obama's returns for last 20 years? Including those for 2007? I haven't seen them, have you? If you have, please tell me, and America, where to find Obama's returns.

[Texas4Obama]

Here is a link to his 2006 tax return:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/04/baracj_obamas_2.html

If you go there and click where it says: here is a copy

The 2007 return is not due to be filed until April 15th.

This has nothing to do with the CLINTONS returns for the past eight years since they have been out of the White House.
Those eight years of returns will show all the money they made from OVER SEAS countries - that is what is important because they will OWE those people if they were to get back into the White House!

[MNDADDY]

FYI Arianna and Obama supporters everywhere, the CEO of contractor who employed the Passport breachers sits on Obama's advisory board.

Yes, let's vet some more.

[awb]

HuffPost's Pick

MNDADDY not the entire story - and definitely misleading way to state the facts known so far--

The CEO of STANLEY Co which is the firm who FIRED the two contract workers who looked into Obama's files in January and February, is a Clinton donor and Clinton supporter. The person they reported to was Maura Hardy - now retired, Ms Hardy did not report these two breaches into Sen Obama's files to her supervisors. Ms Hardy was Ambassador to Paraguay under Pres Clinton in 1998.

The "trainee" who looked at Sen Clinton's file last July was in a training session and was asked to type in a name she knew, like her mothe's name -- instead she typed in Hillary Clinton's name and was not fired --

The person who on March 14th looked at Obama and McCain's files worked for ANALYSIS Co and this is the company you refer to. This is also the person who gave the story to the Washington Times who in turn informed the State Dept - and this person was not fired.

Nice attempt to spin - just not totally accurate
Let's let the FBI do their work - shall we?

See link
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/21/794799.aspx

[GLBorchert]

MNDADDY Just relayed the CNN spin, which was woefully void of truthful details. I guess that is to be expected.

[MNDADDY]

John Brennan is the CEO of Stanley Co. and is an Obama consultant.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html

[MNDADDY]

The CEO of Stanley, Is John Brennan. Stanley hired and fired the passport breachers. Brennan is an Obama consultant right now, today, as in this second.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html

[MNDADDY]

Foreign Policy advisor to Obama. And his employees are snooping in passport files.

America, you make the call.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html

[truthseeker111]

Actually if you where to think for a bit, all campaigns have people that worked for Bill Clinton! That does not mean they support Hillary! Just look at Bill Richardson! Does he support Hillary? Humm!! And there are many in Obama's staff that are ex-Clinton staffers.

Also let's see, is there a difference between a campaign advisor and a campaign contributor? The Obama "head of the firm" is actually a campaign advisor to Obama, the other donated at some point to Hillary Clinton and may actually now be an Obama supporter!!!!

May be a little intellectual honesty should prevail!

[4wehttam]

Oh Clinton supporters, I feel for you. Your candidate is an endless liar, mean-spirited opponent, more secretive than the CIA, foaming at the mouth with the expectancy of renewed power and last but definitely not least, emotional roller coaster that never seems to end and makes one dizzy to the point you want to vomit, but you can't because it won't STOP.

She says she cares about disenfranchised voters in MI and FL, but doesn't care if voters are disenfranchised when super delegates overturn the will of the people.

She slams Obama for Rezko, but evidence shows the Clinton's have taken money from him as well.
She's mum about Wright, whispers to supers about it, but evidence shows Wright was invited to the WH.
She's been courting Richardson, even AFTER Texas, but downplays its importance when it's for Obama.
"I am so Honored, honored to be here with Barack..." "Shame on you Barack Obama..." "Celestial choirs will sing..'
Lies about running through sniper fire. Lies about her experience in the WH.

This could go on and on and on, but I know her supporters refuse to think logically about her behavior, because all they can think about is feeling sorry for her and her constant victim hood.

[undrgrndgirl]

yes, i find it reprehensible that hillary hasn't played the game the way she wants others to play...the tax returns should be made public immediately or sooner...however, i find john aravosis' comment "People with nothing to hide don't usually hide" to be quite disturbing...in an era of unprecedented spying this is a very dangerous position...one that is used to justify spying at any and all levels...frankly my personal information is just that - PERSONAL...whether or not i have anything to hide...

[thgy]

Were are Obama's State Senate records - a much graver question.

[patriotscholar]

Obama's state records are public. First, one has to look. However, here are some teasers:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_sandy_sa_080219_obama_or_clinton_3f_yo.htm

Enjoy.

[NNUS]

The comment explaining that Obama released only the shell of his tax reports WITHOUT the attached schedules where the real info is , should be bumped WAY up on this discussion . Come on dems , open your eyes :

Obama was shoehorned into his senate position by a mysteriously rollover REPUBLICAN political machine (he said himself he couldn't understand it,interview npr last fall)

Obama did best in CROSSOVER open primary states where REPUBLICANS gave him their votes

Obama has probably received most of his money from corporate shell donors and REPUBLICAN interests . Where are any reports of his MAJOR contributors ?

REPUBLICAN politics , REPUBLICAN votes , REPUBLICAN money , 3 strikes your OUT !