Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clintons Release Tax Returns


Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) (L) and her husband former U.S. President Bill Clinton look over a menu in Des Moines on the day of the Iowa Caucuses. (Reuters.)

By Matthew Mosk
Bill and Hillary Clinton earned a combined $109 million between 2000 and 2007, with the former president and first lady parlaying their White House years into hefty publishing paydays, and with his oratorical gifts bringing in more than $51 million from paid speaking engagements.

The figures came with the release this afternoon of the Clintons' joint tax returns, a move Sen. Clinton made after promising during a televised presidential debate to comply with requests from journalists and her Democratic rivals to share details of her family's financial dealings.

The returns reveal how the Clintons turned global fame into a successful commercial brand, particularly through the former president's speaking fees. The two also collected more than $30 million from book deals, the returns show.

"The Clintons have now made public thirty years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service," campaign spokesman Jay Carson said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. "None of Hillary Clinton's presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information."

Carson noted that the returns show the couple paid more than $33 million in federal taxes during that 8-year period and donated more than $10 million to various charities.

The returns represent a rags-to-riches story for a couple that came to the White House with modest means and left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica Lewinsky investigations.

The most significant portion of the couple's income -- nearly half -- has come through the former president's career as a for-hire speaker.

In 2005, Clinton averaged almost a speech a day -- 352 for the year -- though only about 20 percent were for personal income. On one particularly good day in Canada, Clinton made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 4, 2008; 4:24 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Returns Donor Cash
Next: A North Dakota Evening to Remember, Thanks to Candidate Star Power

Comments

I wish i could make 109M and give 90% to charity...that leaves me with 10M...not bad huh. I am voting for Obama no matter what!

Posted by: wow | April 13, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Hi: svreader.. check it out..Matthew 7-15.....go kick rocks..

Posted by: variezn34gm | April 5, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse


This has been posted before, but is very important. Clinton and Obama supporters should watch this, then think on it. Watch the entire thing to the pilot of the plane with Senator Clinton in Bosnia, then think on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4


Posted by: wly34 | April 5, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "bill...i want to invite you to do a speech ....

and we can pay you..something here in southern ohio...

where we love the heck out of you and y our lovely wife..."

Well, that says it for southern Ohio. They love the president who was inpeached for lying under oath. They love the Senator who is a proven liar and excuses it with "I was sleep-deprived and mis-spoke". And then has the stupidity to again post a 3AM phone call as proof of her experience. She would be too "sleep-deprived" to answer the phone. If I were you, I wouldn't try to speak for all of southern Ohio. I have friends in Cincinnati who don't feel that "love".

Posted by: wly34 | April 5, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The "Hillary Haters" and the "Clinton Haters" in particular, are out in force with the help of The Media in their not so subtle hints about the source of the income. I have had a few good laughs from watching the Cable News/Talk shows and how the memory of the question asked so many years ago came to mind- "Have you no shame?" Many of my fellow seniors will KNOW to what I refer and I wondered if any Poster here had these same thoughts?

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

It all boils down to this. The republicans hate Clinton with a passion. Half the democrats hate Clinton with a passion. Half the democrats hate Obama with a passion. That leaves the republicans voting for McCain and a lot of democrats not voting. The republicans are laughing all the way to the White House.
Somebody needs to stop all this nonsense and do what is right for the party as the republicans did.

Posted by: wly34 | April 5, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Quote: "The swift boaters cost the Clinton's hundreds of $million'$ which of course was their intent so President Bill Clinton continues to work to pay debts."

Yeah right. He could pay a lot of debts with those millions, so why doesn't he pay some of those poor hard working people that Hillary's campaign owe.

Posted by: wly34 | April 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Why would someone with a combined total of 109 million dollars want to run for president? To campaign for the toughest job in America, having to expose every detail of your personal life as well as public, to expose yourself in front of the media everyday becoming subject to every cheap shot in the book and all for what? Why go through all of that when you can simply enjoy the fruits of your labor and retire peacefully? Could it be perhaps, for the love of your country? Could it be perhaps that this woman, who had a humble beginning and struggled in many aspects has a love so great for her country and personal beliefs in what this nation can accomplish that she would seek the job of Commander in Chief? Is this really so hard for all you anti-Hillary chatters to accept?

You know, much can be said about Hillary, this is true, but don't fool yourself into believing for one minute, that this woman has led and worked for the better of humanity soley to serve self interests. She really cares about this country and the people that struggle everyday to live in it. Her work over the years should be proof enough.

All politicians have a an invested self interest. All of them, including your Obama! That does not mean however, that it should over shadow a persons life long work and attributes. You think Hillary is a b---h, well most men are as-----s, so what's your point?

This campaign is about electing a person you believe can best lead us in the direction we need to be in. To restore this economy, to provide Universal Healthcare to provide the tools necessary for individuals to work towards achieving their own dreams and goals. This campaign should not be about the person the media tells you looks better in a pant suit.

Remember the day-to-day struggles. Milk costs $4 a gallon. Eggs are up to almost $3 dollars dozen. Bread is $2 for one loaf. These are just the basics. Meat is a luxury most cannot afford. Remember that our schools and teachers have lost the interests of students. In part because most schools have cut back on so many programs that students lack the desire to devote an entire day soley on academic studies.

When thinking about what the Clinton's earned over the past 7 years, remember just that. This is what they earned over the past 7 years. Neither Clinton was born with a silver spoon. They worked for the American dream and earned it.

When you are ready to criticize the Clinton campaign for seeking contributions despite the fact that they have money, remember that between Hillary and Obama, contributions have reached $400,000,000. The majority of which was raised by the Obama campaign. Remember that when you start to criticize her because the economy is a mess and you want to take it out on her because she has money. And if you really want to complain, why not demand a cap on campaign spending-period. One commercial per primary state, one debate per state, limited spending on marketing per state, end of story. Let the candidates records speak for themselves without commercializing to such extremes-if money really matters to you.

Remember one more thing. We all have the right to make our own choice during this election, but don't forget that there are people that have always been and will always be afraid and jealous of the accomplishments and the efforts put forth by Hillary Clinton. Many woman and certainly many men, hate the idea that Sen.Hillary Clinton has exceeded many expectations. Don't let their hatred consume you as well. If you don't believe in her views that is your choice but please don't let your choice be made by those that want to merely condemn the woman and not the actions. Remember, that your choice becomes my choice. We share this world and this election. Choose wisely. Please!

Posted by: y.caraballo | April 5, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I don't remember anybody offering me tea [wry smirk] on the tarmac.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse


OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKE CNN HIDES IT!

Sen. Obama referres to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title! Obama changed website bio to reflect that he was a 'lecturer' rather than 'professor. Chicago Daily Herald
Obama gets 4 Pinocchios for 100 Years War-Wondered why the national media won't call out Obama for his serial distortions on McCain's Iraq comments, the Globe tried to help Obama rationalize it. Michael Dobbs scolded Obama in today's Fact Checker


MSNBC-OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION
Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role.
The WashigntonPost Fact Check- Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Judicial Watch:
By Klaus Marre-Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

Politico reports, "During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he's projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama's answers he never saw questioaire?

NBC- Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors


Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.


Posted by: dyck21005 | April 5, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

THE MEDIA LIKE AP-CNN AND MSNBC ARE SELLING OUT AMERICANS
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/04/05/ap-covers-obama-avoiding-churchs-pastors-essence
Associated Press: Playing defense for Obama: Karen Hawkins and Christopher Wills of the Associated Press quilty of Wright-wash! In their articles Hawkins and Wills avoid any mention of the main tenets of "Black Liberation Theology that form the foundation and belief system of the Trinity United Church of Christ. AP pair purposely avoided any mention of inflammatory items in weekly bulletin articles published by the Church.

Nowhere in the story's 1,200-plus words was there any mention of the Church's belief system, which was outlined by McClatchy's Margaret Tavel on March 20: Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines. Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation. Those are some of the doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Obama's church.

Wright said basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power. Cone wrote that the U.S. was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

In the July 22 bulletin, in the "Pastor's Page" section, the Rev. Wright gave two pages of space to a colunmn by "Hamas TERRORIST Mousa Abu Marzook. The column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, which came under heavy criticism for running it. Among Marzook's many whoppers: A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. CAMERA.org wrote at the time that "that no Israeli parties in government advocate the 'expulsion' of Arabs; one calls for voluntary transfer."

A June 10 bulletin article, also in the "Pastor's Page" section, was written by terrorist sympathizer Ali Baghdadi. Among other things, Baghdadi wrote I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. The KKK, on its worst day, never accused the ethnic groups it hated of attempting to concoct a "white bomb. Rev. Wright not only allowed these hate-filled diatribes to appear in TUCC's bulletins but supports as does Obama.

**The Conservative Times: Exclusive: Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed
March 22, 2008 by Jim Kouri, CPP vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html

Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden would be praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq. Article by Citizen Wells 3/08,
Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya. Obama is an anti-Israel, pro-pan-Arabian Islamic-socialist who has ties to Marxist Libyan President Muamar al Gadaffi, and a Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Rezko's "close friend" Nadhami Auchi, the one who gave Obama fundraiser money (and helped to buy his mansion): Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer, Nadhmi Auchi, was Baathist best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer (from funds stolen from Oil for Food Program0 for Saddam's - Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and who stood trial with Saddam Hussein in 1959 for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim.

Also marxist Nicaragian President Daniel Ortega is on the front line supporting Obama for the revolution of changes and then there is hard core anti-Israel, pro-Palestine PLO Enforcer Rashid Khalid, (Obama was on Kalidi's Woods Fund. Obama was a memb er of the Woods Fund with communist domestic terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground who bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol among other things and their organization raised money for anti-Israel programs, and also AAAN, for Arabs and then there is especially Kenya - where in August 2007, Obama went to Kenya to support his E. Germany communist educated cousin Raila Odinga for Kenyan Presidential election, who claims coincidentally to also be a Christian who signed NAMLEF and other pacts wutg radical muslims who set churches filled with Christians on fire, and macheted them in the streets, causing a political and religious mini-civil war over the MUO.

all of Obama's mentors, buddies, political affiliations, organizational memberships and all of his hard core militant muslim family members, like his brother Abongo (Roy" Odinga who hates America, and their communist grandfather who ran with Russia and hated America, not to mention his socialist connection to his profound childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, CPUSA, and Obama's endorsement by the Black Panthers. Obama titled his book "Audacity of Hope," after Pastor Wright's sermon about the need to destroy capitalism and the middle-class at the hands of the rich white people and the west.


Posted by: dyck21005 | April 5, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

listen to big one

he's got the inside u nderstand and the

truth about what's happening in this election


rovian and right wing hate groups...who love to hate clintons for

winning back to the party...

what obama is so deperatly trying to get to "cross over"

that's why he made such appeals to the

raygun crowd...

but...it didn't work in ohio and texas and...probably will not work in pa and indiana and especially in kty and wva

....so ..go figure

you have to treat "crabgrass" with no respect

...great line and its true...

you need the big guns to kill the bad stuff

right?

all you right winger "arms for hostages"

[hostages and coke and great ollie "patriot" north i love cocaine deals from columbian crowd....that is...]

get real...china and russia are having mercy on us right now...

if we did not have a great navy and great air force

at the moment..we would be yesterday's history ...like Imperial Japan...

...given how this neo con vis a vis, neo nazi crowd has run this past six year "war" on terror....

..amazing...rich men get richer... on war and young men and women's and many iraqi nationals...deaths..and terrible wounds...

but the boys running america's arm industry just keep on getn' richer by the hour...

anyone got a blackwater deal for the middle class and homeowners of america???

mmmm

i didn't think so...


go hillary....

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | April 5, 2008 6:34 AM | Report abuse

guys and dolls

do you understand what they just released

more financial records than ANY president or public figure has in the past 30 years!

ha. ha. ha

and guess what...who gives a damn if bill and hillary made tens of millions on speeches and books...at least they suffered for it and they earned the right to tell their story

after all...those book deals would not have been quite a lucrative

if it had not been for the big republican HATE MACHINE"S GREAT HATCHET WORK ON THEM IN THE 90's!

thank you newt! who would have known being targeted by all of your sorry

"we got the dress" crowd folks...

would have made bill and hil so wealthy!!!

great stuff...but only in America....


...puritans...arise...get to those negative pens of yours...you're going to make them even richer!!!

how IRONIC INDEED!

go bill...you and hil ARE THE BEST WE GOT BABY!!!

we love ya...the blue collar love ya

and yes, bill...the woman love ya

and hillary

the white male voter and the white female voter..[ron raygun guys and dolls]

LOVE YOU BOTH....

because ...catholics know the value of a good bj!! and how it

DOESNT MAKE ONE IOTA DIFFERENCE IN KNOWING HOW TO RUN A COUNTRY
AND NOT LIE TO GET US INTO A FN COSTLY AND SICK WAR!!!!!!

i'll take the "FIRST PERJURER" over a bj

anyday....

as opposed to the "FIRST EMPEROR AND NEO NAZI"S" That have been carefully cultivated

both their evil empire plans for a generation at least

and....

the police state we know have inherited as a result

...give me a lusty lovable southerner and his uber intelligent and cagy wife

over a sicko lying bunch of pentagon addicts and /or humanity and poor people haters


ANY TIME

bill...i want to invite you to do a speech ....

and we can pay you..something here in southern ohio...

where we love the heck out of you and y our lovely wife...

[and we just kicked some obama butt here too]

would you come?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | April 5, 2008 6:23 AM | Report abuse

La la la la la la la

The sound in the head of the Obama cultist after there leader just got yet another smack down. Way to get those tax returns out - Bill is rich - who new - two books a speaking fees. I had no idea.

There is always the Library.

Posted by: mul | April 5, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

Where are the details of the 2007 income? Thats what we're looking for. Why isn't the Washington Post asking? This is a lot of flack released to appease us. This is not a 2007 return as promised. These are 2007 "highlight". Are they filing for an extensions? THis is due by the 15th. Don't be appeased!

Posted by: kentduffy | April 4, 2008 09:36 PM

I must ask. Why do the GOP put so much effort into this crap. Governing is about making hard choices not speaking fees.

If you don't like it over-hall the system. A daily machine weak wristed moron is not going to change things. Pres make money -even Obama makes money. Bill was not a child of the well to do like Obama, Mac, or Hillary. He was poor - became pres - got ritch B.

Posted by: mul | April 5, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Clinton better then Obama as a human being.

10 million - make those people saints.

No more tax return crap on the boards.

Anyway they are far too rich to bribe.

Obama will sell his soul for a house.

-Obama you just got the beat down of your life.

Posted by: mul | April 5, 2008 5:24 AM | Report abuse

The $10 million the Clintons "gave" to charity they gave to themselves for their own Foundation - with Bill the President, Hillary the Secretary/Treasurer and Chelsea the Director - along with another Clinton family members.

Of the $10 million, only a small fraction was given away to others, and the tax returns don't explain what happened to the rest of the money.

Here's the link:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/04/clinton_charitable_giving_is_to_clinton_charity

Posted by: nandssmith | April 5, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone really consider that since America is ruled by the top one-half of one-percent it has not made much more of a difference who you vote for any more than it would made a difference if Captain Smith of the HMS Titanic would have ordered full steam ahead once the ship was cut open? I mean it's dead and gone folks. It never was a representative government except in ink on founding documents.

Posted by: sperrico | April 5, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Re: comment about Obama: "He has no idea what it's like to be middle class--he showed us that at the bowling alley!"

From this kind of analysis, it's easy to see that Hillary's supporters do indeed favor the "under-educated".

I'd go so far as to say: THE STUPID

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Re: comment about Obama: "He has no idea what it's like to be middle class--he showed us that at the bowling alley!"

From this kind of analysis, it's easy to see that Hillary's supporters do indeed favor the "under-educated".

I'd go so far as to say: THE STUPID

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Re: comment about Obama: "He has no idea what it's like to be middle class--he showed us that at the bowling alley!"

From this kind of analysis, it's easy to see that Hillary's supporters do indeed favor the "under-educated".

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Re: comment about Obama: "He has no idea what it's like to be middle class--he showed us that at the bowling alley!"

From this kind of analysis, it's easy to see that Hillary's supporters do indeed favor the "under-educated".

I'd go so far as to say: THE STUPID

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

HOW THE CLINTONS PREPARED THEIR SOLDIER TO THE SHOCK OF THE $ 109 M EARNED IN 6 YEARS, WHEN FINALLY THEY WERE FORCED TO RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURN WHICH WERE OBVIOUSLT AVAILABLE IN THEIR IRS FORMS AND ONLY NEEDED TO BE XEROSCOPIED MANY MONTH AGO ??

YOU CAN SEE THE ANSWER BY THE COORDINATE EFFORT OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN MEMBER ON THIS BLOG:

1) Emphacize the $ 10 M charity donations
as a magnificent deed
------------------------------------------
Of couse, considering that $ 82 M of these income was earned by some writing and speeches, which value based only on the fact that BILL WAS PRESIDENT before and therefore a PERK,the $ 10 M seem a lot less impressive

$ 10M on a net income about $ 80M is much, much less as 2 or 3% on a normal citizen income

2) Tout that OBAMA is earning $ 40 M
a month
____________________________________
Of course, forgetting that he doesn't earn a cent of it, as it was raised by the campaign for its expenses

3) Tell people that McCain earned $ 100 M
_________________________________________
without mentioning that this is his total fortune and not earnings, the fortune itself coming from the family of his wife

4) Do not accept to discuss who paid BILL the completely out if range prices for his speeches (one day in Canada $ 450,000)
_________________________________________
which most probably include special interests and lobyists.

5) Do anything possible to distract from this issue by attacking OBAMA and McCAIN

And of course, the most important information, who made the ten of Millions donations for the Library and to Hillary campaign for Senate, and their relation with pardons issued in the last hours of \ the Presidency, still is not released.
WII IT BE BEFORE THE COVENTION ??

Caminito

_________________________________________

Posted by: caminito | April 5, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

To die-hard Clinton supporters these tax returns mean nothing other than the Clintons getting a piece of the American pie.

How naive you all are? There are political reasons Hillary released their joint tax returns on Friday with only a "summary" of the 2007 return.

How can Hillary appeal to working-class Democratic voters as understanding their plight when her and Bill have made about $110 million over the last 8 years.

Although I applaud the Clintons for giving $10 million of their earnings to charity, a closer scrutiny reveals that 80% of that $10 million was given in 2004 and beyond. And if you recall Hillary was thought to be a potential presidential candidate in 2004.

Given what I know of the McCains, the Clintons and the Obamas personal finances, I would happily make the argument that the Obamas are closer to middle income Americans than the Clintons or McCains.

The days of "Bubba" happily jogging to McDonald's for a Big Mac are long gone!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 4, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

How do you spell KICKBACKS?

and those are just the whitewashed tax returns ...

Posted by: natterly71 | April 4, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

From what I heard on the news she gave a summary of her 2007 tax return, not her actual 2007 tax return as she promised. Makes me wonder what is she hiding.

Posted by: big__ez | April 4, 2008 05:48 PM
___________________________________________
2007 taxes are not due yet. She gave a summary--more than what is required. McCain and Obama have released NOTHING for 2007.

Posted by: krogersmd | April 4, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

And many people criticize the opinion I have that true representative government of America has died long ago from lobbyists and their round-about bribes.

Posted by: sperrico | April 4, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Once again, much ado about nothing. The Obama campaign made such a big deal about what would be in these tax returns, and sorry for you, no big deal. They paid their taxes, didn't take even as many deductions as they were entitled to and gave a good amount to charity. Now the OBS conspiracy theorists are on to what might be in the NEXT set of documents.

You can't begrudge Bill Clinton for making his money in speaking fees--that's what speakers make. Would you ask an actress or athlete to work for less that market value? My sister is a public speaker, no where near the league of Bill Clinton, but she can make more in a 10 minute speech than I can make in 2 months of teaching.

Those who want to claim that the Obamas can't afford to give as much to charity should note that they have given from 1/2 of 1% of their income up to 3%,which was rated as quite a bit below what the average person of their income bracket gives to charity. But they could afford to give $27,000 to their church.

Barack Obama actually has led a more privileged life than Hillary Clinton. He likes to start his story that he was born to a single mother (which is a lie) because he knows we'll all make the leap to some poor disadvantaged black youth. Not so at all. When his father left when he was 2, he was lovingly and comfortably raised in an upper class white neighborhood in Hawaii by his mom and 2 grandparents. He went to an elite private high school and on to the Ivy League. He has no idea what it's like to be middle class--he showed us that at the bowling alley!

Posted by: krogersmd | April 4, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

The swift boaters cost the Clinton's hundreds of $million'$ which of course was their intent so President Bill Clinton continues to work to pay debts.
In the mean time bush's Carlyle Group is bailed out by TAXPAYERS; that's you and me!!

Posted by: knjincvc | April 4, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Clinton consultant Mark Penn is shilling for a free trade agreement with Colombia that Hillary says she opposes.

As can be seen from the Clintons' tax returns, those friendly people in Dubai give millions to Bill Clinton while Hillary claims she opposes Dubai ownership of American seaports on national security grounds.

Marc Rich, the fugitive international financier and union buster, was pardoned by Bill Clinton, who enjoyed a social relationship with Rich's wealthy wife.

