Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Releases Tax Returns

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, earned $109 million between 2000 and 2007, according to returns released by her presidential campaign moments ago.

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

Clinton's campaign had long promised to release a detailed history of their income and had come under increasing pressure from Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) campaign as well as the news media to do so.

Among the eye-popping figures contained in the reports were the following:

* Former President Bill Clinton has earned nearly $52 million in speaking fees over the last seven years including more than $10 million in 2007 alone.

* The couples' respective books have proven to be massive money makers for the former first couple. Bill Clinton earned more than $29 million for his two books -- "My Life" ($23 million including a $15 million advance) and "Giving" ($6.3 million). Senator Clinton's "Living History" earned her $10 million including an $8 million advance.

* The Clinton paid nearly $34 million in taxes over the last seven years -- 31 percent of their adjusted gross income.

* Over the past seven years, the Clinton have given more than $10 million to charity -- 9.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, according to the campaign. Bill Clinton donated $1 million of his income from Giving to charity, while Senator Clinton has donated better than $1.1 million of her It Takes a Village income to charity.

Want more? Scroll through them yourself: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. And, while, we're at it, here are Obama's tax returns.

What did we miss? Use the comments section below to offer your own observations.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 4, 2008; 4:45 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New Jersey's Senate Race Heats Up
Next: No Re-Vote in Michigan a Blow to Clinton


Is giving to your own charity vis-a-vis The Foundation really giving to charity?

You tell me...

Posted by: captiantight | April 7, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are held to a higher standard. Jealousy is an ugly force, and little good has ever come of it.

Posted by: jj394857 | April 6, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza writes:
"Want more? Scroll through them yourself: ...
What did we miss? Use the comments section below to offer your own observations."
I'm neither an IRS auditor nor a voyeur, so I'll pass.

But I'd like to congratulate those voters who have the time to sift through these returns. If you see these tax returns as one of the most important issues in this war-time, falling economy election, your life and perspective must be one of pure bliss. I hope that you appreciate this, and that your sanctimony keeps you warm at night.

Posted by: jj394857 | April 6, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

The Power Behind The Ballot

"Hillary has dem by the balls", so to speak, and with the help of the female vote, she could drive the Dems to their knees.

It's fascinating to see how a segment of American society has identified so strongly with Hillary, and remains loyal to her despite her lies, kitchen-sink strategy, and fear manipulation. These American women are struggling in a male-centered world, where little or no accommodations and commensurate economic rewards are made in return for their contributions. What has attracted these women to her is actually the same fiction that appeals to subjugated and oppressed people in third world countries. Dignity will not be restored by demagogy. Hillary is keen on amassing power and influence through the Office of the President, consequently extending the financial gains the Clintons enjoyed after Bill left the White House. No doubt the Clintons' business partners and campaign donors (in some cases they are one and the same) are as keen as Hillary to keep the women's vote.

From Michael West in Germany

Posted by: west369 | April 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

what about money given to foundation to whom and how much

Posted by: p.brosig | April 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

People are calling this "Hillary's song". Got to love that:

Posted by: caraprado1 | April 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

So. Clintons made a lot of money, 109 million, and many people are surprised, some are even ofended. I wonder why? What's wrong with making money. NOTHING. Change your mind people. Be open and get REAL. Clintons are SMART. They work smarter than harder, that's business, and there isn't anything evil on making business.

When people, such as in the case of the Clintons, generate money, they create business, and with business they create jobs. With jobs, they help those employed to generate some income on their own who then spend their money. Ultimately, money is circulated and their millions also help improve the country's economy to some level.

PLEASE se the whole picture. It's also about the practices you implement to make busines. What's wrong with publishing a couple of books, scheduling some public speaking engagements and charging thousands of $$$ to people willing to pay. I mean, they forced NOBODY to buy books or hear them speak. They provided a product (A BOOK) and a service (their PUBLIC SPEAKING).

These are decent means to make money. So please jelous people stop pointing fingers at them. Stop blaming them for being smarter than you and knowing how to generate money. Be smart, learn from them and get a life of your own.

Posted by: laura.figueroa | April 6, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

I understand about conflict of interest. I still say your tax returns are nobody else's business, even if you are running for high public office. Same as your personal life. As long as everybody you sleep with is over the age of consent, I could care less what you do in your bedroom, or who you do it with (that includes somebody other than your wife/husband).

Personally, I'm not enthralled with her because she appears to me to be the type of person who is willing to do practically anything to get power. But I still say her and former President Clinton's finances are nobody else's business.

Posted by: SeaTigr | April 5, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

For all you Obama supporters READ the following information Obama DID NOT REPORT ABOUT HIS previous "financial" dealings-

Here is an article in dated 3/22/08 by Jim Kouri entitled "Talk Show Host Reveals Obama Connection to Terrorists":

Syndicated talk show host Laurie Roth's revelations make the news story about Obama's relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child's play.

A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.

Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department's list of known terrorist groups.

"One source for this information was once a top military figure in the 1990s. He doesn't take making allegations lightly. If he says something happened, believe me, it happened," said syndicated radio talk show host Laurie Roth.

"Another source is a former agent for the Central Intelligence Agency, who is an expert in counterterrorism," said Roth, who broke the story on her show Friday night.

Here are the connections as described by very reliable sources, who possess impressive military, national security and intelligence backgrounds:

Allison Davis, who hired the young Obama into his small, Chicago law firm Davis, Miner, and Barnhill in 1993, left the firm in late 1999-2000 and became a housing developer. Davis went into business with Tony Rezko, the indicted businessman who's scheduled to go on trial for corruption in Illinois, and who was a major fundraiser for Obama.

Davis met Rezko when he was a client of Davis, Miner, and Barnhill. Rezko is currently under indictment in Illinois for demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state government business contracts under Governor Blagojevich. Obama was identified as one of the politicians cited in the indictment as having received political contributions from Rezko out of his kickback funds.

Tony Rezko hosted fundraising events for Obama in his home and was on Obama's US Senate campaign finance committee which collected $14 million for his campaign against conservative Alan Keyes, an African-American who served as an Ambassador during the Reagan Administration. In order to avoid a scandal during his presidential campaign, Obama returned $85,000 that Rezko and his family had donated to him.

In early 2000, while Obama served as a state senator in Illinois, he also sat on the board of the nonprofit Woods Fund. The Woods Fund is a Chicago-based foundation that claims its primary mission is to make financial grants in order to increase and/or create opportunities for disadvantaged people and low-income communities.

The chairman of the Woods fund board in 2000 was Howard Stanback, who like Obama also had connections to Davis, according to the reliable sources.

Davis submitted a grant request to the Woods Foundation for a $1 million investment in his development partnership, Neighborhood Rejuvenation LP, that would be used to finance low-income senior-citizen housing. Under normal circumstances, a board member is supposed to recuse himself or herself from decisions where they have a business or personal relationship.

Obama, who did not recuse himself, voted to approve Davis' grant request. Stanback, on the other hand, abstained from voting. The housing project, which also received a $5.7 million loan from the city of Chicago, in turn donated almost $70,000 in political contributions to Obama's presidential campaign.

In the past, Rezko gave Obama -- who served as an Illinois State Senator -- his first two political contributions in 1995, $1,000 each from two of his companies. In 1998, State Senator Obama wrote letters to city and state officials urging them to fund a Davis-Rezko housing project. It was an obvious quid pro quo arrangement.

Another major fundraiser for Obama is William Ayers, who also sat on the board of the Woods Fund with Obama and is a professor at the University of Chicago.

Bill Ayers, along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn, was an active member of the Weather Underground, a radical left-wing group that advocated violence against the United State. Both Ayers and Dohrn went "underground" in 1970 after others in the group accidentally detonated a bomb in a Greenwich Village (New York City) townhouse. The blast killed three of the group's members including Ayers' girlfriend at the time.

While Ayers and Dohrn were hiding from law enforcement, the Weather Underground participated in the bombings of the US Capital, the Pentagon and a State Department building. In 1981 Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to federal authorities, but all charges were dropped as a result of alleged "government legal misconduct." In his 2001 memoir, Ayers wrote, "I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers and Dohrn are known to have held at least one fundraiser for Barack Obama in their Chicago home.

During Obama's last year on the board of The Woods Fund (2002), he participated in awarding grants, including a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi.

In another suspected quid pro quo arrangement similar to those with Ayers and Rezko, Rashid Khalidi also held a fundraising event in his home for Barack Obama.

In the Middle East, Rashid Khalidi was known as a man to be reckoned with. From 1972 through 1983, Khalidi was the director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, FAFA. His wife worked there as well.

According to sources, when the Khalidi's left Chicago for Columbia University in New York, Rashid was honored with the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies at that Ivy League university. Their goodbye party in Chicago included testimonials from Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.

"What other fund raising connections does Obama have? How many times can you look the other way in church and with fund raising situations with more than questionable people?" asked Ms. Roth.

"We all make mistakes in judgment with people and their backgrounds sometimes, but usually we learn and pick better friends and associates. How come Obama seems to have continued hanging around more than questionable characters with anti American backgrounds and some with criminal behaviors? Now one is being indicted, Tony Rezco, who raised a ton of money for Obama," she said.