Hillary's brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, also profited from dubious presidential pardons offered by the would-be First Filanderer.

Tony Rodham helped gain a presidential pardon for a Tennessee couple convicted of bank fraud.

Hugh Rodham pocketed $400,000 in legal fees after two of his clients were granted last-minute pardons. One, Carlos Vignali Jr., was convicted for transporting 800 pounds of cocaine; and his pardon was granted against the wishes of the Justice Department.

The list goes on and on ...

One of the best compilations was done by the very reputable Stuart Taylor of the National Journal, who asked:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton is supposed to be smart. But how smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?)" ...

Christopher Hitchens, the ubiquitous conscience of the Fourth Estate, is right.

Hillary's "offenses to veracity and decency rival," he said, "if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor."

Parents, can anyone in their right mind think this pair of co-dependent "grifters"--the word Jimmy Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, used to define them--is a good role model for today's children?

Personal responsibility is the key to government accountability.

Just today, Hillary is blaming "the boys" for her tanking campaign ...

Forget the pharonic and wasteful spending by her campaign, the vicious infighting among her key advisors, race-gate, the made-for-Hollywood portrayal of Full-Metal-Jacket St. Hillary of Bosnia, etc., etc., etc.

When Hillary is losing, it is always because she is the victim of dark and sinister forces.

Except that these are an ever changing cast of characters (witness her making nice-nice last week with the man who in the 1990s she claimed headed the "vast rightwing conspiracy"--Pennsylvania mogul Mellon Scaife).

If you begin to add up the list of all those Hillary has blamed at one point or another for her being unable to realize her agenda or her ambitions you come up with at least the beginnings of an interesting profile ...

It is of the American people themselves.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | April 4, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

the clintons did not enter politics super wealth

bill has been talking for years about his new found wealth and how he has now because of bush

a great new tax break and bracket...

and he's been very very open about that

so..you can not fault him for cashing in on all that trashing he and Hillary under went...

the republican rnc ginrich smeal maching

paid off for the clintons...personally

and i say...

MORE POWER TO THEM

they are ALMOST AS RICH A ONE BLACK SUPER RAPPER

BUT NOT NO WHERE CLOSE TO JAZ Z OR PUFF DADDY COMBS...

and we're not even close to

speilberg and that crowd...

and we're in kindergarter

if you're talking corporate ceo's

they make that amount in a year


so please..guys

lets quit the talk

these are two VERY BRIGHT AND ENERGY ANDPOSITIVE PEOPLE

AND HAVE BEEN THRU SO MUCH


is it the bush's and the reagan's and the dick cheney's....and the

[KENNEDY"S AND THE ROCKERFELLERS...]

ARE THE ONLY RICH FOLKS ALLOWED TO
run for higer office

THE NATION

give me a break...

hillary's income and bill's super great standing around the world

was HARD EARNED...

so repos and sickos who can make much of a living in this depression era

don't be little some one who or a couple who have

despite it all

have made it well

and bill is VERY VERY OPEN ABOUT THE SAME

AND THE BUSH TAX CUTS

but he still had a feel for the common person...

it simply shows they could literally

go off into the sunset ...easily
'
and not give a rat's a....about the country or the poor or the working class

but she truly does

give her a chance

and she will show you...just like bill did

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | April 4, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

During Bubba's presidency, many millionaires and billionaires were created, millions of jobs were created, the value of the stock market soared to TRILLIONS. Bubba and his wife deserve their share of the American Pie, it is the American way.

Posted by: cheersdk | April 4, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Folks compare apple to apple, how much did Bubba make the year or two before he became president? Obama made $1.6 million from book fees, if he becomes president, he will get his post pres. pay day also.

Posted by: cheersdk | April 4, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

109 million over 7 years works out to about 15 million a year. An average shortstop makes about that much in the major leagues. They paid their taxes and contributed generously to charity. Get over it Obamatrons.

Posted by: brewstercounty | April 4, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Unlike the Obamas who give their money overwhelmingly to racist, anti-American churches, the Clintons give wholeheartedly to charities that actually help all peoples. The difference between the two families could not be more stark, one hates America, and the other, typical white people, love America. How hard is it to figure out who to vote for? NOT!

Posted by: brigittepj | April 4, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Nothing wrong with making money in America. A president once said "the Business of America is Business", he was Pres. Coolidge.

American ideal is work hard, make money, spend it, multiplier effect...creates jobs, provide for your family, etc.

Even bozos these days make hundres of thousands of dollars, talented, intelligent, hard-working folks like the Clintons deserve to make their share of the American Pie.

Posted by: cheersdk | April 4, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Ladies and Gentlemen...109 million dollars CLAIMED. Well that's just plain ugly and a real tell-tale sign of how screwed uo this Country is. I want no one connected to the 109 million to live in our white house.

Posted by: jrickperryjr | April 4, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

The Obamaites are grasping at straws. It is a good thing that a former President is popular on the speaking circuit and gets paid for it - what's wrong with that? Not like other corrupt politicians who use public funds for their personal pocket change (think the Detroit mayor).

The Clintons give money to charities while Obama gives money to Wright (who then has his congregation build him a million dollar house.. very interesting).

Posted by: alee21 | April 4, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are so generous, $10 Million in charity, they work hard and give back to the community, the country, the world.

I love listening to Bill Clinton speak, his oratory skills are great and special, from the heart, a true American treasure. Do what you do Bubba! Do what you do Hillary!

Posted by: cheersdk | April 4, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Are the Clintons Democrats or Republicans ?

Posted by: svarada123 | April 4, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Before you GOP'ers and anti-Clintonites get too bent out of shape about Bill Clinton's speaking fees, it is quite common for former leaders to get insanely outrageous fees for making very short speeches. And yes, we all know what that's about. Can you say, "Pay back".

Clinton has done quite well, but his earnings are paltry compared to former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair makes $1 Million to $2 Million per month on the speaking tour.

And Republicans have been especially good at raking in the post-government bucks. Ronald Reagan once got $2 Million for just two speeches in Japan, and much criticism back in this country.

Former House Speaker Newt Gringrich found that private speaker is better than public Speaker. He has made $50,000 per speech giving 60 speeches per year (that's $3 Million per year).

George H. W. Bush makes "more than" $50,000 to $75,000 per speech. He once was reportedly offered $2 Million to make just eight speeches in Japan (that's $250,00 per speech). He is said to have turned down the offer. Probably didn't want to take the chance of barfing on Japan's Prime Minister again.

And Colin Powell is said to make $100,000 per speech plus a Lear Jet to get him there.

Most former politicians less than a President or Prime Minister get $25,000 to $50,000 per speech. As much as people love to hate the Clintons, big fees for short speeches is not a Clinton thing. It's just a perk of office.

Posted by: MoralProtagonist | April 4, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "She also stated in an interview that she would accept minimum wage as President."

She also is a proven liar and when confronted she said she was "sleep-deprived and mis-spoke".

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

It's really not about the money for Hillary obviously. Not only do they give money to charity, President Clinton has his own foundation that funnels about $80 million dollars a year to causes such as AIDS treatments, fighting children's obesity, and rebuilding New Orleans. The charity funnels more money than Oprah's Angel network (and Oprah is a billionaire). The non-profit organization Charity Navigator rated the Clinton Foundation 4 stars.

Interesting bits about Hillary:

Hillary voted that Congress should tie their raises to the minimum wage - no salary increases for Congress unless they raised the minimum wage.

She also stated in an interview that she would accept minimum wage as President.

She did not grow up rich - just middle class. Her father paid for her tuition to college, but she worked throughout college to pay for her books and expenses. She paid for all of Yale law school herself - working and taking out loans.

When she was 14, she started a babysitting brigade to watch the children of migrant workers who could not afford child care.

I think that she sincerely cares about America and the working class, and the underpriviledged. And I think that they are using their money and influence in really meaningful ways.

I think that she would be a great President.

Posted by: dc210 |
__________________________________________

Great post by aerson who has done his research and not listened to others.th repeating. Righrt on. I'm from her neighboring state and am aware of her good deeds. Worth repeating.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "How can anyone expect anyone making under a mil to give 10% to charity."

Apparently you don't attend a church?? No matter what you make, 10% is a tithe.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Where are the details of the 2007 income? Thats what we're looking for. Why isn't the Washington Post asking? This is a lot of flack released to appease us. This is not a 2007 return as promised. These are 2007 "highlight". Are they filing for an extensions? THis is due by the 15th. Don't be appeased!

Posted by: kentduffy | April 4, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Unbounded corruption is the only explanation for that kind of loot. The Clinton's are racking in more than the Mafia bosses. Why would anyone want to vote for anyone as corrupt as Hillary, as if Bush with his similar penchant for wealth and power has done any good? We cannot get rid of these corrupt despots fast enough.

Posted by: bastanow
=======================================

Are you honestly telling me that McCain or Obama would be better. Yeah, right. The only difference is thar McCain and Hillary have theirs. Obama is seeking his.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm calling it a night. I have to get some sleep because tomorrow I'm driving up to York, Pa., again to canvass neighborhood voters for the Obama campaign.

You know what's really funny? I've gone to volunteer in four states now (S.C., Delaware, Md., and Pa.). Yet, in all that time (and during all those miles) walking door-to-door, I've never once run into a Clinton worker. I guess they're all too busy posting to these message boards to actually get outside and talk to the voters. LOL!

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

i didn't read the whole article, but do these tax returns only list legal sources of income? or do they also include the under the table payoffs such as from that canadian financier's kickback to slick will after getting that huge uranium contract in kazakhstan....

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | April 4, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

With all their millions and more millions in donations, Billarys campaign still went blank, because money has no value to then, sign up for a few speeches, wrote a few books and get another $10 or $20 million.

No sorry, i want someon ein office who knows the value of money like I do....

Neither McCain or Billary have any problem paying their bills.

Posted by: mildbrew | April 4, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone expect anyone making under a mil to give 10% to charity.


Posted by: nolawip

==========================================
Many, many people who make under $50,000 give 10% to charity.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

no wonder they are friggin laughing their faces off in the photo accompanying this article.

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | April 4, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Unbounded corruption is the only explanation for that kind of loot. The Clinton's are racking in more than the Mafia bosses. Why would anyone want to vote for anyone as corrupt as Hillary, as if Bush with his similar penchant for wealth and power has done any good? We cannot get rid of these corrupt despots fast enough.

Posted by: bastanow | April 4, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

I agree with: "Are these speeches payback? Or are big firms trying to show members of Congress "vote with us on these bills and when you leave govt. we'll pay you $400,000 to give one 20 min speech" Because outside that I just can't imagine these firms paying such staggering sums just for a speech that you can get for free at a graduation ceremony. Posted by: cambel1 | April 4, 2008 04:33 PM " MikeSar
This reminds me of the scam set up for Ike. He was an honest General and had no money to run, so he wrote a book, I forget the name, and its sales were huge. Some individuals asked that even 1,000 copies be sent to an address.
It was all a coverup to give money to Ike in a legal way. Now, we know another way to do the same, also legally.
Legal? Yes! Commendable? NO!

Posted by: MikeSar | April 4, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

It has been said that a conservative is a liberal who acquired a bank account.

So, kudos to the Clintons for resisting the temptation to change.

Oh, wait- being liberal is a job for them. A very, very well-paid job.

Never mind!

Posted by: billmosby | April 4, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

$51 million? Have you ever heard this guy speak? I have.

The first time I heard Bill Clinton speak was when he delivered the 1988 Democratic party convention keynote address. It was god-awful.

I have heard him speak twice, in person, over the last 3 years. He hasn't gotten much better at it.

Posted by: saraz1 |
----------------------------------------

Damn. Why do you keep going back to hear him.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Again, all is moot. After the Clinton fraud trial gets under way, Senator Clinton's own party will force her from the election.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Even former CT Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker (a Repub of integrity -- he pressed Nixon as much as anyone, at tremendous political cost) has endorsed Obama.

But Hillary got Murtha to endorse her! You know -- the unindicted Abscam co-conspirator who snitched on fellow Congressmen. Takes one to know one...

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

svreader, if I were a Clinton supporter, after reading your posts, I would stay at home during the general election.

That's how effective you are.

Have a good evening.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

A lot of imbecile Kool-aid drinkers around these parts. Please, allow me to save you from your deluded selves. STOP-OBAMA . ORG

Posted by: sovereignty4me | April 4, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Data from the Clinton Returns (2007 is not available):

Year AGI Charity Percentage
2001 15,949,810 807,580 5.06%
2002 9,466,632 115,000 1.21%
2003 7,934,705 410,000 5.17%
2004 19,995,915 2,534,280 12.67%
2005 18,056,395 1,755,473 9.72%
2006 15,858,422 1,580,503 9.97%

Total 87,261,879 7,202,836 8.25%

Posted by: pgoyal01 | April 4, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?"

Oh good grief, how do you explain away the fact that the worst burned out slums in the nation are in Senator Clintons state??
Makes just as much sense and works both ways.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

okay, I read this and I feel a little ill. They've prospered and times are hard. At any rate, they are on the RIGHT side of politics...AND my support of Barack Obama is solidified.

Posted by: llhassan | April 4, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

svreader, according to your own posted information, no one froze to death. So why do you continue lying?

Believe me, no matter how many lies you post on Hillary's behalf, she's not going to dump Bill and move in with you. LOL

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Hispana

You're absolutely correct.
its a waste of my time to go back and forth with these guys.

It's going to be interesting to see what their reaction once "Obama's Slums" is published.
_____________________________________________

I love it! hispana's emboldened svliar to go back to one of his golden oldies, the book that no one can find! No one is marketing it, no one has ordered it, but svliar says, take his word for it!

Seriously, even NIXON's supporters had the intellectual honesty (and grasp of reality) to admit that their man was a crook and act accordingly once faced with incontrovertible evidence. But in the world of Clinton backers (evidently -- I haven't seen one repudiate svliar's blatant lies yet), it's true if you want it to be true. I guess that's what Bill means when he says "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." I thought it was an evasion under oath, turns out it's a brilliant existential insight!

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

What's the matter with you capitalists? Whatever these people earned by speaking or writing is honest money. They didn't steal it from taxpayers or Enron type scams. We don't crucify the top CEOs of the country when they pull down hundreds of millions a year and more upon severance, so why get riled up over a former president using his best skills to make a buck? Rudy is doing the same thing since 9/11. If corporations are willing to shell it out, why not take it? If you were in Bill's shoes, what would you do?
Having said that, I think all of this has nothing to do with the upcoming elections. May the best person win.

Posted by: cy31b | April 4, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

There was a time, not too long ago, when ex-presidents were criticized for "cashing in" on their office. Reagan and Ford, for example, faced such criticism, as did the first Bush for making a speech in Japan. No more. All restraints are off. It seems that just about everyone in America now expects to cash-in, anyway they can, so why should an ex-president be more restrained?

It should be noted, however, that Bill Clinton's job as Governor of Arkansas was barely a paying job. When he came to office, I believe the salary was limited to something like $10,000. per year and later raised to somewhere around 16 to 20 thousand. This was the way the citizens of Arkansas had of telling their governor that he was a public servant, first and last, but it kept the Clinton's in fairly close straights for a long time, which is one reason Hillary Clinton worked at a law firm and, eventually, served on corporate boards. Hillary supported the governor of Arkansas in the lifestyle to which he became accustomed.

Nonetheless, I am astounded, repeatedly, at the size of the paychecks the wealthy and the super wealthy are getting in this country. True, a million dollars isn't what it used to be, but ten or twenty million a year is still a fortune. Right now, I have a close friend who is working an 18 hour shift in DC, with no overtime, and making, maybe, 60K a year. (It is his third or fourth such shift this week, also.)

Things are truly out of order. The balance of power between the rich and the poor has been destroyed and the idea of decency for those who labor with their hands has evaporated. Either you get what you can, as fast as you can, or you are a sucker. That's why the Clinton's are not criticized more for their new wealth.

Posted by: DougTerryterryreportcom | April 4, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

NEO-CONS FOR HILLARY ! ! !

Pretend that you're a Democrat (Hillary supporter)

Smear Obama with any of the following:

1. He's a Muslim
2. He's not Black enough
3. He's not White enough
4. He's not patriotic
5. He's a racist

note: never address any "issues", instead smear him with any association: his pastor, someone who endorses him, his wife, his father,etc. always make racist commments (i.e. compare him to Jim Jones), put his middle name in capital letters...and MOST IMPORTANT repeat it over and over (check FoxNews for latest smear)

remember: Americans are stupid! (look how we got them in the Iraq war!)

if you repeat anything enough, they'll believe it.

then

SAY IF OBAMA IS NOMINATED, YOU WON'T VOTE DEMOCRATIC IN NOVEMBER

* note: this is generally true, but if Hillary is nominated, it doesn't matter who gets elected...you can vote for whomever you want....McCain is slightly better, but both are in our lobby's pocket, i.e. both Clinton and McCain will put America in our WARS

THE NEOCON LOBBY OWNS BOTH MCCAIN AND HILLARY.

but not Obama

WE MUST STOP OBAMA !

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 4, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Again svreader, read slowly and move your lips slowly. Who froze?? Again read my lips, Obama is charged with nothing regarding Rezko, no matter how you would like for him to be.
The Clintons are charged with fraud and depositions are being taken for the trial.
Hmmmmm??

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

if your job was outsourced thank bill and hill..........the million dollar per month couple........

Posted by: elwoodpdowd | April 4, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

To ChunkyMonkey1... Foundations in the US are vetted by the government. It is the IRS that gives them the status as a foundation, hence money given to these are tax deductible.

Anyway you twist it, the Clintons gave $10m to charity - 10% of income for 8 years. Many would say, well they have so much so it should be easy for them. For those who say so, why not give 10% of your income to charity. If you make $50K, then give $5K. I am sure you would appreciate what the Clintons have given once you have given money to charity yourself. To say the least, I am very, very impressed by the generosity of the Clintons.

Posted by: CPCook | April 4, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Hispana

You're absolutely correct.
its a waste of my time to go back and forth with these guys.

It's going to be interesting to see what their reaction once "Obama's Slums" is published.

Everyone else is welcome to read the Chicago Sun-Times article and look at the NBC news report, and free to come to their own conclusons about what they show about Barry Obama's judgement and character.

They are just the tip of the iceberg.

If Obama becomes the nominee, Obama's failure to look out for the people who elected him in Chicago will be examined in detail by the press, because it shows what he does as opposed to just what he says.

Obama supporters keep trying to confuse the issue.

Its not about Obama's house, its about "Obama's Slums"

How can anyone support Barry Obama when he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Obama knew, but did nothing.

That says everything.

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

drzimmern: "Barry-boy Obama's bragging about collecting $40 million a month income (equals 4,800,000,000 a year). Obama will be sailing a gigantic yacht into the harbor in no time."

Another child left behind.

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"Barry-boy Obama's bragging about collecting $40 million a month income (equals 4,800,000,000 a year). Obama will be sailing a gigantic yacht into the harbor in no time. Its just not exciting to try to make a gold mountain out of a tax molehill."

A little difference. He has to spend that on the election. Anything else??

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's EIGHT year income is hardly impressive, considering others have much more. McCain's $220 million worth. Barry-boy Obama's bragging about collecting $40 million a month income (equals 4,800,000,000 a year). Obama will be sailing a gigantic yacht into the harbor in no time. Its just not exciting to try to make a gold mountain out of a tax molehill.

Posted by: drzimmern | April 4, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

1) MARTINIANO: Y0U SAY:
"""That's excellent! They donated $10MM? Maybe I should raise their pedestal a little higher. I'm still voting for Obama, but the Clinton's donation/income ratio is honorable"

I DISAGREE: 9% of the gross income would be very OK if this income originates from their own work and investments, but not if about 75% bases on books and speaches which would be valueless without BILL's presidency. This money is therefore a PERK and donate about 15% of it is really poor.
Other presidents, as CARTER, created foundations and endowed them with much more than that.

2) CAMBELLA. you say:
"""ARE THESE APEACHES PAYBACKS? Or are big firms trying to show members of Congress "vote with us on these bills and when you leave govt. we'll pay you $400,000 to give one 20 min speech" Because outside that I just can't imagine these firms paying such staggering sums just for a speech that you can get for free at a graduation ceremony"""

This is obviously something to be investigated. Some of the fees, as the ones of the "GOOD DAY IN CANADA" are simply not credible.
Several countries have laws forbidding their top governants to sell their speaches and position related books for several years, precisely to avoid such abuse.
LOOKING AT THIS ASTRONOMIC FIGURES, I BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE RELEASE OF THESE RETURNS WAS SO MUCH DELATED !!

3) Above is also related with the LIBRARY donations, still not released. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS DELAY ?? Such information must be compiled in the books of the LIBRARY and only need to be copied !!

4)It is absolutely necessary clarify, between other, the relation of the last minute pardon of MARC RICH with his interaction with the CLINTON's and donation to the LIBRAY and Hillart's SENATE campaign.

CAMINITO


Posted by: caminito | April 4, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure any of these candiates can relate regular working folks.

Posted by: mrmagoo066 | April 4, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Clintons release tax returns of 109 million...

Let them eat cake.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Funny how these rich Democrats are always so interested in taking other folks' profits. Last time I looked Osama Obama and that hideous wife of his had done pretty well financially too.