"As President, how much would he look the other way when dealing with national security and dangers to our country? How much would he listen passively to terrorist leaders then lecture us on our ugly American status? This kind of change is not what our country needs!" added the popular talk show host, whose show is syndicated by USA Radio Network.

"Do these revelations demonstrate a pattern of Barack Obama's judgment? If so, then I do not want him dealing with world leaders. I do not want these groups having access to the White House. Do you?" asks the New Jersey-based political strategist.

Posted by: redjeep1 | April 5, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse


Making money is a part of the American Dream, but when your wife runs for the highest political position in America there exists the potential for conflict of interest.

There is more to this story than you realize. Typically corruption in power is accompany with gross compensation.

Releasing this story on Friday just gives the media more time to review and come up with more questions starting Monday.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 5, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I see no problem with them making tons of money from books and speeches. Isn't it part of the American Dream to make tons of money?

If it was me, I wouldn't have released my tax returns. What do my tax returns have to do with my ability to lead the nation? My money is just that...mine. It's not anybody else's business how much money I've made.

Posted by: SeaTigr | April 5, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

So the sad, oh so sad, story about the mom who made minimum wage as manager of the local Pizza Hut couldn't come up with a lousy $100 and the local Ohio hospital denied her health care and so lost her baby and later died are JUST ANOTHER PACK OF LIES SPUN SO ARTFULLY BY ONE OF THE CLINTON'S WHO LIE SO EASILY.

Fellow citizens and Hillary lovers is this truly the type of person we need in the White House now?

And Hillary loves to deride the power of "words just words" and now we read that Billy Clinton suckered audiences into paying him $52 million for words, just words.

Get ready everyone, I betcha ole Hillary disremembered another one or just failed to check her facts because she saw a way to cadge a vote or two along with the women's sympathy at her pitiful story.

Wouldn't it be great to hear the succession of her telling this story? Odds on that with each telling she offered one more fact and so the horror grew with the telling, and her studied pregnant pauses.

He and she should both be ashamed at this blatant prostituing of the highest office in the land for bucks.

I mean taxpayers have been conned into agreeing to an enormous pension and free security and a list of other perks for our ex-presidents just so none would have to live in poverty after leaving office, and now Clinton is capitalizing off his shameful tenure at every opportunity.

The man is not much better than a two-bit Times Square con artist in the judgment of millions of Americans and it seems Hillary is cut from the same cloth.

Know your ABH's ---"Anybody But Hillary"

Posted by: AmericanInterestsFirstandLast | April 5, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't see John & Cindy McCain's Tax Returns, am I missing something in your post Chris?

Posted by: eeitreim | April 5, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama but there's nothing wrong with the Clintons making all the money they can. I still don't understand why Hillary resisted releasing the returns as long as she did, and then sneaked them out on a Friday afternoon. Maybe she knows something we don't, 'cause I don't see anything there but lots and lots of money. Good for them!

Now, before everybody canonizes them for giving 10% to charity, read the fine print: most of it went to his foundation.

(I'd still like to see the list of donors to his library, though. I suspect there's some shenanigans there -- maybe a big contribution from Marc Rich?)

Posted by: jac13 | April 5, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

-- which I have not sent anything to any campaign in this election cycle. --


Wait. I left this part out;





Posted by: straightmedia | April 5, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

What's the big deal with making $109 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't this part of the American dream? The Clintons have not done anything wrong but work hard to get to where they are. It's not like they made this money defraufing someone or were selling drugs.

This shows that anyone, whether you're white collar, blue collar or whatever can make it in this country.

Also, what about all the money they've paid in taxes. Why doesn't the headline read "Clintons pay $31 million in taxes on $109 million earned?"

I'm beginning to think that it's true what they say about the media being for Obama. We'll see if they do the same thing with him after he's president and starts making this kind of money. Or what, you think he's not going to take advantage of getting paid what Clinton is getting paid for speaking?

Anyway, I hope Obama loses. He's just another Jimmy Carter in disguise.

Posted by: gixmo | April 5, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

straightmedia: If you got the e-mail, you requested it or someone had it sent to you. I get these every day and they are mainly to get money, which I have not sent anything to any campaign in this election cycle. You can watch/read or delete them, your choice. Some I've seen from the Obama and Hillary campaigns are quite funny.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

OK, put me down on the list of "Clinton conspiracy theorists", because I don't believe everything has really been disclosed in these tax returns. Making people look good in their financial transactions is what accountants are good at. Sometimes a little too good.