Posted by: birvin9999 | April 4, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

We're still waiting svreader. Google and all the posts say "in freezing Chicago" That's the city that is cold, not the people freezing. And that's all posted from people against Obama. He is charged with nothing regarding Rezko, but the Clintons are charged with fraud and depositions are being taken as we speak.

Stop with your posting this stuff until you can prove it with links. Who froze?? No one.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "As far as listing the names of people who died in Obama's slums, I will not post any details that I know beyond what's available from public sources."

The names of anyone who froze to death in an unheated Chicago apartment would be a matter of public record. You have a Ph.D. (snicker) so you must be smart enough to know this. There is absolutely no issue of confidentiality involved.

Therefore, you're simply a liar.

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Do not engage in any back and forth with these idiots that evidently don't have anything else to say but to continue to argue anybody that is pro Hillary. They have run out of arguments.

**Yes, because knowingly making false statements is so elevating. Funny how facts don't matter to CLinton supporters soon as there's proof Clinton or her supporters are LYING.**

I want to see what else do they invent concerning Hillary's tax returns, but before they do why don't they make public the finances of their darling candidate? Obama and croonies have been screaming murder about this issue and now they are falling flat on their faces because their SPIN is NO SPIN.

Now is time to delve into the Rezco association, the Rev. Wright remaining ondits and Obama's leftist connections that have remained in the background. Bring that out and let's talk about it!!!

**Yes, let's talk about the Rezco accusations. The chief prosecution witness ADMITTED that he is "a thief, a con man, a liar and a junkie who stole from the children of a dead relative". Kinda makes his credibility questionable. What will you say if Rezko beats the charges?**

Posted by: Hispana | April 4, 2008 08:42 PM

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Big News flash..Clintons have tons of money!! No kidding really?? Bill can make a cool million with one speech. Who cares, they have more money than they could ever spend in this lifetime.

Has anyone stopped to ask themselves why Hillary would put herself through all this negative fight for the Presidency?? They already have money and fame and power. PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS...SHE REALLY CARES ABOUT AMERICA!!! HELLO!! WAKE UP FELLOW AMERICAN DEMOCRATS!!

True Americans will never unite behind this Obama fool, he is undeserving of the Presidency. He honestly thinks he is the messiah.

Get a clue fellow democrats/Americans. We will never ever trust this man to run this country. We dont even know him. Read his books, look closely and think deeply.

What an arrogant fool he is to think Al Gore would ever consider being any part of this. Oh...I forgot he's the messiah and even Mr. Gore will do as he says!!! Obama is UNELECTABLE!!!

I love this country and I know we are way too smart to put a racist hate mongering person/people like the messiah in our white house.

We don't need him to "unite" us. We are united as Americans and when all is said and done..Obama will lose. Wonder what kind of speech he'll give then?? When the repubs finish with him he'll be lucky to have any kind of political career left!!

Go Hillary!! All the way!! If not my vote is for Mccain!! For America!!!

Posted by: deputy1964 | April 4, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

the $10 million dollars the Clinton's donated to charity was paid to the Clinton Charitable Foundation

Guess that is the sort of "way station" for the Clintons on the way to being disbursed?

On the book GIVING Pres Clinton got a $6.3 million advance and "gave" $1m to charity?

PEOPLE - come on

Posted by: awb75 | April 4, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Do not engage in any back and forth with these idiots that evidently don't have anything else to say but to continue to argue anybody that is pro Hillary. They have run out of arguments.

I want to see what else do they invent concerning Hillary's tax returns, but before they do why don't they make public the finances of their darling candidate? Obama and croonies have been screaming murder about this issue and now they are falling flat on their faces because their SPIN is NO SPIN.

Now is time to delve into the Rezco association, the Rev. Wright remaining ondits and Obama's leftist connections that have remained in the background. Bring that out and let's talk about it!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 4, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

"As far as listing the names of people who died in Obama's slums, I will not post any details that I know beyond what's available from public sources."

Fine. Post a web link to AN ARTICLE stating that a Tony Rezko tenant died. You think that would ESCAPE the attention of Chicago reporters?

We'll wait.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

A couple more co-written books and conventional speeches and they'll be set after they lose the nomination.

Posted by: oneworld67352 | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Quoting: "Getting to this point has not been easy. Prior to Republicans assuming control of Congress in 1995, President Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget. Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220 billion that Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion. Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans' budget in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969. Not until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance, producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final year..."

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Do not engage in any back and forth with these idiots that evidently don't have anything else to say but to continue to argue anybody that is pro Hillary. They have run out of arguments.

I want to see what else do they invent concerning Hillary's tax returns, but before they do why don't they make public the finances of their darling candidate? Obama and croonies have been screaming murder about this issue and now they are falling flat on their faces because their SPIN is NO SPIN.

Now is time to delve into the Rezco association, the Rev. Wright remaining ondits and Obama's leftist connections that have remained in the background. Bring that out and let's talk about it!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Do you all say the same thing about professional athlete's, actors, rap stars... In some casesthey make even more money and you all pay more and more to see them. Shame on all you haters.

Posted by: catmomtx | April 4, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton's words matter because they are based on experience and years of service. Stop it with the "words" comments. They're on every blog on the internet and they sound so childish just like Obama's supporters. When Obama is sixty, I'm sure he'll have more money than the Clintons so enough already.

Posted by: ontheblvd | April 4, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister --

I don't lie.

As far as listing the names of people who died in Obama's slums, I will not post any details that I know beyond what's available from public sources.

I gave my word and I intend to keep it.

I suspect that there will be many newspaper stories, TV news reports, and books coming out about this.

There are lots of people looking into what happened in Obama's slums.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Bill cleaned up the US Budget after 30 years now it's Hillary's turn to balance the US budget."

Here we go again. Bill did nothing to clean up the budget. The congress was overwhelmingly Republican during the Clinton presidency. The were voted in shortly after he was elected and were still in power when he left. The good economy was due to the dot.com boom and his cutting of the military. And yes, I am a democrat.
Hillary cannot balance the budget and neither did Bill.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Frankie58===Obama released his tax returns over 4 weeks ago---back to 2000 and where the money came from.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 4, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "In honor of the people who suffered and died in 'Obama's Slums' "

Then name a few of them.

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight: the Democrats are for the little guy ... and so are the Clintons. Right!

(Wink) (Wink)

http://OsiSpeaks.com

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | April 4, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and by the way.Now you all are whining about who the donors are for the Clinton Library. I wonder was that question asked of George Bush Jr. about his father's library? I think not. It is President Clinton's library. Has nothing to do with this election.

I for one would like to see Obama release his papers and calendar from when he was a Senator in Illinois. It would also be nice to see his calendar for when he was an activist. That would go a long way to show us what his experience is.

Has anyone asked Obama what his agenda was for Black America? How/what does he feel about Affirmative Action? What does he feel about Black on Black crime Aids and STD's run rapid in the Black community. What's he going to do about that? Unwed mothers, uneducated or undereducated Black youths, Unemployed Blacks (rates are usually higher in the Black community) Inner cities and blight. What is he going to do about those issues. He wasn't in New Orleans for the State of Black America, He wasn't in Memphis today. What's he going to do about these issues???

Posted by: catmomtx | April 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "I post the ugly truth about Obama."

How about posting a link to an article that names ONE person who froze to death in a Rezko slum?

You do lie, and we all know it.

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Mark Penn is lobbying for Columbia in favor of new trade deal while Clinton is campaigning against it. Kinda reminds me of NAFTA flip flop gate.

Posted by: Arny | April 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

To Westminster... Your logic is perplexing at best. Because Obama was not as successful as the Clintons, then you are voting for him as president? Huh? Oh well... This is something that I have seen the democratic nomination this year, the liberal dems prefer a loser to win the nomination. One common theme that I notice is that Obamaniacs say is that "he is one of us". I suppose as opposed to Clinton, Biden, Dobb and Richardson who are all accomplished and tested.

McCain in 08 - from Dems for McCain.

Posted by: CPCook | April 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

svliar===explain your comment"Astro-turf brigade". I think I get your ugly slur, but will give you a chance to explain to the rest of us who are not familiar with that term as to who you are referring and what it is suppose to denote. Also I have seen the amounts of the Clinton income, but I have not seen who paid them these amounts, nor have I seen the 2007 tax returns with the amounts Bill received from the Ukrainian and Kazakh gangsters.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister --

It won't matter who I vote for if Obama gets the nomination.

He'll lose by a landslide.

I will vote for every Democrat I can, but if Obama's the candidate, I'll vote for McCain, just like many other Clinton supporters will.

I have many reasons.

Here are just a few.


1. I believe that Obama is incompetent and not qualified to be President.

2. In protest to the tactics of Obama supporters viciously attacking anyone who posts anything that causes Obama's divinity into question.

3. In honor of the people who suffered and died in "Obama's Slums"

There are many more reasons.

Those are just the first few that come to mind.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Please people.

Stop diagnosing svreader.

As a person who has been paid to decide who is crazy and who is not for over 20 years, svreader is not crazy. S/he is not insane. There are people on these boards who are nuts, crackers and bannanas (we often laugh and wonder in our shop how food words got together with insanity), but svreader is not.

Call svreader a liar, a hypocrite and wrong, but s/he is not crazy and should not take antipsychotic medication. I am serious. Stop trying to get svreader sent to Camarillo (Atascadero and Napa State are better).

Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

svliar --

Where's the book "Obama's Slums", svliar?

Who died in Obama's Slums, svliar?

Did you say God is a Democrat, svliar, and then deny you said it?

Did you or did you not say I'd driven iowatreasures off the boards? And isn't she in fact still posting?

You're a liar! Answer these questions honestly and you'll be admitting what we already know.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see George Bush parlay his speaking skills into a post-presidency speaking career. I'm a speechifer.

Posted by: Mutazili | April 4, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

bgooksdc --

I don't lie, but you sure do.

I post the ugly truth about Obama.

You don't like that so you try to discredit me.

Without any proof, you constantly claim that I've lied about having a Ph.D.

I didn't lie, but you have repeatedly.

You have no right to question my credentials.

You do it to try to discredit me.

The WP has proof I have a Ph.D.

I'm calling your bluff.

Stop accusing me of something you have no proof of.

As my earlier post said, I'll allow them to confirm my degree to you, and you go away from these boards forever.

That's the deal.

Otherwise, stop making claims about me that you can't back up!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Ok....now the Obama's need to provide the last 7 years, not just the ones the Great Uniter wants us to see, and by the way add Michelles in there too Barrick.

Posted by: Frankie58 | April 4, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh, autowx: I forgot to mention the Obama's Slums book he posted that he'd READ, but then could not name the author or publisher of said book. The book cannot be found on Google or Amazon.

That makes four.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Words still don't matter? From the income tax returns, I respectfully beg to differ, especially when the former president lists is occupation as "speaker and writer" and gains a kingly sum of money. And almost half of the Clinton income came from speaking tours and writing books? Words don't matter? Yeah, okay.

Posted by: meldupree | April 4, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "If we nominate him, we'll lose by a landslide.

I don't want to see that happen."

Liar. You'll vote Republican this fall. You want us to lose if your girlfriend isn't the candidate. You've said so many times.

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

$50,000,000 in Payoffs. Much of this is from foreign interests buying futures in the Clintons third term.

They need to provide dates, amounts and most importantly, the beneficial owners of these payments. Nice way to launder bribe money. Could it also include "structuring" much like Spitzer? Likely that a lot of this money came from a few powerful interests for some specific payback.

Hopefully, there are some good reporters all over this???

Posted by: ben2 | April 4, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "One of the toughest problems is that I know things about Barry Obama that were told to me in confidence that go way beyond abything that I've posted here."

Um, yeah, okay...

(Pssst! Someone call security. One of the patients has broken into the nurses' station and is signed on to the WaPo website again.)

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Svreder doesn't lie....

Posted by: autowx | April 4, 2008 07:29 PM
_____________________________________

Yeah, actually, he does lie.

I stated that he posted that God is a Democrat. He (a) called it "total BS". (b) when I posted the link to his own words, he called me a "liar" (itself, a lie). (c) Then, tacitly admitting he'd lied, he tried to play it off as a "light-hearted statement".

He stated at least 60 different times that people froze and died in slums in his state senate district, which he blamed on Obama. I have challenged him at least half-a-dozen times to name even ONE person. He has not. A Google search does not reveal that any Tony Rezko tenant died of exposure.

On March 21, svliar posted "...You've succeeded in driving Iowatreasures off these boards. ..." In fact, I hadn't posted ANYTHING directed at iowatreasures and, as you can see, she is still quite active on these boards.

Three provable lies. (I'll leave out the highly suspect claims, like he's got a Ph.D. -- even though he can't spell several common names for animals, like piranha and chameleon.) svliar is a liar.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

How can Hillary claim with a straight face, that she is "middle class", when they made about $42,000.00 per day.

I don't know about the rest of you, but that's more than many make in a year.

Posted by: wolfi101 | April 4, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "variez --

Don't blame me, I voted for Gore and Kerry.

I just don't want to see Democrats lose."

svreader, you have repeatedly told everyone that if Obama gets the nomination that you'll not just vote for McCain, but actively contribute to his campaign. You don't care if the Democrats lose. You just don't want HILLARY to lose.

You're a proven liar. And I'm starting to think you have a crush on Hillary too. LOL

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 4, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I want to know about the 100 million+ Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Library, or some of the other 300 million that came from some shady folks. Poor Clintons, always disenfranchised, marginalized, oppressed...

Posted by: stew118 | April 4, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

At lease the Clintons did buy a house they couldn't afford like Obama did. Plus the Media will never report that the Clintons have given at lease 1 million in charity while Obama was looking out for himself and looking to see how he could use his now found Blackness. He found it in using Dr. King as he get Black votes. The Clintons have been put under a microscope for all their years so it's no surprise that they have always shared. Now Voters want Obama who is looking to feed of America like Bush has done. Yes the Senior Law Makers are doing the same with Obama knowing he's not qualified. Let's hope Americans wake up before it's to late as we're now in a recession going to a depression. Bill cleaned up the US Budget after 30 years now it's Hillary's turn to balance the US budget.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | April 4, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

What the Clintons have done is what every other president has done - given speeches and made money, or written books and made money. Nothing illegal, nothing sinister.

gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 4, 2008 07:42 PM
____________________________________________________

The appropriate measure is not what is legal, but what is right. Murder, even if illegal, would still be wrong. These huge fees smell like a payoff.

Here's what former Sen. Bill Bradley -- a man of unquestioned honesty and principle -- says:

"And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed."

Marc Rich should have never been pardoned.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

MCCMAC:

Interesting statement.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 4, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Well, now we know where Barack Obama can borrow some money when he runs short in the campaigns. So far, he has spent 2 to 1, or 3 to 1 and maybe 4 to l and still lost several states and one more to come, Pennsylvania."

How fast we forget who is well ahead with no chance for either to win the amount ofvotes needed for the nomination. That leaves Obama because Hillary Clinton will be kicked out by her own party when the Clinton fraud trial gets under way soon.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Capitalism at it's finest... good for them! It's too bad that Mrs. Clinton wants to take the rest of us back to the socialist stone age if elected.

Posted by: dennispro | April 4, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

THE CLINTONS LIKE ALL LIBERALS IN POWER CRAVE FORTUNE AND POWER OVER THE PEOPLE. OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT, IN FACT HE IS WORSE, FOR WE DO NOT KNOW WHO HIS MASTER REALLY IS.

Posted by: DwightHCollins | April 4, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Well, now we know where Barack Obama can borrow some money when he runs short in the campaigns. So far, he has spent 2 to 1, or 3 to 1 and maybe 4 to l and still lost several states and one more to come, Pennsylvania.

Hopefully, we will send Obama off to write more books and give more speeches rather than put him in the White House.

Actually, Obama has a nice personality, maybe he could give Oprah a run for her money with a talk show that could make him as wealthy as Oprah. I don't see people badmouthing Oprah for being rich - they admire her for it. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 4, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Oh, gee whiz! The Clintons believe in making money to support themselves. I am so for this. I don't remember whether it was the mainstream Republican G. or R. who got himself into the press locally for saying "Democrats don't like rich people", but I hope people will agree the Clintons could have both done better in private industry from the start and aren't we lucky to have people (of both parties) who devote themselves to less money and more public service.

Duh...

Posted by: bonnietoo | April 4, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Still would like to know about the tens of millions that Saudi Arabia gave to Billary.
and all that money from the Middle east
for his Library, and that fund in Arkansas.
Full disclosure please, and also 2007.

Posted by: umt | April 4, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "It will forever be a mystery to me why the press despises the Clintons as they do. It seems ironic that the Clintons were trashed from the right throughout their years in the White House and now they must endure being trashed from the left. I just don't get it."

I get it. "Trashed by the media, by the right, and now the left" There is a moral there. If everyone is trashing you, there must be a good reason.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

At some point based on the exorbidant amount of money Mr. Clinton made for giving some of his speeches - one should ask is it really "speech income" or is it revenue for lobbying and selling access to government contacts?

Posted by: Milo1 | April 4, 2008 04:42 PM
-----------------------------------------
I had no doubt that people like you would conjure up some hypothetical way of saying negative things about the Clintons.

What the Clintons have done is what every other president has done - given speeches and made money, or written books and made money. Nothing illegal, nothing sinister.

gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 4, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Iowatreasures:

Interesting information

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 4, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who is concerned about this ability of former presidents to make THAT much money, should look to the people who are paying THAT much money for a speech as the responsible parties. That's market economics. But, that being said, any hint from Hillary that she is the champion of fighting those 'Washington insiders' and 'special interests', is ludicrous. She and Bill are the ones who define the label. Obama becomes president, and he'll have the same story in 8 years. welcome to American presidential politics.

Posted by: MCCMAC | April 4, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

It has been a long time since I have been surprised at how much money people in the White House and the Senate make giving speeches and writing books.

Obama has already written two books for large sums of money and he hasn't even gotten to the White House yet.

The one that surprised me was either Reagan or Bush - I think it was Reagan that went to make speeches in China and elsewhere for tremendous amounts of money.

Since then, nothing surprises me. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 4, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

This lends a different perspective to Bill's entreaties for donations of as little as $5 to Hillary's campaign.

Posted by: draeg002 | April 4, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

if we had followed Jimmy Carters plan,


we'd already be energy independent.

9/11 would have never happened and


Robert M. Gates, George H.W. Bush would be in prison for treason for having interfered with a sitting U.S. of A. President....acting against James Carter using the CIA as a PARTISAN TOOL.


SEARCH on October Surprise, Paris, Russians, Carter, CIA


get to know your perps. Robert M. Gates is currently Secretary of Defense, he is also an IRAN - CONTRA "thugs for drugs," bandido


there are 6 IRAN CONTRA FELONS working in or for the whitehouse, right now.

there are 6 former PNAC / AEI / JINSA / AIPAC Members working in or serving the whitehouse right now.


the whitehouse is a "safe haven," for felons


the president is a gay, unprosecuted felon


SEARCH on Jeff Gannon Guckert, George W. Bush, Victor Ashe, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman HEAD OF RNC, ALL GAY lips


SEARCH ON George W. Bush, Harken Oil, SEC


have a nice day.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | April 4, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons did not release their 2007 tax returns... During the last debate, Hillary had said that these tax returns would be released before the Pennsylvania primaries, and now she tries to gain more time... When Hillary will be forced to release them, these tax returns will indicate who have financed her campaign since 2007.

Posted by: Logan6 | April 4, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Even has charged for charity speeches. Yep, she can understand the poor people all right:

Quoting: "Details of the former president's speaking fees were included in Sen. Clinton's financial disclosure report last year. In 2006 and 2007, he earned fees from $100,000 to $450,000 speaking to such corporations as IBM, General Motors, and Cisco Systems, finance giants such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, and trade groups such as the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association. He also has been paid to speak to nonprofit or charity groups, including the TJ Martell Foundation, which finances leukemia research, Nelson Mandela's Children's Fund and, last March, to the Boys and Girls Club of Los Angeles.

The campaign has said Clinton typically donates millions of dollars worth of free speeches to charities"

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have been living in a glass bubble of Secret Service protection and wealth for years. I'd rather have a President who has had some contact with the middle class in the last 15 years.

Posted by: jacobson98 | April 4, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc wrote":
"So true. Nobody listens to him, because he has been proven, over and over again, to be a liar."


Svreder doesn't lie. Obama supporters, who are trying to use the SUPPOSED donation made by Obama in 2007, as being in 2006, they're the liars. That 2007 $240,000 donation figure, was supplied by Obama's campaign, with no documentary proof. Using a 2007 year figure and claiming it was in 2006 to spin your BS....... Obama supporters are the Liars! Of course....they take after their master.

Posted by: autowx | April 4, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton campaign strategist and pollster Mark Penn, heads a firm that has been paid at least $10 million by the campaign so far -- and is also being paid by the government of Colombia to promote a trade deal that Hillary Rodham Clinton opposes, The Wall Street Journal writes today.

And on Monday, the Journal reports, Penn "met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S." to discuss the free-trade agreement.

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson tells the Journal that "Mark was not there on behalf of the campaign" and that "Sen. Clinton's opposition to the trade deal with Colombia is clear."

In response to the Journal story, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is already pointing to things the Clinton folks said back in March when they were up in arms over reports that an Obama adviser had discussed the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canadian officials. It was initially reported that the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, indicated to the Canadians that the anti-NAFTA sentiments of Obama and other Democrats were mostly political posturing. Later, both Canadian diplomats and the Obama campaign said Goolsbee did not send any such signal.

In March, Clinton discussed the reports about Goolsbee with reporters and said, as the Chicago Tribune blog The Swamp wrote, "substitute my name for Sen. Obama's name and see what you would do with this story. ... Just ask yourself (what you would do) if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

Today, ABC News' Political Punch says the Journal's story about Penn is "awkward, to say the least," for the Clinton campaign. Marc Ambinder at TheAtlantic,com thinks "Penn's got trouble." David Knowles at AOL's Political Machine blog wonders whether "since Clinton knows that Penn is actively promoting a trade deal that she opposes, will she see fit to rid herself of Penn once and for all?"

Update at 1:15 p.m. ET. Penn apologizes for the meeting:

"The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it," Penn says in a statement released a short time ago, the Associated Press reports. He adds that "the senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed."

According to the AP, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the candidate has not discussed the Colombian deal with Penn.

"Senator Clinton's opposition to the Colombian Trade Deal is clear and she will be voting against it," Singer said.

Posted by: svarada123 | April 4, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Today' News:

Super rich Clintons plead poverty in order to get even more super rich.

Well if you Clinton appologists don't believe it, why don't you get out your wallets and give the Clintons even more money?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

That appears to be at odds with Obama's public position of removing all combat brigades from the country within 16 months of taking office.

Posted by: tuscany1 |
-----------------------------------------
Great post tuscanyl. Another discrete lie by Obama which will be enough to get by the Obamanite sheep.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that the Clintons donated about 10% of their income to charity. This compares favorably w/ the national average of 2%. Sen. Obama's charitable contributions were just 1% of his income for several years and the larger donations in '05 and '06 were to his church from which he now wishes to distance himself. Of course, we're unlikely to hear much about this comparison in the press because they are determined to install him as the Democratic nominee and it wouldn't support his claim that he is on a higher moral plain. It will forever be a mystery to me why the press despises the Clintons as they do. It seems ironic that the Clintons were trashed from the right throughout their years in the White House and now they must endure being trashed from the left. I just don't get it.

Posted by: YellaDog | April 4, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

LOOK AT THE % OBAMAs gave less than the average person, percentage wise. The Clintons giving is to be commended.


www.hillaryspeakforme.com

Posted by: mjno | April 4, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Lots of book loot. Does this answer every pressing Q? Not for the Obama folks or the GOP. This was a lose/lose for Hillary.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | April 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

ichief:

I have seen evidence of your analysis. But seriously, the least you can do without bias, is acknowlege that you HAVE seen Hillary supporters do just the same. Every single time I read news updates and see posts, I see just as much from some of the Hillary supporters. Scroll up and you'll see it back and forth. Somehow though, you like some others manage to ONLY see one side. Are you serious?

I urge readers and posters to, without bias, exercise fair judgment.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You're being intentionally misleading.

This isn't about Obama's house, its about Obama's slums.

Read the article and watch the NBC news report.

How can anyone support Barry Obama when he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Obama knew, but did nothing.

That says everything.

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

To Echo2: The media is missing in action on this election as they have been for a long time. Hard, pointy questions are rarely asked. There are a million reruns of Obama's minister (highly irrelevant in how a person will govern America) but no hard questions asked as to how either Clinton or Obama can usher in affordable universal healthcare when private insurers are involved. News outlets want short, little soundbites not long, thoughtful discussions.

Clinton has said on record she supports lobbying (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Isi6c2s353c). I feel lobbying is the single, biggest flaw in the American political system. As long as rich interests have the ear and pocketbook of the politicians in Washington, the blue-collar worker might as well forget any help in getting ahead. Clinton can feel for the little guy in Penn and Ohio but she is dining with the wealthy and connected.

With regards to the anti-war efforts. Where are the American people? Where is the public outrage? I agree most politicians haven't fought this war hard enough, but I think most of America has sat on their bums regarding this five year debacle. I suspect a draft would have roused a little more passion.

Posted by: casey11 | April 4, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

I've got a better idea.

You stop posting personal attacks on me starting right now.

If the WP confirms to you that I have provided them with information that proves I have a Ph.D, but for reasons of personal safety have provided to them in confidence, that your previous attacks accusing me of not being a Ph.D have been in error, you make a public apology to me on these boards, leave them, and never bother me again?

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's Tale

There once lived a woman who was married to a former Emperor. She loved the place they once lived in so much that she decided to return to it, as the first Empress ever. Her subjects set about gathering her credentials and weaved a magnificent cloth of service and experience. Adding huge patches of her husband's accomplishments to embellish the whole. She loved the material and proceeded to drape herself in its finery.

Soon she embarked on a campaign to make her the next leader of the land. She crossed the country showing off her brilliant garment to any who would look. But thread by thread, the skeptics picked at the whole. "What exactly was her experience? Does years of being married to an Emperor count? Some cried out, what qualifications did she possess to make her worthy of the title 'Commander In Chief'? Still other's pointed to her past support of NAFTA and her failed attempt at universal health care. The suit of splendor unraveled with every new question and unanswered ones as well.

With each new day more people gasp as the rips begin to grow. Feeling the draft she's tried to sew up the gaping holes, by stitching in a tale of heroism under fire, it is the weakest weave of all. But not to be denied her dream of reaching that long lost home, she trudges on becoming more naked with each passing day. Look, the people now cry, the wanna be Empress has no clothes!

The sad truth is... she never had any to begin with.

Posted by: AverageJane | April 4, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

OMG, you CANNOT make this up.

svliar LOVES to tie Rezko to Obama. Obviously, if Rezko's no crook, then there's no substance to svliar's allegation. WELL -- here's a quote from the Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/index.html):

"The man whose word must be trusted to bring down Gov. Blagojevich fund-raiser Tony Rezko was reduced to admitting Thursday he'd been a thief, a con man, a liar and a junkie who stole from the children of a dead relative. In a dramatic first day of cross-examination, the defense pressed Stuart Levine, the chief prosecution witness in Rezko's corruption trial, to reveal a stunning spectrum of ugly truths about himself."

Let me repeat: "a thief, a con man, a liar and a junkie who stole from the children of a dead relative." THAT'S what the prosecution is resting its case on? And mighty funny ol' svliar didn't happen to bring THAT to our attention. I wonder if this guy is who svliar really is: I don't know about the fourth charge, but the first three would fit.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

so what do we need to do right now????


seperate the snakes from the oil.

take control of war profiteering companies as a NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER,


threatening our economy.

begin treating "THE ECONOMY," as what it is, a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY...

and mobilize our countries ECONOMY to work for our countrys best interests and the interests of the citizens.


not the 1/3 of 1 percent that are currently absorbing all of the countries profits....and not all of them AMERICAN citizens either...

why should you tax dollars be used for war fraud ????


business expenses that BIG OIL should be paying by itself, and making it's own deals.


bush and company sold it this way, so that they could control and skim.


non compete bids.


grow up.

Posted by: a_bigone | April 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Spent, and Outspent at 4/4/2008 5:41 PM EDT)

Why I am I not surprised a Clinton supporter has no regard for the truth? Seems to me if you have to lie to make your candidate look good, you don't have a good candidate.

Posted by: gbooksdc |
============================================

I have come to the conclusion that you Obamanites are too dumb to recognize a lie.
Unless someone tells you it's a lie you really don't know do you. According to Obama's 1040 form he and Michelle made a little less than $1 million dollars in 2006. They donated $60.307 to charity. That is about 6% not 25%. In the AP article the author quoted the campaign as saying they gave $240,000. That's a lie. His 1040 form says $60,307. In 2005 they made $1.67 million and gave 77,00 which is 4.6% In 2000 the gave about 1%. It seems that the closer he came to running for president he started giving a little more.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

i think the income reported in the tax returns should be placed in perspective.

first it appears that they paid their fair share in taxes, since no one is parsing the deductions claimed.

second Clinton could command the fees because he was a marketable product. Speaking fees is a time honored tradition in this country for ex presidents, namely Reagan and Bush I both profited, they just wasn't as marketable as Clinton.

Posted by: einnorray | April 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Finally someone has said it.

Whenever there's good news on either side, there's always the opposers whom post attacks on the other candidate not mentioned.

Now, blooming fairies! That is indeed a LOT of Money!! Talk about raising brows...

It is what it is and without bias, it is great to know that money was given to charities. I applaud that, absolutely.

I have to agree with someone on the question, what speech is worth THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY?

Obama or Hillary '08

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 4, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and then Bush II, the White House perfected the art of releasing awkward stories on Friday afternoons, hoping that people - and the media - will zone out over the weekend, and that a fresh news cycle will begin on Monday morning.
Predictably, the "inevitable" President Clinton II has released this tax information on Friday afternoon.
Small wonder that so many are hoping that Obama will turn the page ...

Posted by: HughBriss | April 4, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm always astounded by the petty attacks of the Obamaphiles on the Clintons, no matter what they do.

But I've begun to understand lately why the Obama campaign, Obama's media groupies, and the hordes of Obamaphiles who swarm the internet 24/7 so desperately and repeatedly attempt to smear the Clintons.

It should be apparent to everyone that with his skimpy resume and reputation as a slacker, Obama is not even close to being qualified to be president of the U.S.

BO's supporters realize he can't win the nomination in a fair fight, and they've even managed to con the media into getting on board the Obama slime machine.

It's been a little depressing to watch the MSM follow the lead of the two online National Enquirers - Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, who will stoop to any level to twist and distort the news to favor Obama.

But what's really amazing is that despite the smears, the media bias, and the cash flow to Obama from the upscale elite members of the Democratic party, the messiah is still in a statistical tie with Hillary Clinton in the latest national polls.

Posted by: ichief | April 4, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey Hillary Clinton supporters. This is not about Obama. This article is about Hillary. I notice whenever Hillary does something that warrants criticism (It happens. She's human. Remember?) your answer is: "So? But Obama..." Come on. Give us all a break.

WHAT IS THIS?!?! KINDERGARTEN?

We are talking about the Clintons tax returns. I have a feeling Obama filed his separately. So why don't you complain about his tax returns on that thread.

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 4, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

...Finally, there are a few certifiable nut jobs like gbooksdc who launch the most vicious personal attacks imaginable.

His constant attempts to discredit my infomation by trying to discredit me are an extra roadblock to the difficult task of trying to get people to open their eyes...

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 07:00 PM
_____________________________________

I'm sure it's so much easier to persuade when your lies go unchallenged. Goebbels would agree with you that exposing a liar is "the most vicious personal attacks imaginable".

And speaking of discrediting your (mis)"information", why can't you name one person you said (60 times) froze and died in Obama's slums?

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

twotier, you are a funny old lady.

We always knew they were uberreich.

We also know where the money comes from.

Why don't they spend your money to get elected? Is it greed?

Why don't they stop with the endless, teary eyed fundraisers? Is it greed?

How much power and money do the Clintons need?


Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is claiming outrage at Penn meeting with the Columbian government regarding free-trade negotiations. Well, holy shock and awe. Maybe Bill will go down and give a speech to the Columbians for 500k. You don't call them meetings or lobbying anymore now that K Street is in trouble. You call them public speaking engagements.

Posted by: casey11 | April 4, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

actually,


what the less insightful of you understand it that

the origin of using the word bee atch as a breeding term,

was applied by slavers to their female slaves


the male term being "buck,"


so the slur became racist / racial by usage as a part of our history

equating slaves to animals....and animals were claimed to be without feeling, thus able to endure rude, brutal, unfeeling treatment

and speaks to the dehumanization of those enslaved by the same people trying to control the electoral process through


"appeal to emotion,"

if you remember, the monied kept slaves from learning to read and write


so that they couldn't organize.


disinformation is used for that purpose today.


the creation of the National Intelligence Agency during this administrations reign...speaks volumes about the use of that office to be a conduit for the whithouse to spread disinformation...

and yet, not one squeak from any writers about why we need


a whole "new" intelligence agency, where the head of it answers to the presidente'

to me it looks like what it is, an overruling of any agencies that decide to "tell the truth to the people." a final nyet


from the thief in chief.


.funny that the breeding term may be entered by Michael K.


but I can not. Just like tonights law n order episode included one of the police saying "sitting around with your thumb up your aXX"

but I can not say that here, because of censorship.


ah me.

Posted by: a_bigone | April 4, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

You had it coming you republican whiners. You wanted to know where the $5M came from and now you know. It came from Hillary's petty cash fund.

Yet you still cry to the blogosphere. If Hillary and Bill only made $10M you'd question where the $5M came from. Now that you know they will rake in $12M per year for the rest of their lives you say it must be payback.

You're so confused you don't know who to blame next so you just make stuff up. America is on to you. Grow a pair and get over it.

Posted by: twotier97 | April 4, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

usually money points toward a certain level of ability...

especially, $29 MILLION in BOOK SALES

with 10 PERCENT GIVEN TO CHARITY.


sounds rather egalitarian to me.

unlike the republicans aka parasites


Posted by: a_bigone | April 4, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Here's the problem in a Former First Lady running for the Presidency: she and Bill's entire reported income is as a direct result of their public positons (speeches, books, presidential pension and Senate Salary). I don't want former presidents going around like US Grant, but people, $109.2 million in 7 years??? Political profiteering is a nice term for it. And who paid Bill $55 million for those speeches? Unimportant for a former president, but quite interesting for the spouse of a presidential candidate if you are concerned about potential influence peddling. Anybody remember Bill's trip to Kazzakhstan? Look at Mark Penn's apology today for taking $300,000 from Colombia to lobby on their trade deal (that Mrs. Clinton supposedly opposes). These are conflicts of interest and the Clintons' amazingly bloated income figures are going to turn a bright spotlight on this subject.

Posted by: Omyobama | April 4, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

You know Casey11, I think that is why we need more debates (gasp!). Well, lets face it the first 15 were useless.

I really wish the moderators would think outside the box - not the snowman stunt, not Russert's "GOTCHA" questions that are more about his ego than about illumination.

Serious questions - like asking HRC why she keeps Mark Penn on - she may have excellent reasons but I'd love to know her reasoning for why she has the people she has. I don't want another Dubya.

And Obama? Well, he gave an anti-war speech, along with a few others - but most DEM leaders (except possibly Feingold in my book) did nothing to lead the anti-war movement - it fell to the non-leader, grieving mother, C. Sheehan, because of an absolute leadership vacuum. Where was he? One speech doesn't cut it for me - he needs to back that claim up a bit more.

Oh I could go on with the questions I want answered. We'll probably get more on healthcare, and honestly I could spew both their answers back word for word at this point.

Sigh.

Posted by: echo2 | April 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

hill --

The fact that I don't always "sugar coat" some of my comments is nothing compared to the vicious below-the-belt screeds Obama supporters post regarding the Clintons, and nothing compared to what I have to put up with on these boards, especially the constant personal attacks from a few rabid Obama supporters like gbooksdc.

I usually try to make my points in as nice a way as possible, but its hard to break through the constant drumbeat of Obama's carefully managed PR campaign.

I'm also frustrated because I know he a sure fire lose in the general campaign and I don't want to see Democrats lose yet again.

Finally, there are a few certifiable nut jobs like gbooksdc who launch the most vicious personal attacks imaginable.

His constant attempts to discredit my infomation by trying to discredit me are an extra roadblock to the difficult task of trying to get people to open their eyes.

As far as Obama's charity goes, look at his whole history, not just one year.

Like his excuses for going to a racist church for 20 years and then choosing Rev Wright as his "spiritual advisor" you have to look at what Obama's done over his whole career.

If you do, you'll realize he's not a very nice guy, that he'd be a very bad President, and that he wouldn't stand a chance in a national election and the scrutiny that involves.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

bnw173---

You are just plain wrong. This from today's Ap article:

In 2006, Obama reported income of nearly $1 million, with nearly half of it coming from the publication of his second book, "The Audacity of Hope." Last week, the campaign disclosed that Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave $240,000 to charity last year.

Link here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeac
-----------------------------------------
I read your AP source. the $240,000 was a direct quote from the campaign. Not the author. The campaign is lying. Obama made nearly $1 million and paid $60,307 to charity in 2006 which is about 6%. These were his returns from 2000 to 2006. Your source mentioned 2006. Obama has made you a liar and made you call others liars. You need to apologize to svreader. Check google.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

WOW... There are A LOT of loonies out today! LOL.. Keep drinking your obama kool-aid and run the country to the GROUND!!!

GO HILLARY!!!

GO HILLARY!!!

GO HILLARY!!!

GO HILLARY!!!

GO HILLARY!!!

GO HILLARY!!!

GO HILLARY!!!

HILLARY '08

Posted by: glamourchild1 | April 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

You can't blame him, he had to find a new line of work after getting disbarred.

It was that or sell used cars in Little Rock.

Posted by: westernbiological | April 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey svreader: Take a look at this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303681,00.html

Posted by: casey11 | April 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

there is a certain music that is playing in the media


and I would call it the Republican dominated spin machine.

let's be real, George W. has been having a male prostitute spending the night at the whitehouse for 2 years


and you don't hear jack about it...

what's with that????


doubt me? think I am an arrogant black man with no grasp on reality? sorry that's your man...


SEARCH on George W. Bush, Victor Ashe, Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, Gay, Jeff Gannon, Trent Lott


why is it that an alcoholic draft dodger cocaine snorting unprosecuted felon....get elected president


and we don't hear about it without doing some digging ourselves...


but Hillary passes gas or grimaces or laughs and you all act like she just crucified jeeeeeeeezeus.....sound like spin ??


sound like the last 16 years of unending propaganda from the repulsive scammer love machinethat the OH bama is only to happy to get a ride on???

here's that major teddy article I was looking for:

Voice of the White House February 28, 2005
TBR News.org February 28, 2005

"An absolute non-issue with the American print and TV media is the control by very powerful gays of the top policy levels of the White House. Growingly pointed comments inside the Beltway social clubs, homes and watering places about Karl Rove's "good friend" 'Jeff Gannon' are being very thoroughly ignored by the mainline press.

There are two reasons for this crashing silence. One is the fact that a large number of powerful and wealthy Republicans are gay and do not want their wives and children to discover that they put on leather underwear and spend their spare time at the Eagle over on New York Avenue or getting rough trade action at the Crew Club. Fat Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year. All the self-hating loyal Republican gays at the no-pants party, many of them Senatorial aides and military types, of course pretended they didn't recognize him, and who can blame them - imagine how repulsive Fat Karl must look without his clothes. The report that came back was that Fat Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb.

Leather Dominator, who had won the

Miss Virginia Daddy Bear

title at the MAL festivities.

Karl used hang out at JR's, which is on 17th between P&S, before he became so well-known. This is a "respectable" gay bar for discreet people who do not wear mesh panties, high-heeled pumps and wear terrible wigs. How many people know about these activities? In Washington, a hell of a lot of the prominent. But very few of them dare to open their mouths because of their own small problems.


.small problems.

like the
REPULSIVE SCAMMERs here, TRYING TO SELL YOU MORALITY...that they don't own...

.

.

Posted by: a_bigone | April 4, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

storyofthefifthpeach wrote:

autowx----

Follow the link. AP does not lie:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That AP story refers to the $1 million as income for 2006. The $240,000 reportedly was given to charity for last year, i.e. 2007, and that figure was provided by Obama's campaign. You would have to know how much they made in 2007.

Posted by: autowx | April 4, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Here's all you need to know about svliar -- AFTER his "less than 1%" claim was debunked here, he's gone to another comment section and posted "He gave less than 1% of his money to charity." (Comment on: Clinton Camp Feels Spent, and Outspent at 4/4/2008 5:41 PM EDT)

Why I am I not surprised a Clinton supporter has no regard for the truth? Seems to me if you have to lie to make your candidate look good, you don't have a good candidate.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

what is the truth?

the people leading are on the take,

they are not looking to do a good job.


they just want to get out with their deals intact...

bush is all about setting up payoff schemes that he gets a cut from...


listen closely,


the missing MIDDLE CLASS is the problem with the ECONOMY.

When 3 out of 4 former FACTORY / MANUFACTURING SECTOR WORKERS are working retail, instead of UNION factory jobs, but working retail:


w/ reduced salary

w/ no benefits

w/ no healthcare


they don't buy anything of worth.


they don't save.


they don't go to the doctors.


their debt load increases, because they can't believe things keep getting WORSE.


AND
all the "professions_that_support" the now "out of work citizens," whose jobs in the MANUFACTURING SECTOR / Computer programmers / customer support staff / and so on... SUFFER AS WELL...

support personell like:

mortgage companies, doctors, lawyers, accountants, business suppliers, office supply companies, and so on...

how do you solve this economic crisis ???? not by printing more money up.


how do you solve it????? by recognizing it for what it is and start putting some rules in place to correct the situation, ACROSS THE BOARD....it's a multilevular problem...and it's important not to solve a piece of it, but to act to solve the whole thing at_once

the current crisis is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE....the WELFARE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS AT STAKE...

broad measures are needed.


1. stop outsourcing immediately. after issuing a warning that outsourcing will be regulated as a NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURE....

rich boys don't want to comply, stop doing business with them and seize their in_country assets.