To me there are still questions about things like Bill Clinton's dealings with Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, whom the former president accompanied on a 2005 trip to Kazakstan. Giustra landed a major uranium mining deal on the trip, and not long after made a secret $31 million donation to Clinton's charitable foundation. Now that seems awfully generous of Mr. Giustra, just like the Clinton's charity donations seem awfully generous.

Just because the tax returns have been sanitized, that doesn't keep me from having suspicions. So sue me.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | April 5, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

And now a few words from Terry McAuliffe:


date Apr 5, 2008 1:13 PM
subject The crowds

Dear Roy,

Watch the video.
When I turn on the TV all I hear is negative words. The news stations keep telling you that we're down and out. But that's plainly not true. I'm on the trail every day for Hillary and the crowds are bigger than ever before, and let me tell you - they are excited!

I wanted to show you a video from a recent event with Hillary in North Carolina - you can see for yourself Hillary's packed events and enthusiastic supporters.

Click here to watch the video.


Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President


Video link omitted, since it goes to a
page at I'm sure those of you
resourceful, can find your way there...



Posted by: straightmedia | April 5, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The vote for the Iraq tragedy is as clear a case in point as any could be. No-one of principle would have voted for that; the only motivation to do so was self-interest. To vote for the mass slaughter of human beings is enough to disqualify anyone from ever serving in office again...

Posted by: pathina | April 5, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

-- Could it be that they delayed as a strategy to have the Obama supporters beat up on them and then to show they were once again wrong about demonizing the Clintons? --

I've contended something akin to that -

Delayed intentionally, after the Obamaites
got all frothed into Ken Starr mode;
"WHAT is she HIDING" "Just wait till it
comes out!"

Campaigns are hard. This was good for
monster comical effect at Camp Hillary...



Posted by: straightmedia | April 5, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Good article, but I'm a little confused about one thing. You say the Clintons have released their tax returns since 2000, but the 2007 returns are not posted.

Hillary's campaign promised to release the 2007 returns. Where are they? If they were not released, shouldn't this failure be newsworthy? It seems that this article implies they were released and ignores the omission.

Please clarify.

Posted by: roadkillrefugee | April 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

MARKinA: The risk is there and I have no other choice since the location of the nodule would be very hard to reach with a Bronchoscopy, and surgery is out of the question because of my breathing problem. I have found something called "CyberKnife" [check it out] that I think is my best option and will bring it up when I see my Dr's about the needle biopsy I will have on the 10th. PROUD is on the other thread and I hope she may see this and give her opinion. A lot of talk about Indiana and NC, but nothing new. WV and Ky. still favors Hillary about two to one.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

-- "In June 2005, in what Obama now describes as a 'boneheaded' mistake, Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent properties on Chicago's South Side, closing the deals on the same day. Seven months later, wanting a bigger yard for his $1.65 million house, Obama bought a slice of the Rezko property for $104,500. --


Again, that "disclosure" answers no questions.

- Why did a campaign contributor, have
a spouse buy the adjacent lot that the
seller wanted included in the house sale
to Obama?

- Why did the Obama house price get

Bonehead, yes. Disclosure? Hardly.


Posted by: straightmedia | April 5, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

curious why Obama supporters are not outraged by his only giving $1000 in 2000 with $269,000 in income to charity. Would we hear that silence if they were to tead that number in HC's tax return. Apparently the only questions that can be asked are to the Clintons. I doubt to many here would brag had their charitable contributions been that small.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

$109 million for the self-styled plucky representative of working Americans !! What a phony, two-faced, hypocritical ... hmm, time to break out the old thesaurus.

Posted by: lydgate | April 5, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Something wrong with my post?.

Posted by: roncraw | April 5, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Typical low-end reporting from the Post.

When will "saint" John McCain's tax records be reported? Never. When will the Post point this out? Never. When will these "journalists" even come close to doing their? Never.

Posted by: dderryberry | April 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Why should the taxpayers pay for President Clinton's Secret Service detail for him to go out and make millions $$. President Nixon opted out of the detail and he wasn't traveling the country getting paid for speeches.

Posted by: fastaffing | April 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, Are you still scheduled for the needle biopsy on the tenth? Is "lung collapse" a known risk, or were you just very unlucky last time?

I am thinking your numbers for WV and KY may well hold up and HRC will actually have an argument to the Supers that cannot be dismissed. I would not want to be a super delegate choosing between these two candidates, if the partisanship within the D Party is half as strong as it appears on "The Fix".

Y'all make it look as if McC is a shoo-in against a D tide that will likely prevail in both houses of Congress.