2. start treating goods manufactured by "AMERICAN" companies overseas, as what they are....IMPORTED GOODS, _NOT_ AMERICAN goods....their not

3. immediately end tax breaks for overseas productions...

4. require companies that have "AMERICAN" status to have at least 94 PERCENT OF their workers in_country, and that goes for the goods that they produce or services provided....like customer support...a company that has 90 Percent of their service workers, customer service, billing in BANGALORE INDIA is not an AMERICAN company...

5. make it _ILLEGAL_ TO OUTSOURCE GOVERNMENT work


6. require companies that do out of country work to meet the same standards of ethical behavior, EPA regulations and hiring practices that they do in_country.

7. ARREST THE EMPLOYERS OF _ILLEGALS_ you want have to deport anyone...they'll leave, _ILLEGALS_ are here for the money, not citizenship...we allow HALF A MILLION LEGAL ALIENS IN A YEAR...most from Mexico...


stop outsourcing.....across the board


so no company has an advantage over another...


the CORPORATIONS walked away from AMERICANs w/o looking back...they can afford to bring the jobs back, or quit selling in AMERICA,


ps. AMERICA is still the biggest MARKET IN THE WORLD, WITH MORE ARIBLE LAND than any other continent, and more natural resources than any country on earth.

.can we make it out of this mess?


easily....if we stop the corruption today, and cut their legs off.


stop paying bushCO and CRONYs, investigate and sue them into oblivion....detain them in gitmo, including Poppy, Marvin and Jeb...what a hoot....


maybe they'll commit suicide as a publicity stunt too......cool


.


Posted by: a_bigone | April 4, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey svreader: What's this about Clinton's top adviser, Penn, meeting with the Colombian government? Two days after the meeting the president of Colombia was blasting Obama. Hmm....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/penn-calls-trade-meeting-error-in-judgment/#comments

Posted by: casey11 | April 4, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

That explains a lot why Hillary looked the other way when Bill getting the BJ.

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 4, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Svreder, if you are going to post erroneous statements, then get out of here. No one is going to listen to you.

Posted by: autowx | April 4, 2008 06:28 PM
___________________________________________

So true. Nobody listens to him, because he has been proven, over and over again, to be a liar.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Svreader, I'm still very curious about what makes you tick. Why do you write what you do? If actually wanted to discredit a candidate, you could do so more rationally and have a greater effect. It seems like you have a need to generate anger and scorn.

I'm very curious as to what you think you are accomplishing by posting such rabid accusations? You are free to your opinion, of course, but you discredit yourself when you post lies or exaggerations that you can't back up with facts.

You wrote: "I'm sorry if I sound harsh sometimes, but everything I've warned people on these boards about Chicago Barry Obama is the cold hard truth."

Are you truly "sorry if you sound harsh sometimes"? Or is that what you want, to offend people and turn them off from your own supposed candidate?

Posted by: hillmannic | April 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHA Obamers are probably all upset that this helps the CLintons more than hurt them. Fools. GO HILLARY GO! Oh and Obama.. GO TO THE IRS AND FILE THAT 2007 TAX RETURN!! We wanna know how much you got from your Big Oil buddies. Cheers!

Posted by: Skkye | April 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

story --

One of the toughest problems is that I know things about Barry Obama that were told to me in confidence that go way beyond abything that I've posted here.

I have to wait untii they come out through other channels.

You may not want to believe me, but there is no way in the world Obama can win a national election, once the truth about him becomes known by the general public. ...

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 06:31 PM
_____________________________________

Would that be like Nixon's secret plan for peace in Vietnam? Yes, it is!

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh God! Here's more...

As Barack Obama continues to criticize John McCain for saying he's willing to keep a 100-year troop presence in Iraq, another Obama adviser has suggested U.S. forces could stay in Iraq longer than the Democratic candidate initially thought.

Adviser Colin Kahl wrote in a policy paper for the Center for a New American Security that the United States should transition to an "over-watch" force of between 60,000 and 80,000 troops by the end of 2010, according to an article Friday in the New York Sun.

That appears to be at odds with Obama's public position of removing all combat brigades from the country within 16 months of taking office.

Posted by: tuscany1 | April 4, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

autowx----

Follow the link. AP does not lie:

In 2006, Obama reported income of nearly $1 million, with nearly half of it coming from the publication of his second book, "The Audacity of Hope." Last week, the campaign disclosed that Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave $240,000 to charity last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

autowx --

No problem.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Svreder, My mistake. I meant the dillusional Obamanites need to leave if they are erroneously saying Obama gave 25% to charity.

Posted by: autowx | April 4, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

dberry --

Unlike Obama's Astro-turf brigade that post on these boards, I don't work for any campaign.

I do this because I'm royally pissed that a con-man like Chicago Barry Obama gets treated like a saint.

The guy belongs in jail, not the whitehouse.

Look at the stuff from NBC and the Chicago Sun Times.

Look at what Barry does when left on his own when nobody is watching him, before he gets caught each time.

The guy is a real jerk and he cons the young, idealistic and foolish into supporting him.

I hate people like that.

They ruin the worlds.

Barry Obama is an even worse guy than Bush, and that's saying a lot.

He doesn't deserve your support, or that of anybody else.

He's nothing more than a high-priced hustler.

Do some reasearch.

Open your eyes.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I am curious at to which charities received donations. Would the Clinton library count as a charity? From observing the Clintons I would be very surprised to find charible giving free of personal gain of some sort.

Posted by: cellodiane | April 4, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I am curious at to which charities received donations. Would the Clinton library count as a charity? From observing the Clintons I would be very surprised to find charible giving free of personal gain of some sort.

Posted by: cellodiane | April 4, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Well, after weeks of howling and yapping by the Obama gang the Clintons have released their tax records, years and years and years of them.

And what do you know, it reveals, among other things, that the Clintons believe in tithing, like all good Christians are supposed to but too many only talk the talk and fail to walk the walk.

Once again, their actions speak louder than most other people's words.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | April 4, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Clinton can at least take comfort in the fact that she is comfortably ahead in the two latest primary polls released this afternoon from Pennsylvania and Indiana. Full roundup of the day's polling: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/04/poll-roundup-clinton-stays-ahead-in.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | April 4, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

Your credibility is far less than zero.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Working class heroes? Not.

Posted by: oneworld67352 | April 4, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

story --

One of the toughest problems is that I know things about Barry Obama that were told to me in confidence that go way beyond abything that I've posted here.

I have to wait untii they come out through other channels.

You may not want to believe me, but there is no way in the world Obama can win a national election, once the truth about him becomes known by the general public.

Remember, most people don't even know about his history of Cocaine abuse, let alone about "Obama's Slums"

If we nominate him, we'll lose by a landslide.

I don't want to see that happen.


Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

svreader, the lengths you go to keep the shrill in Shrillary are really quite entertaining.

How about displaying your income for this year (2008), so we can see what Hillary's campaign is paying you? Or are you working on commission - for a percentage of the value of her/their future speeches, say?

Have you nothing better to do with your life? Is blogging all you CAN do?

Posted by: deberry10 | April 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Error in previous post. I didn't hold shift. Should be $27,000 Instead of 470,000 to Wright's church.. Sorry

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

bnw173---

You are just plain wrong. This from today's Ap article:

In 2006, Obama reported income of nearly $1 million, with nearly half of it coming from the publication of his second book, "The Audacity of Hope." Last week, the campaign disclosed that Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave $240,000 to charity last year.

Link here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

For decades Hillary Clinton was the primary breadwinner in the Clinton family, while her husband served in public office, which paid much less. It's about time Bill became the primary breadwinner as his wife received lesser pay as a public office holder.

In Senator McCain's family, Mrs. McCain is the primary breadwinner. In Senator Obama's family, she's the primary breadwinner. Maybe some day the roles will be reversed in their families as well.

Posted by: Dannoday | April 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Svreder Wrote:
"If Obama gave $240,000 to charity after earning one million---how does that stack up percentage wise with the Clintons giving approx. $10 million after earning $100 million. That figures out that Obama gave 25% to charitable causes and the Clintons gave 10%? Clinton, however, charged non profit organizations? Nice concept, mmm"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The charitable figures you quote, are a combined figure for all the years 2000-2006.

In two of the years, the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity. Only in the last two years have they given substantially more as their income skyrocketed -- 4.7% in 2005 and 6.1% in 2006.


Svreder, if you are going to post erroneous statements, then get out of here. No one is going to listen to you.

Posted by: autowx | April 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

You really belong in a straight jacket. Obama never got "caught" he just started making money.

Now that I have proved you were lying you are taking a new tack instead of just admitting that you were wrong.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

svreader - thats a great point you made about Hillary being able to live the life of Riley but devoting herself to public service

she is obviously not in it for the money as we can all see BY HER TAX RETURNS that everyone demanded be released, now they are and everyone is criticisng her for being successful

svreader - do you realize most of the posters here are under 30? and don't remember the good things about the Clintons?

but boy Hillary does work hard, she was rated 97.7% for productivity while Obama was rated at 67%

and all that money and she still works hard

most people when they win the lottery quit their jobs, not Hillary

Hillary 08

Posted by: lndlouis | April 4, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

$109,000,000 since leaving the White House.
No wonder she's done such a great job of connecting with real Americans. She's just like us.

Posted by: mack1 | April 4, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

You are not posting the truth. You are shamefully lying. Obama and his wife donated 25 percent of their income to charity.

You are lying.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach
-----------------------------------------

Better check your facts before you call folks liars. In 2006 the Obamas made over $900,000 and gave $60,307 to charity which is 6.7% and in 2005 had income of $1,670,000 and gave $77,000 to charity which is 4.7%. His 2007 taxes aren't available but it seems he increased his giving when he started running for president, 427,000 of that to Wrights comments I think.

You Obamanites are as loose with the facts as your great Messiah.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

svreader:
GOT Bush/Cheny?

Posted by: variezn34gm | April 4, 2008 06:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheny?! Uh-oh! A spello! Careful now. gdumbdc is gonna get you.

Posted by: ankara1 | April 4, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Must have been pretty worried over the Penn thing to finally release their returns.

Posted by: clsvt | April 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

gdavis4 --
Barry Obama belongs in jail.
I'm confident that before the Rezko trial is over he'll be indicted.

**svliar said "Obama will drop out before the Penn. Primary...." on 3-10-08. Obviously, he knows nothing of which he speaks.**

He's bad news.
He's a world-class con-man who would have cost Democrats the election.
I don't take the law into my own hands.
I'm confident that the Chicago DA will do his job and that Obama will be indicted for his part in "Obama's Slums"

**Again, svliar said "Obama will drop out before the Penn. Primary...." on 3-10-08. Forecasts aren't his strong suit. Neither is any sense of logic, as the _Cook County_ DA would not try to take down Illinois' most prominent pol, as that would be electoral suicide. The US Attorney might not have the same consideration, but he's gone in less than a year.**

That will be reward enough for me.
I just want to see justice for the people Barry shafted and let freeze to death.

**Bald-faced lie. svliar has repeatedly ducked my challenges to name JUST ONE of these people who, he and he alone claims, froze to death. He can't because there aren't any.**

I post because they can't.

**You post, svliar, because poor people aren't shameless liars like you and your heroine, "Speedy" Hillary Clinton (she's ducks snipers' bullets, don't you know).**
Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 05:50 PM

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

So many of you completely miss the point of this. The Clintons have cashed in on government service. And I understand that this has been done in the past. But to the tune of over a hundred million dollars??? Come on! This is selling infuence and peddling notariety gained through public office on such a scale it just doesn't pass the smell test. This is sad for American politics and our system of government. It really show what many of us thought all along. The Clintons have no scuples what so ever.

Posted by: Jaymand | April 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

story --

The Clinton's gave an average of 10% over 10 years!!!

Obama only started doing the right thing after he got caught.

Its a pattern with him.

We can't afford that in a President.

The more I see Obama supporers letting him get away with anything, the more convinced I'm becoming that their motivation isn't to choose the most qualified President, but is based on racism, sexism, and ageism.

Those are considerations that should have no place in a Presidential election.

We need the best person for the job.

Color, Age, or Sex should not be the determining factor.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Where is 2007????? What are they hiding?

Posted by: QuietStormX | April 4, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

You are just making yourself look foolish.
I thiink you've got a really bad case of "degree envy"

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 06:20 PM
___________________________________

(What a surprise you can't spell "think.")

As for making one look foolish, spelling "parana", "heartship", "camelion" and "cameleon" AND THEN CLAIMING TO BE A PH.D. is what makes one look foolish. And that would not be me.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Money talks.

Where are the donations Clinton people?

Why do you force your candidates to do fundraisers? Stop posting and start donating.

Don't you see? You have lost an immense lead in an election the Democrats can not lose. Keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome, Einstein had a word for that.

Hillary already said it herself, voters have been over-exposed to the Rezko/Whright stories (she should know about over-exposure) and they have made up their minds.

The money flow from Clinton to Obama has not stopped.

Open your minds, try to find out why that is happening. Or you could continue to say the same things over and over again, as if we might buy your "idea" on the million and first iteration.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

If you don't want to see the dems lose why are you posting your negative filth? Obama will most likely be the nominee. So if you really care you will just "chill" as Bill said.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --
Your own posts discredit you more than anything anyone else could say.
Why are you so hung up on my Ph.D.?
Do you have a fetish about it or something?
___________________________________

No, I'm just obsessed with the truth...

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 06:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That thing dangling between your legs isn't "truth", gdumbdc. it's your head.

Posted by: ankara1 | April 4, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are not donating 10% to charity.

The 100 million is in 2 years, and the 10 million donation was over an 8 year period.

"a combined $109 million between 2000 and 2007" "during that 8-year period and donated more than $10 million to various charities."

Posted by: BrownShirtGeorge | April 4, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

variez --

Don't blame me, I voted for Gore and Kerry.

I just don't want to see Democrats lose.

Obama is unelectable.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, svliar, for confirming my point about your lack (lack of) truthfulness. You cut out EVERYTHING that possibly made Obama look good and honed in on the period _five to ten years_ ago that didn't. I'm sure you forgot THIS part: "Then-Vice President Al Gore came in for withering ridicule in 1998 when his tax return showed he had contributed just $353 to charity. So did then-President Bill Clinton, after a review of old tax returns revealed that he had once claimed a $75 deduction for donating a suit with ripped pants to the Salvation Army, as well as $2 for a pair of used underwear and $9 for six pairs of used socks."

It's in the same article, svliar.

Who froze to death in Obama's Slums, svliar, hmm?

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

The WP has evidence of my Ph.D.

Why do you care so much?

Your constant attempts to discredit me only discredit yourself.

You are just making yourself look foolish.

I thiink you've got a really bad case of "degree envy"


Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader:
GOT Bush/Cheny?

Posted by: variezn34gm | April 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Nice disclosure! The Dems have put their returns out there.... where is John McCain's?

Posted by: bradcpa | April 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

Why don't you follow my link instead of distorting and lying:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

In 2006 they gave 25 percent of their income to charity.

Any way you spin it that is the fact.

Originally, you said less than one percent. now you are saying 4.7 percent. You are admitting that you lied. But you still can't handle the truth which is that in 2006 it was 25 percent:

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

$51 million? Have you ever heard this guy speak? I have.

The first time I heard Bill Clinton speak was when he delivered the 1988 Democratic party convention keynote address. It was god-awful.

I have heard him speak twice, in person, over the last 3 years. He hasn't gotten much better at it.

Posted by: saraz1 | April 4, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

To be equally yoked means it is time for Hillary to pull the money wagon. I would never give up either if $100 million was the prize. Power and greed push.

Posted by: mendelpeterson | April 4, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

btw, here's the AP story on mc cain's finances, which is old news since it's been written up before when he ran in 2000.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/03/beer-executive-could-be-next-first-lady/

Posted by: nejl | April 4, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

We are a culture that values material success--why shouldn't Clinton be able to pursue this goal? He was in elected office for many years, which is not extremely high-paying. He currently runs his foundation which promotes development, fights disease in Africa--seems altruistic.

Posted by: mmccrea1 | April 4, 2008 06:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yikes! A fair-minded person on this forum! Oh boy, prepare for the mob, mmccrea1. You are toast, friend. The blood-thirsty mob is on its way. Save your family.

Posted by: tuscany1 | April 4, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Additional funds in the Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation are not reported. FYI: Presidential Libraries are essentially Piggy Banks which enjoy privacy, protection and no public audit.

Posted by: x32792 | April 4, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Clinton campaign strategist and pollster Mark Penn, heads a firm that has been paid at least $10 million by the campaign so far -- and is also being paid by the government of Colombia to promote a trade deal that Hillary Rodham Clinton opposes, The Wall Street Journal writes today.

And on Monday, the Journal reports, Penn "met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S." to discuss the free-trade agreement.

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson tells the Journal that "Mark was not there on behalf of the campaign" and that "Sen. Clinton's opposition to the trade deal with Colombia is clear."

In response to the Journal story, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is already pointing to things the Clinton folks said back in March when they were up in arms over reports that an Obama adviser had discussed the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canadian officials. It was initially reported that the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, indicated to the Canadians that the anti-NAFTA sentiments of Obama and other Democrats were mostly political posturing. Later, both Canadian diplomats and the Obama campaign said Goolsbee did not send any such signal.

In March, Clinton discussed the reports about Goolsbee with reporters and said, as the Chicago Tribune blog The Swamp wrote, "substitute my name for Sen. Obama's name and see what you would do with this story. ... Just ask yourself (what you would do) if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

Today, ABC News' Political Punch says the Journal's story about Penn is "awkward, to say the least," for the Clinton campaign. Marc Ambinder at TheAtlantic,com thinks "Penn's got trouble." David Knowles at AOL's Political Machine blog wonders whether "since Clinton knows that Penn is actively promoting a trade deal that she opposes, will she see fit to rid herself of Penn once and for all?"

Update at 1:15 p.m. ET. Penn apologizes for the meeting:

"The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it," Penn says in a statement released a short time ago, the Associated Press reports. He adds that "the senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed."

According to the AP, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the candidate has not discussed the Colombian deal with Penn.

"Senator Clinton's opposition to the Colombian Trade Deal is clear and she will be voting against it," Singer said.

Posted by: svarada123 | April 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

From 1995 through 2002 Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity.

From the Chicago Tribune.

The Obamas are members of Trinity United Church of Christ. The South Side congregation encourages its members to donate 10 percent of their income, according to a church spokeswoman. The Obamas clearly fell short of that goal, their tax returns indicate.

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Svreader---

How much was Obama's income in 1997?

He was still paying back student loans then.

Look at 2006 fool.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --
Your own posts discredit you more than anything anyone else could say.
Why are you so hung up on my Ph.D.?
Do you have a fetish about it or something?
___________________________________

No, I'm just obsessed with the truth. See, I hold an advanced degree, so it really burns me when an illiterate pretends to. And as for my posts -- no one's EVER accused me of lying in a post (except you, but that was a lie, wasn't it, Mr. "God is a Democrat"?). You've been outed as a liar IN THIS THREAD, let alone the other times. Even YOU know when I quote you, I am quoting you.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Clinton campaign strategist and pollster Mark Penn, heads a firm that has been paid at least $10 million by the campaign so far -- and is also being paid by the government of Colombia to promote a trade deal that Hillary Rodham Clinton opposes, The Wall Street Journal writes today.

And on Monday, the Journal reports, Penn "met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S." to discuss the free-trade agreement.

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson tells the Journal that "Mark was not there on behalf of the campaign" and that "Sen. Clinton's opposition to the trade deal with Colombia is clear."

In response to the Journal story, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is already pointing to things the Clinton folks said back in March when they were up in arms over reports that an Obama adviser had discussed the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canadian officials. It was initially reported that the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, indicated to the Canadians that the anti-NAFTA sentiments of Obama and other Democrats were mostly political posturing. Later, both Canadian diplomats and the Obama campaign said Goolsbee did not send any such signal.

In March, Clinton discussed the reports about Goolsbee with reporters and said, as the Chicago Tribune blog The Swamp wrote, "substitute my name for Sen. Obama's name and see what you would do with this story. ... Just ask yourself (what you would do) if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

Today, ABC News' Political Punch says the Journal's story about Penn is "awkward, to say the least," for the Clinton campaign. Marc Ambinder at TheAtlantic,com thinks "Penn's got trouble." David Knowles at AOL's Political Machine blog wonders whether "since Clinton knows that Penn is actively promoting a trade deal that she opposes, will she see fit to rid herself of Penn once and for all?"

Update at 1:15 p.m. ET. Penn apologizes for the meeting:

"The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it," Penn says in a statement released a short time ago, the Associated Press reports. He adds that "the senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed."

According to the AP, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the candidate has not discussed the Colombian deal with Penn.

"Senator Clinton's opposition to the Colombian Trade Deal is clear and she will be voting against it," Singer said.

Posted by: svarada123 | April 4, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

O.K. Obamanites. There you go. You have their tax returns. But it's still not good enough. Now you're crying because they haven't released their 2007 returns, which are still in preparation and aren't due for 11 more days. And you're still bellyaching about not getting Bill's library and foundation reports, thinking there is a huge scandal in the makings. In your dreams! Just like the way the Apollo moon landing was a fake, and made in a studio. Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. What a bunch of real gullible kooks out there. Your pure hatred of Bill and Hillary, is only going to send you to your graves early, due to the stress of obsession. I hope it will be worth it to your loved ones

Posted by: autowx | April 4, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

You really should be banned for spreading false information.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

a) It's "delusional". Idjit. if you didn't know how to spell it, you could have at least cut-and-pasted from me.


Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 06:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"you could have at least cut-and-pasted from me". Uh-huh. You are very erudite, gdumbdc. A real Faulkner, you. I wouldn't be surprised if you wrote some of Wright's speeches.

Posted by: ankara1 | April 4, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gave $240,000 to charity after earning one million---how does that stack up percentage wise with the Clintons giving approx. $10 million after earning $100 million. That figures out that Obama gave 25% to charitable causes and the Clintons gave 10%? Clinton, however, charged non profit organizations? Nice concept, mmm?

Posted by: karen.snyder | April 4, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

From the Chicago Tribune --

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

svliar --

STOP. LYING.

In relevant detail: "Barack and Michelle Obama earned close to $1 million in 2006, paid more than $318,000 in taxes and got a $40,000 refund, according to the couple's tax return released by the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign on Tuesday. The Obamas owed the government $277,000 after itemized deductions, which included $60,449 in mortgage interest and $60,307 in charitable contributions."

See http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/25/obamas-open-tax-returns-earned-nearly-1m-in-2006/

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have now released 30 years of tax returns. They have made a lot of money, paid a lot of taxes (are willing to change the tax laws so that they will pay even more taxes) and have contributed a lot to charity. Enough already with the tax returns...I'm not looking at them...I don't care about them.

Posted by: KathyCorey | April 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

You really are an idiot:

In 2006, Obama reported income of nearly $1 million, with nearly half of it coming from the publication of his second book, "The Audacity of Hope." Last week, the campaign disclosed that Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave $240,000 to charity last year.

This is from an AP report. Link here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

As I said, you are lying.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

sfp,

Evidently, the reviled MSM has discovered the value of never banning anyone who elicits more posts.

The literal dollar value of svreader and her friends to the Obama campaign is immense, however. I think we need to support him and the rest of the psychotic Clinton posters, because they support us.

Meanwhile, could you please tell us about
the story?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

A donation of $10 to charity on $110 million earned seems pretty respectable to me.

I get tired of the bias against the Clintons. Even this article refers to, "for-hire speeches." If Bill Clinton can command that much for speaking, let him. Is he always supposed to speak for free, or for very little?

I do not visualize the Clintons making ads for one of their nation's commercial rivals as I remembering hearing that Reagan did (making ads for a Japanese company after his presidency).

We are a culture that values material success--why shouldn't Clinton be able to pursue this goal? He was in elected office for many years, which is not extremely high-paying. He currently runs his foundation which promotes development, fights disease in Africa--seems altruistic.

Posted by: mmccrea1 | April 4, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons make the lobbyist on K Street look like amateurs. Buba goes and gives a 20 minute speech - collects $400,000, rubs elbows and his "client" get access and his views heard. American influence for sale on the grandest scale! What a sham, a mockery, a shamockery!

Posted by: Jaymand | April 4, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

story --

WHAT???

Sorry, put down the crack pipe fella...

Obama gave 0.89%, that's less than 1% if you can't read decimals....

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Nobody, and I mean nobody, deserves to make that kind of money for telling lies to the public. No wonder the Clintons resisted the clamor for release of their tax returns. Obviously, Hillary, on the ropes, is desperate to get back into the game. Is there any doubt why politicians seek the White House and the Congress to round out their careers? That's where the money is.
Postedby:Diogenes
-----------------------------------------

I don't blame you for having your drawers in a wad, sheep. Here she is being out spent at least 4 to 1. MSM working like crazy against her. She just won't go away will she. Better watch out?

Ole Honest Abe Obama doesn't lie? When, where, and how did Obama know about Wrights words. Who knows? He has told more version of this than Carter has little pills.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

svreader---

You are not posting the truth. You are shamefully lying. Obama and his wife donated 25 percent of their income to charity.

You are lying.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

Your own posts discredit you more than anything anyone else could say.

Why are you so hung up on my Ph.D.?

Do you have a fetish about it or something?

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Question,

Where did the charitable contributions go? To the Clinton Foundation to fund projects in primary states?

Posted by: mark.weinstein | April 4, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The Audacity of Lies:

Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American.

He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it.

He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.

He rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning."

He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time.

He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.

At first he knew of no controversial remarks from his pastor. Then he knew it. Then he knew some but not others.

At first the "union" that brought him into this world was caused by the bridge crossing/civil rights movement in Selma which, by the way, actually happened 5 years afterwards. Long after he was born.

He flattered Kennedys by crediting them for funding his father's arrival to US when the Kennedys had nothing to do with it.

Don't even get me going over the questionnaires he has filled indicating positions he has completely contradicted during this campaign cycle.

List keeps on growing.

Posted by: Umbria | April 4, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | April 4, 2008 05:51 PM :
if it comes down to generating income from speeches then president bush had better apply for food stamps upon retiring.

*****

That is very funny!

Posted by: echo2 | April 4, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

to: rrau22:

Their intentions and any charitable offerings are suspect, in my opinion. These are the Clintons, afterall, and anything they say should be filtered and examined accordingly. What is the Clinton Charitable foundation? And have they donated money to any Carbon Credit offset scams? Would not surprise any of us if they had.

Posted by: littledoc | April 4, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

What did Bill Clinton charge the Boy Scouts to speak and was there an uproar about his fee to a non profit group?

Posted by: karen.snyder | April 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

109 million for speaking and meet-and-greets? Not a bad deal.

I can't get the image of Dom DeLuise playing Caesar in Mel Brooks' "History of the World"

I envision Clinton sitting in a regal chair, receiving guests. After a while, he gets bored, until someone suggests he take a TREASURE BATH!!!

Posted by: steveboyington | April 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Story --

Obama supporters want anyone who posts the truth about him banned.

This is America. Not the Soviet Union!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You're the one that's delusonal.

I make spelling errors.
________________________________________

a) It's "delusional". Idjit. if you didn't know how to spell it, you could have at least cut-and-pasted from me.

b) We KNOW you make spelling errors, idiot, that's the whole point. You do not know how to spell, and that is because you are ill-read, and that is NOT consistent with being a Ph.D.

c) If you can't spell words correctly, because you do not know how, why should we trust anything you offer as guidance for our thoughts and decisions? (As if, given your propensity for lying, we ever would. Who died in the slums, svliar? Name one. You CLAIMED you did the research, was that a lie too?)

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, they have asked for an extension for 2007, so this is hardly a full disclosure.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone share the opinion that the Clintons released this today to distract the people and media from the Mark Penn/Colombia story?

Instead, they throw out the tax returns to get people talking about that.

Posted by: dslee25 | April 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

bradk1, Hillary said words don't matter if you don't take action to deliver results based on what you've communicated. She has a history of following through. Ask anyone who has benefited from her support of those in need after 9/11. Good for the Clintons for using their popularity to do good and for using a good portion of their money for charitable causes. If I recall correctly, when his taxes were released it was specifically noted that Barack did not "give back" when he came into his own personal fortune with his books. This is one more confirmation that the Clintons have been doing good works all of their adult lives.

Posted by: mountainwhere | April 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Why the Democratic Race Could End in North Carolina

When will th Democratic Race end?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2034


.

Posted by: f.fox1212 | April 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Svreader---

Don't lie: Obama and his wife earned less than 1 million dollars (mostly from his book) and gave 240,000 to charity. That is almost 25 percent.

Why do you feel it is necessary to lie?

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Fake 55 writes:
"To me the issue isn't how much the Clinton's have made selling books and speeches. The issue is: why should anyone kick in $50 or $100 or $2500 bucks to support the campaign of someone who makes more money in a year than they may make in their entire life. If Hillary needs money, she shouldn't beg for it, she should spend her own."

Well, two thoughts:
First, I think her problem is that she didn't beg for it - many of her supporters were surprised to realize she was short on money.

Second, part of the game of politics is credibility. If Clinton funds her own campaign, she isn't demonstrating that people support her. See Mitt Romney.

Now I'm sure that, because I used the words "credibility" and "Clinton" in the same paragraph, there will be lots of really thoughtful, mature comments. Please Obama supporters, follow his lofty speeches (even if he isn't making 109 million with them yet) and keep the negativity to a minimum. Try! Practice makes perfect!


Posted by: echo2 | April 4, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Svreader---

It is actually amazing they have not banned you yet. I think both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters alike would rather you stopped posting.

Ever think about collecting beer bottles or something?

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

$109 million in seven years? Bill and Hillary went to Washington to do good and did very well, indeed. Now they join the other millionaires in the "party of the people." Jay Rockefeller, Diane Feinstein, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, Herbert Kohl, Maria Cantwell, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Pete Stark, Jane Harman, the Manhattan and Hollywood elites. If each member of the liberal elite would put his money where his mouth is, the poor would benefit without the need to put this country on the road to socialism, ie serfdom.

Posted by: mhr614 | April 4, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

gdavis4 --
Barry Obama belongs in jail.
I'm confident that before the Rezko trial is over he'll be indicted.

He's bad news.
He's a world-class con-man who would have cost Democrats the election.
I don't take the law into my own hands.
I'm confident that the Chicago DA will do his job and that Obama will be indicted for his part in "Obama's Slums"

That will be reward enough for me.
I just want to see justice for the people Barry shafted and let freeze to death.

I post because they can't.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 05:50 PM

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

story --

OBAMA GAVE LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF HIS INCOME TO CHARITY.

HE USES PEOPLE AND THROWS THEM AWAY.

HE LET THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM FREEZE IN UNHEATED SLUMS AFTER FUNNELING $100M TO REZKO.

WHY DO YOU STILL SUPPORT HIM?

IS IT JUST RACISM?

I HOPE NOT!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have claimed $10 mil in charitable donations. The Clintons have their own foundation for charity. ie, as long as they transfer the money to their charitable foundation account then it can be deducted. It does not matter whether their foundation actually spends that money on helping poor or in building a monument for the Clintons. Now the $10 mil could be in cash or kind. That means they coud itemize their well worn out underwear as charitable donation and claim a big deduction. If the Clintons are that charitable why do they need a bank account in the Caymen islands? With that much money being charged for 'speeches' and all the strings they pull for foreign businessmen they could be doing a lot of coverup of their tracks on how and where the money is going. No wonder they did not release their tax returns until this late in the game. Now they don't have any choice. Not only that they got ample time to cover up any tracks.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

The charitable contribution level says everything. Moreover, Clinton has helped to raise enormous sums for sunami and Katrina victims. How much he gets for a speech can't be criticized without wondering about the critic's motives.

So for all the gutter snipes who have been slinging mud at the Clinton's, lump it!

Their egos can be quite irritating, but they ARE generous.

Posted by: rrau22 | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Why is there nothing in the Washington Post about the Mark Penn story????

Posted by: dslee25 | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This is appalling...But they're out to save the poor and destroy those money grubbing corporations! What a joke. Not bad though for a couple that have never held a job outside of government. Gore's has also enriched himself the same way. In end history will remember the Clinton/Gores for the Charlatans they really were.

Posted by: Jaymand | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

There is a political reason Hillary's camp released these tax returns on Friday April 4th versus April 15th. First, it's Friday some many people won't be tuned to their TV sets over the weekend unless it's sport related. Secondly, this story drowns out the other story of Hillary campaign manager Mark Penn was caught lobbying for the Colombia Government on trade-deals that Hillary supposedly opposed.

Sorry Hillary supporters the reason the Clintons issued there tax returns in a summary notice appeals to the many bloggers and political news pundits who will only see the total $109 million and not dig into the details. But approximately 20% of the Clinton fortune is very questionable in terms of what exactly did Bill Clinton do for it, especially with Bill's involvement in the failed Dubai Ports deal and Uranium enrichment deal in Kazakhstan.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 4, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You're the one that's delusonal.

I make spelling errors.

Barry Obama makes grave errors of judgement.

The truth will be the end of Chicago Barry Obama.

In the end, all he'll be left with for supporters is a few dead-enders like you!

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Ask Americans if they believe that supply and demand, the setting of a price for a good or a service, ought to be freely negotiated by the buyer and seller, and a majority of Americans will answer, Of course they ought to be negotiated by the buyer and the seller.

Ask Americans if the Clintons profited excessively in the years following Clinton's presidency, and a vocal minority, many of whom, I suspect are among the most devout of capitalists, will scream bloody murder, ignoring for the moment the reality of the situation, that those who paid for Clinton's appearances or those who bought their books did so of their own free will, and a core concept of this country--that a person is not bound for life to his class, that he may achieve as much as possible.

Secondly... Obama... if he never did another thing in his life, what do you imagine he's worth today on the lecture tour? And what is your view of that?

Third: $100 million ain't what it used to be. Top-tier celebrities in the arts knock that back every year.

Posted by: jerseyboy | April 4, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Dishonesty + Divisiveness + Deception + Dynasty = HilLIARy Clinton

More HRC on NAFTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4

Posted by: valskeet | April 4, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

So even though the Clintons make more than 20 times as much money as the Obamas, the former gives less than 10 percent of their income to charity, while the latter gives 25 perctent.

Enough said.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

Barry Obama's supposed to be Human.

I earned my Ph.D.

Barry and you have earned my scorn.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

if it comes down to generating income from speeches then president bush had better apply for food stamps upon retiring.

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | April 4, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

and BTW, svliar, it's "the life of Riley", not "the life of riley". You capitalize proper names.

You can't spell, you can't write, and you actually think people don't just scroll past your tedious screeds. As my man Lewis Black would say, "You are delusional."

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Another rich person running for President. They have NO idea how we Americans are struggling.
------------------------------------------
Is there a database available of what groups Bill spoke to? Third world dictators? Pharmaceuticals? GOPAC?
----------------------------------------------
Well at least we don't have to worry abut the dynamic duo when we vote them out of the Presidential race. They can go off into the wild blue yonder with their pockets full of bucks that came from God knows who.
-----------------------------------------
Small sample of Obamanite comments.

You Obamanites are complete idiots. Thats as low as my vocabulary can go. When Bill Clinton was elected president the Clinton's net worth was less than $350 thousand dollars. I'll bet 95% of the posters on this thread have a much greater worth than that.
Until the last eight years they have had no wealth. You fools don't know what you are screwing up. People all over the world have high regard for the Clintons. It is a damn shame the US citizens are so dumb.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 4, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

gdavis4 --

Barry Obama belongs in jail.

I'm confident that before the Rezko trial is over he'll be indicted.

He's bad news.

He's a world-class con-man who would have cost Democrats the election.

I don't take the law into my own hands.

I'm confident that the Chicago DA will do his job and that Obama will be indicted for his part in "Obama's Slums"

That will be reward enough for me.

I just want to see justice for the people Barry shafted and let freeze to death.

I post because they can't.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The most important issue is regarding Bill's cash-register of speaking fees.

Would he continue to get all that money when she was President?

If so, would that be seen as a way to influence her?

My guess is she will have to make some statement in the next couple of days to stop the water cooler talk.

Posted by: steveboyington | April 4, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

svliar --

"Shakespear"?* And you're supposed to be a Ph.D.? Yeah, right.

* This is on top of "parana", "heartship", "camelion" and "cameleon". This purported Ph.D. is barely literate. His posts should be assessed with that fact in mind -- not to mention his proven propensity towards falsehoods.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

From what I heard on the news she gave a summary of her 2007 tax return, not her actual 2007 tax return as she promised. Makes me wonder what is she hiding.

Posted by: big__ez | April 4, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I would just about pay to listen to Bill speak about tax code he's that engaging. Conversely, I can barely listen to W utter a word he's so terrible of a speaker. Obama has the same gift of oration as Billy. His wife...not so much. WcCain....not even close. I tivo'd a WcCain speech to help me go to sleep when I'm having trouble...

Posted by: RightDownTheMiddle | April 4, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Gosh svreader! We get it! You are no Obama fan. Instead of painfully wasting space with the "Carefully crafting the Obama 'brand'" post, just refer us to the link and we'll read it (or not).

Posted by: everystep8 | April 4, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Well the real story is how the Clintons drive their wealth from mere words into their bid to sleep in seperate white house beds, again.


Bill, call Mitt and Rudy, find out what not to do. Do not "loan" any more of "your"
money to the wife that you love and cherish.

Bill, it is time for you to stand on your own three legs and just let her go.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a cheapskate.

He gave less than 1% of his money to charity.

But he was more than glad to give Rezko $100M of government conracts to fix up the slums of Chicago.

He just was too busy running for President to follow up on the contracts like he was supposed to do.

So people who voted him into office froze to death.

He was too busy, just like he was too busy to hold the senate hearings he was supposed to.

Heck of a job, Barry!!!!

I'm sorry if I sound harsh sometimes, but everything I've warned people on these boards about Chicago Barry Obama is the cold hard truth.

The real Obama is a real jerk.

He only cares about himself.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

What about Clinton's overseas investments? None of that is in this. Did this go to his foundation?

And why did it take them months to put all this together?

Given their track record for honesty, I'm wondering how honest all of this is.

Posted by: Caliguy75 | April 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

svreader

Why don't you just stalk Obama and kill him? You sound just crazy enough to try it. Better yet, stalk yourself then kill yourself. You would be doing Hillary a favor. LOL

Posted by: gdavis4 | April 4, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

We all know that each candidate had
been taking in over 100 million
dollars each month.

We want to see a realistic inventory of the contributors of her campaign.


It is then and only then will we know the depth of the criminal acts that the Clintons have been involved.

Posted by: theman_in_black | April 4, 2008 05:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's Obama's breakdown.

Money raised from internet.
1. African-Americans: $25 (x 32 million)
2. Latte liberals: $100 (x 1 million)
3. People wanting God to Damn America: $100 (x 1 million)
4. People believing that America invented the AIDS virus to kill off the colored people: $100 (x 1 million)
5. Anti-Semites (x 1 million)
6. Libya, Iraq and other middle-eastern countries: $200 (x 20 million).
Goes on and on.

Money being partly spent to buy Presidency. Partly, to buy a few square feet to expand the backyard (from a real estate gem who lets people freeze to sickness in his crumbling apartments).

Posted by: tuscany1 | April 4, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

svliar:

I'm still waiting for you to name JUST ONE of the people you claimed (60 times) "died in Obama's Slums".

Liar.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 4, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Politics has been very, very good to the Clintons.

Posted by: larryecoffey | April 4, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

But she won't release her returns for 2007!!!

Come on, Hillary. Don't you want the American public to know all of the shady donors who have contributed to your campaign in the last year???

What are you hiding, Hillary?

Posted by: nezbangi | April 4, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

svreader

You forgot to mention that he worships satin and molest children. I think all the kids he molested tested positive for AIDS too. Doesn't he have blood ties to Hitler and Ganges Khan? Did I leave out any more idiotic notions that you did not already come up with idiot? I think you defeat your purpose. With your loony post you make people run from Hillary to Obama. Please stop before you cost her more votes.

Posted by: gdavis4 | April 4, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The Presidency is more profitable then we imagined.

What's odd is that blue collar set has been duped into thinking that Hillary was one them.

Oh well. The whole 'I feel your pain' rap's a bit silly at this point.

As to the discussion of charity within, one should be careful not to use it for some kind of end, for real charity is anonymous, not a public relations tool.

I see Mr. Obama is holding a 5.2 point edge over Clinton nationally, (RCP average)
as well as the Intrade market bumping Obama up to an 86% chance of winning the nomination, up 1.6 points today, to Hillary's 12.5% chance, down 2.2 points today. Follow the money folks....

Posted by: robertell | April 4, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

How about those tens of millions that the Arabs have donated to the Arkansas fund?
These monies do not show up on their IRS
return! Full dislcosure please...

Posted by: umt | April 4, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Might be harder to get the white working class to identify with someone making all that money.

Posted by: diebrucke | April 4, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Susan9

Labels labels labels and character assassinations. What ever happen to running on your own accomplishments or plans rather than slandering the opponents. Instead of thinking of catchy names for people who support Obama and trying to tie him to every evil thing short of the devil himself, why not ask yourself why is Hillary Clinton losing to a guy that we did not even know 5 years ago? Perhaps its her own fault she is struggling to win the nomination not Obama's for running.

Posted by: gdavis4 | April 4, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"Speeches don't put food on the table." Hillary Rodham Clinton commenting on Obama's oratory skills.

It sure looks like they put a 'feast' on hers.

Also, people who praise others for donating to charity forget it becomes a tax break. Why is it a noble thing? Giving without expecting a benefit is true charity.

Posted by: AverageJane | April 4, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Like Bush And Cheney would say,"SO"

Posted by: shipfreakbo214 | April 4, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Only svreader can post on here an article concerning Obama's plot to obtain the White House while he ignores the Clintons' ambitions to achieve the same goal. Come on svreader you convince no one and you'll still be out of a job when she concedes.

Posted by: AverageJane | April 4, 2008 05:23 PM
------------------------------------------
So will you, AverageJane, so will you. And, you know what's remarkable? Regardless of who wins the Presidency, you will be crying like a little girl, while, after a couple of years, we will be saying "Told you so." Remember these words.

Posted by: tuscany1 | April 4, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the true hero of this election.

She could live the life of riley, but she devotes herself to helping the less fortunate.