These tax returns will be poured through and compared with other disclosures [the Senate financials come to mind] for days,
nay, weeks, but it may be they will have no material effect on the campaign.

novamatt, Rock Chalk Jayhawk!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 5, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

again some of these anti Clinton posts border on obsessive compulsive behavior.
I have posted the 2002 and 2005 Obama charitable contributions numbers twice. The Obamas gave .04 or $1000 to chaity in 2002 likely less than most here who likely earned less than $269,000. Had the Clintons contributed only .04 per cent ro charity in a year could an Obama supporter please be honest enough and tell me what they would be posting this morning. I am sure we could not even repeat those words. How about some consistency.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

MARKinA: WV and Ky are 50s to 20s % for Hillary, about two to one. The thing since the Tax release is how The Media has been making all kinds of not so subtle hints about the source of the income. This brought back memories of the "Have you no shame" question of so many years ago. I think you and our fellow seniors will remember and agree with me about these actions by The Cable News/Talk Media in particular.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy."

Posted by: minimum12 | April 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, Honestly? I think that they took the red pill, instead of the blue, and are just down right caught up in the Matrix! It's frightening! These people don't care about fairness or what's right, even when it comes to this country. They only care about not liking the Clintons. They are willing to jeopardize and hurt this nation, just so they can try to hurt the Clintons. Why?? What did these people do to them personally (because what these people are doing isn't helping us, so they're not doing it for us)? In their minds, no one has ever lied more or stole more or cheated more than the Clintons. They would rather put in the 2nd, 3rd, or Z string and blow the game, rather than put in the star quarterback, simply because they have decided that they didn't like him. They are willing to destroy this country and themselves trying to destroy the Clintons. The computer chip in their brains will not allow them to acknowledge the flaws or lies of any other candidate other than "The Clintons."

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | April 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

last night I posted that taxes are due on April 15th something that just doesn't register with the obsessive Clinton haters. Apparently only mark is mature enough to appreciate that minor little detail b/c this morning your minions keep screaming where are the 2007 returns. Again obssessive compulsive behavior.

Then I posted that Sen Obama only contributed .04% or $1000 of their $269,000 in income with charitable contributions(embarrasing) in 2002 less than even the national average and 4.7%( a small but reasonale sum) of $1.6 million, certainly not a small amount of income in 2005. Why the double standards? Sem Clinton contribtes 10% which equals 1.2 million annually and we get some convuluted argument that well part of that went to a foundation so it really doesn't count. The Obama supporters have some splainin to do. Its called HYPOCRISY. What would the Obama supporters be saying this morning if it were the Clintons who gave $40,000 to charity or .04% of their income to charity in 2002? Can someone please be honest.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons' charitable contributions went to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Today's New York Times story on the tax returns puts the relevant information near the top of the story in the third paragraph:

"The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy."

With the Clintons, there is always a wrinkle. I'm inclined to say that contributions to the William J. Clinton Foundation are to charity as military music is to music. But I don't know if that's fair.

The foundation's "mission" is not exactly inspirational:
The mission of the William J. Clinton Foundation is to strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.

Posted by: sgtpepper23 | April 5, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I applaud the Clinton's commitment to public service and charitable giving. There is never been a question of that in my mind.

However, for those who ARE making a big deal about the clintons giving away $10 million should know that they have not technically "given away" much of that money YET. What they are doing is seeding their own family foundation - meaning they have parked much of the money in an entity they retain complete control over (Bill, Hilary and Chelsea are the sole Directors of their family foundation), yet is sheltered from taxes.

By law a foundation only has to give a minimum of 5% of principle assets per year. So for example - lets say the Clintons have put $5 million of the $10 million they donate in their family foundation. In that case they would only have to give away $250,000 per year.

I do not know yet the exact dollars they have seeded or how much has been distributed, but I would guess that a significant portion of the $10 million is parked in investments somewhere and the income from those investments is what is used to give away to charities and causes they support.

Of course having given it to their family foundation, they cannot ever take it back and is therefore ultimately for public benefit, but it is erroneous to conclude that $10 million has been benefited already to charitable causes.

I also want to note that their family foundation is separate from the William J Clinton Foundation where he has raised far more than $100-200 million from other sources - mostly wealthy billionaires he hobnobs with.

Posted by: xerxestrust | April 5, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Random observations:

The individual speeches may be somewhat detailed at HRC's Senate financial reports.

The "Burkle" connection shows up here as one of the investments.

This probably will not hurt with the poverty stricken HRC base in Appalachia. HRC may run huge victories in WV [lyle?] and KY.

There is obviously no problem with not publishing the 2007 return until after it is filed.

Most of the charity is to the Clinton Family Foundation. That does somewhat diminish its "altruism" value and may negate it as a public badge of honor.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 5, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

In an attempt at "fairness". Could you please also mention that Obama has yet to make public his 2007 return - yet Hillary has already made the summary of her (and Bill's) 2007 return public. Uhh!! Why hasn't Obama made his 2007 return public????

Posted by: paolahawa | April 5, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

For God's sake, Chris, do you ever do a journalist's work or just transcribe from the Clinton campaing? The charity money are contributions to the Clinton Family Foundation. Only half of it went to charity and only after she started to run. That and the millions coming from obscure business associates are all over the press. Your colleagues in the Post have done a wonderful job, don't you read them? Also, here a quote from the NYT:

"During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy."

Posted by: mizzargentina | April 5, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons make over $10 million a year.
Hillary asks poor working people, at the dawn of a recession, to give her money.
The money she contributed to her own campaign was a loan, and she will pay herself back out of the contributions of those poor people.

Posted by: light_bearer | April 5, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Now let me see: who is more unamerican, the Clintons for making a ton of money or barack obama for listening to his pastor without ever disagreeing until forced to? I am beginning to believe that we live in te USSR!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: paul2150 | April 5, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

Since leave office, former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., reported $109 million in gross income to the Internal Revenue Service for the years 2000-2007, according to a release from the Clinton campaign. On that amount, they reportedly paid $33.7 million in taxes at a rate of 31% -- a rate that is much higher than the average rate for that tax bracket. Note: Interpretation of the Obama supporters of these facts would be that they are stealing.
The Clinton family donated $10.2 million to charity, or 9.5% of their adjusted gross income, including $1 million in proceeds from the former President's book "Giving". So, the Clintons gave almost 10% to charity. Good for them. How much was donated by Obama to Charity? In addition, the Clintons not only donate money, but also their time to numerous Charities. So for you Obama supporters that are unable to understand how people that make so much money can relate to the working class and the poor, there you have your answer it means that the Clintons are walking the walk while others are talking the talk.
You object to campaign donations from someone worth 100 million but accept it for someone worth a few million with a worth still way above the classification of "average working class." Why don't you object to Obama spending between 20-40 million per month from the pockets of the working class as he so proudly boasts to advertise himself to secure a new job for which he is not qualified? An average of 4:1 the amount of the spending of the Clinton campaign. Isn't it disgusting that Obama is spending millions of donated money for basically a job interview? Why he needs to spend that much trying to convince people that he can do the job? Isn't it ironic that millions of people will donate to his political campaign to elect someone to best benefit his own interests but hardly ever donate to Charity other than his church?
The baseless assumptions and inuendos only speak bad of the candidate you try to defend. Please try to base your discussion on facts.

Posted by: DefinitelyCommonSense | April 5, 2008 5:04 AM | Report abuse

dsrobin, name a president who you perceive to not be corrupted. Honest Abe and Obama...You mean the Obama who lied--excuse me forgot about the money and where he got it from for his new house, the Obama who lied about the relationship with the mafia guy--then cut him loose? Are you talking about the Obama who faithfully listened to his spiritual advisior Rev Wright and his rantings faithfully for 20 years, but didn't really listen to his spiritual ADVISor for 20 years, yet refuses to wear the flag or put his hand over his heart for the pledge--the great American way? The Obama who supposedly ended his 20-year friendship ONLY after it was brought to this supposedly well-educated man's attention that there was something disturbingly wrong with his friend AND ADVISor? You comparing him with Abe? I mean, how dare you compare him with Abe!!

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | April 5, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Very little information on where the money came from.WHO gave you this money? Where is the 2007 tax return with the amount of money Bill received from the Ukrainians and the Kazakhs and for what alledgedly?

Posted by: majorteddy | April 5, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

svreader, why can't everyone else see what we both see? I think that so many of Obama supporters view this as some type of game. They just want to see if they can get him elected not because he can do the job, but just to see. And, it will be this country and them who will pay the price for making the biggest blunder--even greater than the Iraq War--in our history.

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Well, it took them months and months and they only did it long after their opponents did, but it's good that the Clinton's finally released their tax returns. Don't hold your breath until the Bush family release theirs. Actually, it was a huge mistake. The American people are suffering from the economic mismanagement of both the Clinton and far more criminal Bush administrations. They won't be pleased to see how much Bubba and Hillary-babe have hauled in since leaving office. Of course, they were only following the grand tradition set by Ronald Reagan who accepted a million dollar plus speaking engagement in Japan just days after leaving office. Fortunately, he made it there before his mind was gone, so he got the check. It's more than enough to bury Nancy.

Corruption writ large is all the American people see from their leaders today. Unparalleled corruption on a level never before seen since GWBush has been in control.

Better days are coming provided we can elect Barack Obama in November. Don't forget, honest Abe Lincoln was also from Illinois. Shame on us if we don't.