Obama is the real MONSTER.

He let the people who put him into office freeze in unheated slums and the only charity he gives is to a racist, anti-semitic, anti-american preacher.

Barry Obama is cold as ice.

He only cares about himself, money, and power.

He's a racist to boot.

Nobody with a heart or a soul should vote for him for anything!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

So Reagan (who championed free enterprise) made ONE SPEECH FOR ONE MILLION dollars in Japan and got crucified for it in the press. Bill Clinton (who hypocritically criticizes the "rich") makes over 55 million in speaking royalties and GETS A FREE FREE PASS.

YEP, THAT SOUND ABOUT "PAR FOR THE COURSE", great job there mainstream media!! 8-)

Posted by: lt1z28 | April 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

________________________
________________________

THESE AREN'T THE NUMBERS WE WANT
TO SEE $108,000,000!!!

_________________________
_________________________

We all know that each candidate had
been taking in over 100 million
dollars each month.

We want to see a realistic inventory of the contributors of her campaign.


It is then and only then will we know the depth of the criminal acts that the Clintons have been involved.

Posted by: theman_in_black | April 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Good for her..people are willing to pay to listen. Wonder how Bush II will do when he retires on a permanent vacation. I am sure he will be clear and inspirational.

Go Hillary..Go Barak..

Issa y Yago

Posted by: Issa1 | April 4, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Nickolas1

We are cynical about the clintons but would any of us be any different? I know if I could make 51 million speaking after being 12 million in debt I would. You would be lying if you said you would not. As for who is paying, thats the perks of politics. How many congressmen have blatantly passed laws to benefit a particular industry then promptly became chairmen on boards of the companies within those industries as soon as the left congress? Ask La. Sen Billy Tauzin.

Posted by: gdavis4 | April 4, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Even this won't satiate the ravenous Obamanauts whose candidate has revealed only lack of action and connections to extremists and criminals.

Hillary '08

Posted by: Susan9 | April 4, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone expect anyone making under a mil to give 10% to charity.

Posted by: nolawip | April 4, 2008 04:54 PM
-------------------------------------------
What! Spare $100,000 out of $1,000,000 for good causes?! Dear me!

Wait a minute. Actually I am glad he decided not spare that amount. It probably would have gone towards funding Wright and Farrakhan all the more.

Posted by: tuscany1 | April 4, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

NEO-CONS FOR HILLARY ! ! !

Pretend that you're a Democrat (Hillary supporter)

Smear Obama with any of the following:

1. He's a Muslim
2. He's not Black enough
3. He's not White enough
4. He's not patriotic
5. He's a racist

note: never address any "issues", instead smear him with any association: his pastor, someone who endorses him, his wife, his father,etc. always make racist commments (i.e. compare him to Jim Jones), put his middle name in capital letters...and MOST IMPORTANT repeat it over and over (check FoxNews for latest smear)

remember: Americans are stupid! (look how we got them in the Iraq war!)

if you repeat anything enough, they'll believe it.

then

SAY IF OBAMA IS NOMINATED, YOU WON'T VOTE DEMOCRATIC IN NOVEMBER

* note: this is generally true, but if Hillary is nominated, it doesn't matter who gets elected...you can vote for whomever you want....McCain is slightly better, but both are in our lobby's pocket, i.e. both Clinton and McCain will put America in our WARS

THE NEOCON LOBBY OWNS BOTH MCCAIN AND HILLARY.

but not Obama

WE MUST STOP OBAMA !

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 4, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

AvergageJane,

Unlike you, I'm not a paid shill.

Your candidate is a real cheap-skate, isn't he?

Less than 1% of his money went to charity.

The Clintons gave over 10%.

What does that say to you about what kind of people Barry Obama and his wife are?

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Now we get a real idea why she is fighting so hard to be President. Afterwards, it is


CHA CHING!

Posted by: steveboyington | April 4, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama loves Rev Wright so much he gave him $27,000.

How much did Obama care about the people who voted for him, but froze to death in his slums?

Not much.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Neither Bill nor Hillary grew up rich.

Posted by: camasca | April 4, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Only svreader can post on here an article concerning Obama's plot to obtain the White House while he ignores the Clintons' ambitions to achieve the same goal. Come on svreader you convince no one and you'll still be out of a job when she concedes.

Posted by: AverageJane | April 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama's spent all his time running for office.

He's never held any meethings of the senate oversight boards he strong armed people into giving him.

He's never written any legislation, but takes credit for bills written by others.

He's no Shakespear, but the bard had him pegged.

Obama's speeches are nothing more than "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and glory, signifying nothing"

He is the idiot telling them.

His followers are even bigger idiots for falling for his sales pitches.

Lets hope most of them wake up and realize they've been "conned"

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

i disagree with dwatson01. of cource, there comes something what they deserve, but how many clean politicaians are in the united states!anynything comes in 2nd method goes clean up what they've done from the first as we all know of this world's perception! also, is it necessary to spend $5m for her election? if media says this mount of money is running then, i can't imagine the reality. we are living in a lie. releasing the tax return?? mrs clintion should know what the real world is. loyal family care about what people think? yes, of cource they are just too busy to cover themselves. is that the future of united states? she've better show up how wise she is. it is not the time to use ex-presedent for her election.

Posted by: ssjhpcl | April 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Well at least we don't have to worry abut the dynamic duo when we vote them out of the Presidential race. They can go off into the wild blue yonder with their pockets full of bucks that came from God knows who. Time to stay focused on the facts that our man is ahead in delegates, votes and contests. Obama WON TEXAS report on that Washington Post. The democratic nomination is ours and the time is now to focus our attention to Obama vs. McWar. HRC and Bill will be fine dont you think?

Posted by: pedraza1 | April 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I found this article today on 5th or 6th page of my local newspaper at the bottom.

it came off the associated press by Anne Flaherty

"Members of Congress have as much as $196 million collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the onset of the Iraq war according to a study by a nonpartisan research group.

Not all companies in which lawmakers invested are typical defense contractors. Corporations such as PepsiCo, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson have at one pont received defense related contracts, notes the report by the Washing based Center for Responsive Politics.

The center's review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statments suggest members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they dcide the fate of Iraq war spending.

Several membbers earning money from these contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Senator John Kerry, Indpedndent Senator Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

Spokesman David Wade said Kerry, D-Mass who staunchly opposed the war in Iraq is one of many beneficiaries of family trusts that he doesn't control.

A spokeman for Lieberman I-Conn said the senator who supports continued operations in Iraq is "careful to make his policy decsions based on only what is best for the country'

A spokesman for Blunt R-Mo, a senior member of House GOP leadership who held at least $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006 said the insinuation that lawmakers votes might be affected by their portofolios is offense."

B...s... - they know and if they don't they don't deserve to be in positions of public trust. Lots of people are making big bucks off this war.

That aside, I have often wondered why Barak Obama campaigned FOR Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont, the anti war grass roots candidate in Connecticut and why he would run so rampantly with John Kerry who voted for the war. He makes a big deal about Hillary's judgement being so bad, are we to trust Kerry's judgement - obvioulsy his state didn't - they voted for Clinton.

Posted by: lndlouis | April 4, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

To me the issue isn't how much the Clinton's have made selling books and speeches. The issue is: why should anyone kick in $50 or $100 or $2500 bucks to support the campaign of someone who makes more money in a year than they may make in their entire life. If Hillary needs money, she shouldn't beg for it, she should spend her own.

Posted by: fake55 | April 4, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Watch MSNBC and Obama supporters go:

"Do you think Hillary pimped Chelsea to make that kind of money. She must have."

Never doubt the ability of filth to sink lower, folks. Especially the God Damn America/America invented AIDS to kill off the colored people type of the crowd.

Posted by: tuscany1 | April 4, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Excellent work, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton!
Go HILLARY!
CLINTON/FEINGOLD 2008

Posted by: myshiba | April 4, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Fair is Fair. Wolf Blitzer informed the Public about Barack Hussein donating ALL of his $60,000+ Charitable Contributions to exclusively "Black" Charities, NOW who did the Clinton's give it to?

I DOUBT, it was the KKK Baptist Church, White Scholarship Fund, and German Polka Society! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | April 4, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

newagent99 writes: "Only 109 million in 10 years? Obama's at 4
million and hasnt done anything yet."

$4 million...total...between him and his wife...from 2000 to 2007. Given they're both lawyers, that's hardly massive. Also, consider that almost half that amount is income from Obama's two books.

Take away $1.7 million from royalties, and that leaves $2.3 million in salary income for the Obamas. Works out to about $150,000 per year for each Obama parent. With two daughters, living in Chicago, that ain't rich by any standard.

newagent99 writes: "oh, and while the CLintons have given away 10% of pre-tax dollars, Obama has given away less than 2%"

And Bill Gates gives away $5 billion per year to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is about 10% of his current net worth.

The wealthy can give more - because there's more to give. Stop pretending that the Obamas and the Clintons are even in the same ZIP code when it comes to tax brackets.

Not that any of this matters - except in the perception and media game. It's always nice to get a peek at the books, though. Next up: John and Cindy McCain. Get ready for some big numbers there, too.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 4, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

It's really not about the money for Hillary obviously. Not only do they give money to charity, President Clinton has his own foundation that funnels about $80 million dollars a year to causes such as AIDS treatments, fighting children's obesity, and rebuilding New Orleans. The charity funnels more money than Oprah's Angel network (and Oprah is a billionaire). The non-profit organization Charity Navigator rated the Clinton Foundation 4 stars.

Interesting bits about Hillary:

Hillary voted that Congress should tie their raises to the minimum wage - no salary increases for Congress unless they raised the minimum wage.

She also stated in an interview that she would accept minimum wage as President.

She did not grow up rich - just middle class. Her father paid for her tuition to college, but she worked throughout college to pay for her books and expenses. She paid for all of Yale law school herself - working and taking out loans.

When she was 14, she started a babysitting brigade to watch the children of migrant workers who could not afford child care.

I think that she sincerely cares about America and the working class, and the underpriviledged. And I think that they are using their money and influence in really meaningful ways.

I think that she would be a great President.

Posted by: dc210 | April 4, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

For individuals who can't understand why speeches could earn that much, it's not the value proposition in the speech itself, it's the name, the brand that firms want to advertise their brands. To make it easier to understand, ask why firms hire Catherine Zeta Jones for $100,000 for every 30-sec ad display?

Or maybe you know the reasons, but just post your ethical questions about the Clintons for political purposes? I've never registered to vote, but your questions are so biased that I have to post my response here.

Posted by: namng | April 4, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Carefully crafting the Obama 'brand'
From his first days in the U.S. Senate, the Illinoisan has followed a strategy envisioning a White House bid
By Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons

Washington Bureau

June 12, 2007

WASHINGTON

One evening in February 2005, in a four-hour meeting stoked by pepperoni pizza and grand ambition, Sen. Barack Obama and his senior advisers crafted a strategy to fit the Obama "brand."

The charismatic celebrity-politician had rocketed from the Illinois state legislature to the U.S. Senate, stirring national interest. The challenge was to maintain altitude despite the limited tools available to a freshman senator whose party was in the minority.

Yet even in those early days, Obama and his advisers were thinking ahead. Some called it the "2010-2012-2016" plan: a potential bid for governor or re-election to the Senate in 2010, followed by a bid for the White House as soon as 2012 or, if not, 2016. The way to get there, they decided, was by carefully building a record that matched the brand identity: Obama as unifier and consensus-builder, an almost postpolitical leader.

The staffers in that after-hours session, convened by Obama's Senate staff and including Chicago political adviser David Axelrod, planned a low-profile strategy that would emphasize workhorse results over headlines. Obama would invest in his long-term profile by not seeming too eager for the bright lights.

"My profile outstripped my power in the Senate," Obama said in a recent interview in his Capitol Hill office. "I was mindful of the importance of establishing good relationships with my colleagues early on, and making sure that people didn't think I bought into all the hype."

But eventually he succumbed to the buzz enveloping his political persona and decided to run for the presidency of the most powerful nation in history after only two years in national politics. Barely more than one-third of the way through his first term in the Senate, his tenure is marked by enormous media interest and modest legislative achievements on issues ranging from international weapons proliferation to hometown bridges and highways.

Throughout his time in the Senate, Obama has followed a cautious path, avoiding any severe political bruises. Even before the national mood was turning on Iraq, Obama was a critic of the war, but for most of his time in the Senate he was not a strong voice in opposition. Similarly, the former civil rights attorney and University of Chicago law lecturer did not take to the bully pulpit to speak out publicly on judicial appointments. His strategy called for him to turn away from the cameras when he might otherwise have been a resonant voice.

Friends think Obama managed to accomplish a lot, given the time and tools at his disposal. But several GOP senators say Obama has yet to make his mark in Washington.

"He's easy to get along with. I admire him. I enjoyed reading his book. But he hasn't been here long enough to have an impact on the Senate," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a former governor and presidential candidate. "It's like asking how's a football player doing halfway into the first quarter. It's too early to say."

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) added: "I don't think he has enough experience to be president of the United States, particularly in defense and foreign policy areas and overall in domestic areas. But overall, in the Senate, he has done a good job."

Even many Republicans in the Senate credit Obama for skillfully managing the transition. Obama made it an early priority to fit in at the institution, reflected in his choice of a chief of staff, Peter Rouse, a veteran Senate insider who had been the top aide for departing Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). Rouse crafted the memo that formed the basis of the conversation at the strategy session that February night at a Democratic Party office near the Capitol. (Descriptions of those and other deliberations depend on the accounts of Obama's inside and outside advisers -- all of whom are sympathetic to him. With few exceptions, those advisers insisted on anonymity.)

The plan they hatched focused on concrete, achievable goals that included delivering for Illinois, fitting in at the Senate and developing cross-party alliances while avoiding the limelight.

They would schedule Obama on trips that traversed two-lane country roads throughout Illinois. He would do his duty raising money for fellow Democratic senators during the "Power Hour," a regular telephone fundraising commitment set up by party leaders. And he would sit through lengthy committee hearings to wait his last-place turn as the most junior member to ask a question.

First and foremost, the Obama team placed a high premium on working well with others.

"So much of what happens around here depends on relationships and on a committee chairman's willingness to help you out," said Chris Lu, Obama's legislative director. "It helps if those relationships are strong."

When asked to speak in 2006 at the Gridiron Dinner -- a white-tie-and-tails gathering that brings together Washington's political and media elites -- he reached for humor to show a bit of humility and deflate expectations.

"Most of all," he told reporters gathered for the function, "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."

Deferring to the lions

To some liberals, the proposal was a no-brainer: a ceiling of 30 percent on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer debt. And as he left his office to vote on it, Obama planned to support the measure, which was being considered as an amendment to a major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws.

But when the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt.

"You know, this is probably not a smart amendment for us to vote for," Obama recalled Sarbanes telling him. "Thirty percent is sort of a random number."

Obama joined Sarbanes in voting against the amendment, but they lost the larger battle when the new bankruptcy law passed by a lopsided 74-25. There remains no federal ceiling on credit card interest rates.

Obama's deferral to Sarbanes was just one example of the freshman senator learning to navigate a chamber famous for its egos.

He temporarily set aside the high-minded rhetoric of a 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that launched him into the national spotlight in favor of a more realistic view of what he could accomplish.

He also turned down just about every national media invitation that came his way that first year. He focused on Illinois, and by the fall of 2005 he had done 39 town hall meetings, according to his office schedule, the vast majority of them in communities outside Chicago. The only national speaking invitations he accepted came from the NAACP and from Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights icon.

He also sat through many of his committee hearings from beginning to end, something senators rarely do.

"My job was to work and learn the institution," Obama said. "I'm somebody who generally thinks that listening and learning before you start talking is a pretty good strategy. It's like any other social setting -- a new job, a new school, a new town. People appreciate it if you spend a little time getting to know them before you announce that you are looking for attention."

One colleague who took note was the powerful then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, who later invited Obama on a trip through the former Soviet Union, inspecting projects to decommission Cold War-era weapons. The two ultimately worked together to pass legislation to control the spread of weapons.

"I like him, and I appreciate working with him," Lugar said. "It seems to me that he was adept in finding partners and coalitions and actually was able to achieve results."

In addition to a legislative accomplishment teaming with Lugar, the partnership gave Obama the added credibility he sought in an association across party lines. A former presidential candidate who has seen many fellow senators launch White House bids during his 30-year Senate career, Lugar offers unusually strong praise for Obama.

"He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future," Lugar said. "At certain points in history, certain people are the ones that are most likely to have the vision or imagination or be able to identify talent and to manage other people's ideas. And I think he does this well."

Within his own party, Obama gained the confidence of the leadership and soon took on a role as the Democrats' spokesman on ethics reform. A package that included many of the provisions he championed ultimately passed the Senate.

Muted voice on Iraq

Obama the candidate for U.S. Senate spoke out forcefully against the Iraq war. For most of his tenure in Washington, though, Obama the U.S. senator has not been a moving force on Iraq.

He left it to others to lead public opinion. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) emerged as the strongest voices against the war. Those critics all spoke out before Obama gave his first major policy speech on the war -- 11 months after he took office.

Several advisers said that during that time Obama wrestled with how to proceed, concerned about the worsening news from Iraq and convinced the public's mood was turning against the war more rapidly than most members of Congress appreciated.

In keeping with the pattern of his political career, he moved cautiously. During the summer of 2005 he considered proposing a plan to partition Iraq. But he backed off the idea as advisers raised two key concerns: that the proposal was fraught with complexities and that he could be seen as overstepping his expertise.

Ultimately Obama delivered a more modest speech in November 2005, five days after Murtha's call for a troop withdrawal. In that address, he called for reductions in U.S. troop strength but not a timetable for withdrawal.

In a Senate debate the following June, Obama voted against an amendment proposed by Feingold and former presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to set such a timetable.

Only after Obama announced his presidential exploratory committee did he introduce legislation this January that sets a date for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. By then the high-profile, bipartisan Iraq Study Group also had endorsed a deadline for troops to leave.

In May he voted against continued funding of the war, after Bush vetoed a funding package that included a timetable for withdrawal by March 31, 2008.

Obama defended his reluctance to call for withdrawal during most of his first year in the Senate.

"At the time, my view was that the [Iraqi] government was still forming and it would be important to not give the impression, prior to the formation of that government, that we were already on the way out," Obama said. "Now, what changed? We have the breaking out of a complete civil war, at least a significant low-grade civil war."

Feingold offers Obama mixed reviews for his handling of Iraq.

"I've been pleased that his opposition has intensified over time. I was not that happy with his initial opposition to a timeline," Feingold said.

"I regard him as clearly stronger [on Iraq] than Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton, indeed than [former] Sen. [John] Edwards," Feingold said. "Of all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the [Senate Democratic] Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go."

His path on other issues, such as energy, has hewed closely to Democratic orthodoxy.

He co-sponsored legislation to require automakers to make annual improvements in fuel efficiency. But he has concentrated on promoting alternative fuels that provide the added political benefit of catering to home-state industries. He joined with other farm-state senators to introduce a measure to encourage production of biofuels, including corn-based ethanol.

Obama has pushed for parochial energy interests even when it has raised environmental concerns.

Reflecting the interests of southern Illinois coal producers, he sponsored legislation to provide tax breaks and other incentives for refineries that turn coal into liquid fuel, generating criticism from environmental groups that say the coal-based technology would contribute to global warming.

Some of those home-state industries also have been big campaign contributors. Obama has said nuclear power plants should be considered part of the solution to global warming -- good news for Exelon Corp., the giant nuclear-plant operator based in Illinois. Exelon's executives and employees were big backers of Obama's 2004 Senate bid and gave his presidential campaign nearly $160,000 in the first quarter of this year, second only to UBS-Americas, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

A broader examination of Obama's voting reveals a decidedly liberal record.

He voted to increase the minimum wage, to permit federal funding of stem cell research and against banning desecration of the flag, votes that could become fodder for GOP critics.

In a few significant instances, though, he broke with the ranks of liberals, voting, for example, to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. He voted against both of Bush's choices for the Supreme Court but sided with conservatives three times on other controversial Bush judicial nominees.

Perhaps one of the most surprising breaks with liberal interest groups came early in his term, when Obama voted for a class-action reform bill that would give federal courts jurisdiction in more such cases. Trial lawyers were stunned.

"How could someone, who would otherwise be a voice for consumers, vote for this?" said Todd A. Smith, a Chicago attorney who at the time was president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Obama said he was concerned about the problem of plaintiffs' lawyers shopping around for friendly judges and juries.

'Here's what I believe'

In his second year, Obama began to make use of the bully pulpit that had been at his disposal all along.

He dotted his 2006 calendar with a few high-profile speeches, including one on energy policy and a well-received address on the role of faith in politics. In addition, he used his second book, "The Audacity of Hope," as a broader platform for national policy ideas.

In keeping with the original game plan, staff members spent nights and weekends scouring the chapters as they rolled in, looking for potential political pitfalls -- a vetting committee Obama didn't have when he published his earlier, more provocative memoir.

For instance, when Obama was seeking to name someone as the epitome of left-leaning politics, an aide urged him to use a House member instead of a Senate colleague. So the book names now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), though Obama's voting record is similar to hers.

The news media chronicled his summer pilgrimage to Africa, the homeland of his father and a poignant part of his personal story.