Posted by: dsrobins | April 5, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

You people are amazing, but even more than that, you're ridiculous! Ask yourself, why have you allowed yourselves to be manipulated into jumping on the anti-Clinton band wagon? They are literally "damned if they do, and damned if they don't" for absolutely no reason. No reason meaning that they have done nothing more than the majority of people in their position and with their influence. I don't see this going on with Obama and his mafia ties--which he lied and feigned forgetfulness once again, before, of course, cutting another one of his friends a loose, but only when it was brought to his attention. Why isn't there any comments made about this noticeable pattern that he's establishing which should be sending up red flags. That's not an attributable quality that one would want a president to possess. Enough about the Clintons lieing! THEY ALL LIE. And, this isn't about who makes the best speeches, who makes or raises the most money, AND IT's DEFINITELY NOT ABOUT who has made you the better promise for the future. It's about who has enough experience, tenacity, contacts, deligence, backbone, familiarity, etc., to roll up their sleeves and for the next 3 years dedicate themselves to do the impossible of cleaning up 8 years of damage. That is the only thing that anyone can accomplish for the sake of this country and for us, right now. There is no room or time for any changing other than correcting the past years of mistakes. Get real. Who cares about their taxes? I want to know "Can you do the job?" "SHOW me your solution to this situation." and "When can you start?" Hate the people, no one is asking you to have Sunday dinner with them, but respect their work. It's about the country--NOT YOU!

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | April 5, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Everbody's got a past.

No matter how "new" or "fresh" someone appears, they had to come from somewhere.

Barry Obama came from Chicago.

He did a horrible job.

People who voted for Barry Obama back in Chicago had the right to expect him to deliver on his promise to represent their interests.

He didn't.

Everyone in the 11 slums in his district that were supposed to be repaired or replaced suffered because of Obama's incompetence.

He was incompetent at doing the job of representing them as a State Senator.

He was incompetent at managing his conflict of interest between their rights and the profit motive of his largest campaign contributor.

Because of Obama's incompetence, all of them suffered and some of them died.

There's no excuse for that.

No speech he can make can wipe away their suffering or bring the ones that died back from the dead.

Whenever there's a tough or difficult situation, Barry ducks it.

That's not what leaders do.

Leaders take charge and solve problems.

Barry's a not a leader.

He's great at making excuses.

He great at reading cue cards.

He'd be a good actor.

He'd be a horrible President.

It doens't matter how well he can read a speech from a teleprompter, or how "cool" or good looking he is.

He's be a disaster as President, and America can't afford that.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

"In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University"

"In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300 around 4.7%"

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

We need a grown-up.

An Adult.

Someone who knows what they're doing.

That only leaves two choices -- Hillary or McCain.

If we elect Hillary Clinton we get universal health care.

We should have had it years ago.

If we don't do it now, we may not get the chance again for a long time.

Hillary knows what to do and has an incredible resource in the form of Bill Clinton available to her whenever she wants the opinion of someone who's been there before.

It really is an incredible two for one deal.

We'd be foolish beyond measure to miss the chance to have to have her as President and him as chief advisor.

That's what makes this election so historic.

Together with a strong Democratic majority in congress, they could quickly and efficiently fix what Bush and Cheney have broken and put America back on track.

Its the smartest choice we can make.

Lets hope we don't blow it.

Posted by: svreader | April 5, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

I suppose that Bobby Kennedy's trip to Appalchia was just phony and the Kennedy's could never appeal to blue collar workers by your standards.

To the Clinton haters if they gave 99% of their income to charity they would ask why didn't they give 100%.

We get it you hate the Clintons. And what is it that I hear that Sen Obama only gave 1% to charity and somhow that better connects with blue collar voters. Is maybe there some jealousy there. They have devoted their lives to public service and I doubt many blue collar workers would mind the economy like the 1990s.

Posted by: leichtman | April 5, 2008 12:06 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 11:56 PM | Report abuse

jazzgrr: One last time before you go sleep, taxes are due on April 15, 2008 by 12 pm. that is a fact not in accordance with Sen Obama or your schedule.
This election is about our future and if you guys and gals want to argue about the past that is fine but irrelevant. Its HC vs Sen Obama not Bill Clinton vs Sen Obama which would not even be this close for Pres. Clinton.
Good night and I appreciate your courtesy.