That fall, his book tour brought out large and enthusiastic crowds. Big crowds also turned out for fundraising appearances he made for Democratic candidates in the midterm election campaign, during which he made 40 stops for candidates in 21 states during the closing six weeks. The excitement surrounding his emergence on the national political scene had given him entree to some of the nation's wealthiest and best-connected people, and he now employed his flair for fundraising to help fellow Democrats and potential friends.

Obama was particularly taken with the success of his book. When he was new to the Senate, a friend said, "It was possible his star quality would fade." But the reception on the book tour and fundraising circuit suggested the public's enthusiasm for him was not so ephemeral.

And with popular opinion turning against the Iraq war, many of Obama's friends thought his time to run for president was not in 2012 or 2016 but now.

One of those urging Obama to move forward was Illinois' senior senator, Democrat Dick Durbin.

"I told him, 'These opportunities come around once, at best twice in a lifetime,' " Durbin said. " 'You ought to think about that seriously.' "

Thoughts turn to White House

For much of last year, Obama focused on the congressional campaigns. But last fall he began sounding out close friends on a presidential run.

"During those final months of the midterms, it became clear we were going to have to have a conversation after the election," said Axelrod, the political consultant.

"But it wasn't at all clear where that conversation would go," he said. "If you're going to consider this, we better get together and run through what it would entail -- whether it's doable, whether it's advisable, and ultimately, whether you feel like you want to do it."

The morning after the November election, high-ranking Senate staffers and a few of Obama's friends were summoned to meet with the senator and key political advisers at Axelrod's office in Chicago. Obama was ready to talk.

Seated around the table in the conference room, the political experts talked in explicit terms. They gave Obama a primer on running a campaign, emphasizing its organizational and personal demands.

And they carefully parsed the question of how -- and whether -- they could even put together such a campaign so quickly.

When they left, the people who had so carefully mapped Obama's cautious Senate career had a new task to consider: an audacious, caution-be-damned run for the presidency in 2008.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

$109 MILLION! Money's never enough for the nouveau rich--they always want to rule the rule, too.

Posted by: txgall | April 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

March 26, 2008 -- Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave less than 1 percent of their total $1.2 million income from 2000 through 2004 to charity, according to tax returns his campaign released yesterday.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262008/news/nationalnews/those_stingy_obamas_103579.htm

Those Stingy Obamas - maybe they are still not proud of America?

Posted by: jsindc | April 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Only 109 million in 10 years? Obama's at 4
million and hasnt done anything yet.

Seems he's better at selling himself.

oh, and while the CLintons have given away 10% of pre-tax dollars, Obama has given away less than 2%


Posted by: newagent99 | April 4, 2008 05:10 PM
-------------------------------------------
Ha, ha, ha! That's funny. You know, newagent99, he had to save up to buy 10 square feet from a dirty, rotten scoundrel (no, not Wright - Rezko) to expand his $2 million home.

Posted by: Umbria | April 4, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first. */
/ *We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. / /Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.*/* */* The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.*/*
*/* Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. / /Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he l ost.*/*
*/* Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. / /Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the /United/ States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty." */
/ *Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.*/*
*/* Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck./ /
** Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - /hijacked/ - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.*/*
*/* The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. */
/ *But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.*/*
*/* It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
*
*Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think
Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time--every time.
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:*
*The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??*
*I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!*
*If you think I am crazy..Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate

Posted by: wakeup | April 4, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters will do anything to supress the truth about him.

Its not going to work.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons give $10 million to charity and the Obamas give $27,000 to Jeremiah Wright. Hmmmm....

Posted by: vpexec | April 4, 2008 04:45 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Oh well, you know how it is, vpexec. Someone has to pray for the damnation of America. Someone has to preach to the kids about fascist America and its basis in genocide. Someone has to curse the Jewish people who lost 6 million people to Holocaust. If a presidential candidate won't fund such hate education, who will? Huh?

Posted by: Umbria | April 4, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

mlbmpp01 posts: "There's a lot here about what Bill's pulled in post-presidency. He didn't go into office with this cash...actually Bill and Hillary were very much in same situation Mr. Obama and family are pre-election."

The issue isn't the amount. The issue is the source. $51 million for speaking engagements over 6 years (remember - he didn't leave office until 2001) brings up a lot of questions.

And Senator Clinton hasn't exactly gone broke during that time. $10 million between 2000 and 2006. No wonder she could loan her campaign $5 million.

I really only have two questions about the returns. (1) There's $18 million unaccounted for in the summary. Where is it? (2) What's up with Yucaipa, and how much cash is there offshore?

I asked a lot of questions about Obama's returns too. And, if we ever get a look at the McCain tax returns, that should be VERY interesting.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

For about 2,000 years people have been electing politicians who are older and richer than the people who elect them reasoning that their experience will help them make the right decisions for the people and their wealth will keep them from stealing from the people. Which is like saying today, "elect someone who you know when they reach the end-zone will act like they've been there before." I look at those tax returns and see a lot of hard work over a considerable stretch of time - nothing wrong with hard work at any level of public service...

Posted by: hariseldonsr | April 4, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Only 109 million in 10 years? Obama's at 4
million and hasnt done anything yet.

Seems he's better at selling himself.

oh, and while the CLintons have given away 10% of pre-tax dollars, Obama has given away less than 2%

Posted by: newagent99 | April 4, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

30% tax rate for a couple making around $109 million. Where can I get that tax break?

Posted by: Windknot | April 4, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

109 MILLION !!!

And the Clintons are supposed to be the friend of Blue Collar workers?


And, we supposed to contribute to her campaign?

109 MILLION !

And she LENDS her campaign 5 million (while asking ordinary folk to contribute

109 MILLION !

and her campaign doesn't pay it's bills?


it says a lot!

(I can think of 109 million reasons why I wouldn't give Hillary a penny !)

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

i love it. all you democrats deserve each other.

before this election, the clinton name was gold. quite literally by the looks of these tax returns. now she's trailer trash and he's a pathological liar. or was it the other way around?

obama supporters claim to be all-loving, new democrats/republicans/independents who are calling for change, hope, and a new era of kinder politics, but bring out the vitriol and venom when it comes to other democrats and republicans who don't agree with them. just peek at the nastiness going on among the leftist blogs. seems like the old kind of partisan ugly politics to me. what's going to happen if he does become president and things don't go his way? start calling people names and trashing them like you do hillary?

at least with mc cain, he lets you know what you're going to get. what you see is what he has to offer... no negatives, no nastiness, no venom from his supporters. win or lose, it'll be a civil and fair election of ideas and principles from him. he's quick to denounce any negative campaigning from his staff or those who support him. the same can't be said of obama or clinton of their faithfuls. (obama claims he doesn't know wright's past after being with him for 20 years? that sounds like a clinton line to me. oprah knew and left the church, why didn't obama?)

looking forward to moveon.org and soros' nasty campaigns...

Posted by: nejl | April 4, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm voting for Obama, but if you're talking about the ability of ex-Presidents to rake in the big bucks, I can only say "Who didn't know that?" I'm much more concerned about the tone of Hillary's recent campaigning than I am about the total of the Clintons' tax returns. Carter's about the only recent exception to the rule, and even he ain't exactly pushing peanuts these days, with his one man Book-of-the-Month club. Though it wouldn't surprise me if he donates much of his royalties to charity.

Posted by: andym108 | April 4, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Folks, lets keep things in perspective. This guy made $35,000 a year. What could possibly he has to say that is worth 250K a year. He was invited to listen at one of the Hospitality conference in Atlantic city that I attended. He got 100K and most people there didn't even understand English. You go figure this one! We need to retire them from PUBLIC SERVICE.

Posted by: Philadelphia1 | April 4, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, there is only one number of serious interest on the Clintons' returns.

$109,000,000.

That's over seven years.

Almost $16 million per year. Holy bankroll, Batman.

I don't believe there'll be any ultra-juicy tidbits to find. And, to be fair to the Clintons, I'm sure they didn't do anything blatantly illegal.

However, I give them no credit for the $33,000,000 in taxes they paid. That's 31% - or the same amount you would pay on 1099-G income if you hit a slot machine jackpot.

I give them *some* credit for the $10 million in charitable contributions. They got tax breaks for those - and a bunch appears to have gone to their own foundation. It's nice they gave away some of the money, but it's not as if there was no benefit for them.

Notice, I'm NOT criticizing the money. However, please remember that it wasn't like Hillary Clinton was at home raising Chelsea while Bill Clinton was rising in politics. The Clintons haven't had to balance a checkbook in a LONG time. No one with an eight- or nine-figure net worth can pretend to understand the needs of the average American.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 4, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Not a fan anymore (altho I voted for him twice -- fooled me twice) and will not vote for Hilary, but I say go for it Bill!

Posted by: jchil | April 4, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Okay in Hillary's case it can not be about the money.. WHY SHE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT.

On the other hand.. GUESS why Barrack HUSSEIN OBAMA wants to be a PRESIDENT. Money,Money and more money... but then again it could be about POWER.

After careful review and putting together a biased opinion.. (Like all those in the media has done... BIASED)

I make my own prediction.. HUSSEIN only wants to be PRESIDENT not for "whathe can do for his country' but for what he can do for the Black African people that has learned from Pastor Wright.

That is not meant as a racial remark... but he will definitely insure that the Black African people are rewarded for putting him into office.

HUSSEIN and his wife ARE AMONG THE BLACK ELITE.. both Harvard educated.. They are currently millionaires and will become more wealthy on the BACKS of the white middle class.

Research this guy... see that his beliefs are non-stated. He has a canned answer for any question that is asked about his beliefs. He fails to wear an american flag on his lapel and salute the American flag... he thinks he is disrespecting the White Government that has oppressed the Black African people since 1492.. but in reality.. he is showing DISRESPECT for all those that have died and served their country in peace and in time of war.

Maybe Wright should have told him that as part of those anti-white, anti-American Sermons that he preached all those years.
And Wright was a career Marine.

We need Colin Powell as our first Black President... he is at least a LEADER.. and an HONORABLE MAN

HUSSEIN is like a 'snake-oil salesman' or the typical 'used car salesman'

BEWARE THE BLACK WOLF IN SHEEP;S CLOTHING.

Posted by: miller51550 | April 4, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't see anything here that damages the Clintons per se, however I don't think haveing that huge some of money necessarily helps them either. A lot of people (especially blue collar folks that she is aiming for) cannot relate to that sort of wealth...

Posted by: jkallen001 | April 4, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"Give me a break...this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen!" - President William J. Clinton, 42nd President of the United States.

Posted by: jap219 | April 4, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

that explains why Carville called Gov. Richardson "Judas" and Mr. Clinton has very frequent "rant and attack" episodes; if Mrs. Clinton isn't elected President, Bill won't be able to make good on the "bribes" he's received. And, by the way, since their returns had to have been itemized how much did "Mr. and Ms. We Care about the Working Class and Poor" - voters in Pennsylvania take note - contribute to any church or charitable organization during those years? And she's not paying her campaign debts; oh well, she continues to misspeak every time she calls herself a Democrat, leaving Sen. Obama the only Democratic nominee.

Posted by: chuckruch | April 4, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

It's not for access. The people who organize these things are paying for star power. By paying to have him speak, they get bragging rights. "Well, the year I chaired the convention, we got Bill Clinton to give us a talk. He was really great. As I said to Bill when he was here..." etc., etc.

As for the high fees, remember what a rock star Bill Clinton has been (although it's hard for me to remember at the moment, I'm sure it will all come right back to me after Obama is elected). There's a reason SNL has continued him as a running character all these years. His memoir was a huge best-seller. Plus I'm sure he does some kind of scheduled mingling over after-event coffee or drinks with attendees that adds to the allure.

Let's face it, he doesn't have any special pull any more, he's just an ex-president.

That money is like paying to have the Rolling Stones at your kid's birthday party. That isn't about the music and this isn't about the speeches.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | April 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Where are the 2007 returns? When will we see them?

Posted by: middlerd1 | April 4, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I want Cindy McCain to release her tax returns...that's where the serious money is. She alone is worth almost as much as the Romneys (and Romney's wife did not travel with a hair stylist like Cindy McCain does...but then again, don't most women in America have a traveling hairstylist?).

The pre-nup Cindy had Gramps McCain sign was very smart (after all she could not really trust him since he was married when he started messing around with Cindy) and it give them a way to file separate tax returns.

Oh well, once McNasty looses in the fall, he can follow in the hallowed footsteps of Bob Dole and make viagara commercials.

Posted by: randygoetz | April 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

with Obama's skills, imagine how much he will make! Even Win or lose!

Posted by: jcbile | April 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone expect anyone making under a mil to give 10% to charity.


Posted by: nolawip | April 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

There's a lot here about what Bill's pulled in post-presidency. He didn't go into office with this cash...actually Bill and Hillary were very much in same situation Mr. Obama and family are pre-election. Let's say Mr. Obama does get elected, should he not cash in on his public service?
I'm fired up and ready to go...with Hillary.

Posted by: mlbmpp01 | April 4, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Good. I do not see any thing fishy here. If Bill C can fetch that kind of money for a speech, is good for him. All BHO surrogets will start spining this now like they are the tax expert and blaming him for getting that kind of money. They will also try to establish some kind of hanky panky between Bill and his speech sponsors. Watch for MSNBC, CNN, Moveon.org and politico.com how they will screem on their show or news letters. K.O will bring his tax expert Andrea M, Cris M will bring his tax expert Ugene R (I hope I spelled it right) from Washingtonpost.

Posted by: indicook | April 4, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

And Hillary Rocky Clinton is working for the poor.

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 4, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Lawsamercy! Johnny Edwards, eat your heart out. These two trial lawyers have made your haul look like chicken feed.

Posted by: tardtacular | April 4, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Geeeeeeeeeeee..................z... According to the pity party members Hillary is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Wellll
maybe she simply is the wrong color? At least she finished high school and married before having children plus, she works too!!

Posted by: seedobecome | April 4, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Sweet! 10% of their income to charity, 30 million in taxes paid past 8 years.
I guess WORDS do matter, especially when Bill Clinton speaks them. I paid $125 for 2 tickets last year to hear his lecture and it was amazing and inspiring.
Hey O-Bots, whatcha think about this?
http://www.nysun.com/politics/obama-adviser-calls-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010

Posted by: NanFan56 | April 4, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Yes, but did they ever PAY those legal bills? It's a fair question: inquiring minds want to know! I suppose the good news is that Hillary can fund her proposed cabinet post for Poverty all by herself.

Posted by: BritLit | April 4, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

All we have seen for the last month is where are the tax returns, where are the tax returns, show us your tax returns

Alot of money given to charity.

A very generous couple I would say.

Now, I am going to sit back and enjoy all the b....y comments made about this. What a ride.

Posted by: lndlouis | April 4, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton tax returns are out and, from the looks of some of the people in this forum, the conspiracy theories will not end.

Sorry folks, nothing to look at here. Move along.

Posted by: larmoecurl | April 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I had long had the impression that both Clinton's rushed to cash in on their public service: Bill more than Hillary, though public service is a little grand as a description of what the wife of a governor and a President is charged with doing.

I had no idea they cashed in to this extent. Granted, a lot of public figures try to do this kind of thing, and a lot more wish they could. But almost $110 million is a whale of a lot of money, even if one assumes that the Clintons wrote their own books and Bill Clinton wrote his own speeches. It's my understanding that neither is true.

I didn't think Mrs. Clinton ought to be President anyway, so I won't comment on what her shared effort with President Clinton to use their public positions to enrich themselves says about her fitness for the office. To the extent their conduct is a model of public servants in this country, though, we are likely to see a lot of really lousy public servants in the future.

Posted by: jbritt3 | April 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Why am I not seeing anything here about Penn meeting with the Columbian ambassador?

Posted by: middlerd1 | April 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have released their tax returns "under pressure".

Obama has released his only reluctantly.
Three cheers for Obama.

He and his missus only made about three million. Less than the Clintons, but they've only been in the game a few years.

Posted by: lennyjazz | April 4, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Golly. What a lot of silly criticisms. Bill Clinton earned a huge amount of money doing something perfectly honorable and that people/companies/organizations were willing to pay a handsome price for. And only 20 percent of the speeches were for personal income, out of which they gave an enormous amount to charity. What on earth is there to criticize?

Posted by: dwatson01 | April 4, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Is there a database available of what groups Bill spoke to? Third world dictators? Pharmaceuticals? GOPAC?

Posted by: barnardj1 | April 4, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Raises a curious question: with income greater than $103mil why did Sen. Clinton feel loaning $5mil to her campaign should, presumably, be paid back by future donations?

Proved a successful spark for contributions--particularly for Obama, by recent reports--with all the characteristics of another disingenuous Clinton campaign tactic.

Posted by: eunomian | April 4, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Nobody, and I mean nobody, deserves to make that kind of money for telling lies to the public. No wonder the Clintons resisted the clamor for release of their tax returns. Obviously, Hillary, on the ropes, is desperate to get back into the game. Is there any doubt why politicians seek the White House and the Congress to round out their careers? That's where the money is.

Posted by: Diogenes | April 4, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons give $10 million to charity and the Obamas give $27,000 to Jeremiah Wright. Hmmmm....

Posted by: vpexec | April 4, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Wonderful really scooped up the dough on the speech circuit. Imagine paying to listen to his prevarications and partisan innuendoes. Those who ponied up should be asked to contribute to the bailouts for the mortgage-delinquent and assistance for wounded Armed Forces members.

Continuing, it's hard to imagine Batman, Robin, Magoo or Ms. Me being able to bring in even a fraction as much; Nos. 2 & 3 hardly can finish a sentence. Obama? Now, that very well could be another story.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | April 4, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Thirty years ago, Obama would have been sixteen.
olswede

Posted by: biblioid-ctblogs | April 4, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

HRC is advocating a "poverty czar" at the same time she is bringing over a $100 MILLION IN BACK ROOM DEALS for herself.

real honorable.

Typical Clinton fashion.

I cant wait for Obama to win the election!

Posted by: gallagherleach | April 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding me? Bill made $51 million in speaker's fees in just 7 years? That's a cool $7.5 million/year. And Hillary says "words don't matter."

Now let's see a list of who paid those speaker's fees, which in some cases must have run as high as $250,000 a pop if on "one particularly good day" he made $475,000 for just two speeches. Who would pay that much for a speech, and why would they pay so much? What could he possibly have said in 30 or 40 minutes that would have been worth as much as $250,000? My guess is it wasn't the League of Women Voters or the NAACP buying these speeches. . . .

Or could it be these speeches were purchased by moneyed special interests with a self-interested agenda, thinking they were buying not just a speech but goodwill and access to a politically well-connected former President, who happens also to be the spouse of a prominent U.S. Senator and (at the time) leading contender for the Presidency of the United States?

Of course, even to suggest such a thing is to hint at something deeply sleazy here. But ask yourself this: does $250,000 a pop for a speech pass the smell test?

Posted by: bradk1 | April 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

At some point based on the exorbidant amount of money Mr. Clinton made for giving some of his speeches - one should ask is it really "speech income" or is it revenue for lobbying and selling access to government contacts?

Posted by: Milo1 | April 4, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I think the 20 minute speeches were payoffs. I hope the Washington Post can connect the dots between who he gave the speeches to and what he supported during the time Clinton was President.

Posted by: Nickolas1 | April 4, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

putdownthekoolaid writes
"Chimpy seriously believes that he will make a lot of money giving speeches after his term expires. Somehow I don't envision that happening."

I doubt he'll approach Bill's revenues in that regard, but he will certainly command a decent fee for speaking. Al 'Fredo' Gonzales is making good coin on the speaking circuit, for cripes sake. If Fredo can do it, Chimpy won't have any trouble either.

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Another rich person running for President. They have NO idea how we Americans are struggling. That's why we like Obama. She lent her campaign 5 million dollars - Michele and Obama didn't make that in 4 years. McCain's wife is loaded.

Let's make a poor guy president - like Abraham Lincoln.

Fired up and Ready to go!! Vote Obama 200!!

Posted by: Westminster | April 4, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"None of Hillary Clinton's presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information."


Perhaps because none of her opponents have close to that amount of information to divulge. $51 million in speaking fees? The mind boggles.

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Chimpy seriously believes that he will make a lot of money giving speeches after his term expires. Somehow I don't envision that happening.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | April 4, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Show me the money! You go bubba!" A speech in Dubai, Riyadh, pullin' 500 K a piece... no wonder you're doing everything in your power to get Hillary elected. That'll just boost your speech fees to a million per. Who's gonna pay that much now, if she loses. Especially as your favorability rating plummeted these last few months.

Posted by: AB68 | April 4, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

That's excellent! They donated $10MM? Maybe I should raise their pedestal a little higher. I'm still voting for Obama, but the Clinton's donation/income ratio is honorable.

Posted by: martiniano | April 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Are these speeches payback? Or are big firms trying to show members of Congress "vote with us on these bills and when you leave govt. we'll pay you $400,000 to give one 20 min speech" Because outside that I just can't imagine these firms paying such staggering sums just for a speech that you can get for free at a graduation ceremony.

Posted by: cambel1 | April 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Sounds a lot like what Ronny Raygun did. How much did Bush Sr. pull in?? Oh well, he was a tortured syntaxer. I hope Bill can stay on the speaker circuit.

Posted by: thebobbob | April 4, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company