Posted by: leichtman | April 4, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

errr...leichtman, i'm of the feminine persuasion...hence, the moniker jazzgrrrl25...and, yes, hillary is the horse in this race, but if you think bill isn't hiding in that "pile of manure"(before you wail on me, it is a reference to her reagan joke), then you are in for a rude awakening...and she alone gets to take credit for the travelgate well as her divisive healthcare efforts that wasted millions of taxpayer we have gotten of track a bit regarding their taxes, let me say this...i am happy that they have prospered off of their is to their great credit that they tithe so generously...but there is credence to my questions regarding the 2007 tax return and the said 23 million dollars in consulting fees...a quarter of their earnings from what could be questionable sources...that's it...that's biggie...just curious...good night, leichtman...and good luck.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | April 4, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

mark TTC is worse than a pollution problem its a public safety issue. A bus around the corner commissioned in Mexico caught fire in Irving during Rita and killed 20 elderly residents in a nieghborhood nursing home. Their trucks and buses are really scary.

Politics, pandering of course that is what it is all about. No candidate, not HC, B.O. or john McCain will win Ohio by being seen as defending NAFTA. I worked with and met with Sherrod Brown in Cleveland Shkr Hts in '06 and while I begged him to campaign on Dewine's comments about privatizing SS. He told me in no uncertain terms that NAFTA is the number one issue to Ohio voters and it is doubtful that any of the candidates who really want to win Ohio and become Pres. will give us straight talk about reforming NAFTA to protect US workers and assure free and fair trade until at least Feb 2009.

Thank you mark for getting me out of a circular and ridiculous argment over monica and HC filing his tax return on April 15.

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

Repeated for leichtman:

TT Corridor is bad. MX trucks ripping up I35 and polluting is a nightmare. Yes, there are tweaks to NAFTA that must be negotiated.

The pander is to use "NAFTA" as a whipping boy substitute for China, which violates ILO standards by not enforcing its wage and hour laws and its child labor laws. Further, it does not allow collective bargaining. For China to be in the WTO is like giving up on international standards.

Offering to make new Cabinet Depts. is a pander.

I am not picking on HRC. BHO panders just as hard on NAFTA. Neither of them mean it.

McC saying that he does not want to reward speculators without offering even an inspiration for a private plan to deal with any aspect of the financial mess is a pander too.

I am an equal opportunity critic tonight.

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

cr12 your's and jazz's arguments are totally bogus for a very simple reason:
BILL CLINTON is NOT THE CANDIDATE and not running for Pres. as much as his some of his supporters would like us to believe.
Talk about skewed logic. Your logic says Bill had an affair, I acknowledge that the impeachment was bogus and a perjury trap, the Arkansas Bar rightfully disbarred (may actually be a temporay suspension) ipso fact Hillary is evil and everything including her filing of their tax return on April 15 like 100 million Americans is ipso facto evil. Its called res ipsa, Bill is evil ergo so is Hillary. Sorry jazz's central argument WAS impeachment and monica and I guess since you are defending Ann Coulter's hatefilled arguments you are defending a strawman(woman). And next tell me with a straight face that we didn't hear those same comments by Joana Goldberg, Bill O'Reily and Fox News in 1997. Maybe what I heard from the truly lunatics of the right (and history will show them to be) was not precisely what jazz was posting--it sure sounded like what I remember being said in 1997.

And while I do not want to associate Jazz's comments with the Obama campaign,it does honestly make me start to wonder if the questions to Chelsea this past week were not plants from Obama supporters(and I truly don't believe in conspiracies). If that ends up being the case then I can guarantee that Barack Obama will not be President.

Incidentally I am not attacking a strawman-woman Ann Coulter, I am attacking jazz for his mimicking Ann Coulter. There is not a whole lot that Ann Coulter says that does not associate Dems, Bill, Hillary and I am sure soon to be Sen Obama that she does not claim is part of being an evil liberal. If there is someway she can blame her food or the New england patriot's loss on liberals, I am sure she will find a way to do so, but using a psychopath to rationalize your argument is really lame.

Qustion: Is this the direction that his supporters want Sen Obama to take his campaign. If so then you folks must really be worried.

Posted by: leichtman | April 4, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, did you catch Clinton's comment about having a Poverty Reduction Cabinet Post - do you think this is enough of a bribe for Edwards to endorse?

Isn't there laws against that kind of thing?

Posted by: ChicagoIndependant | April 4, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

speaking of squirrels and nuts...since when are the basic tenets of ethical right and wrong, outrageous and (i believe the word we're looking for is) inappropriate?...the truth shall set you free, baby...and crt12, regardless of your opinion on the matter, your post was a delightful and refreshing read...

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | April 4, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

correction to my above post:
Your post is final proof that you have truly gotten in the gutter.
Certainly jazz's comments do not reflect his candidate's or campaign's, only his own outrageous and inappropraite thoughts.

Posted by: leichtman | April 4, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Your last post is a combination of ad hominem and straw man. Because many of your posts proceed unaware of the existence of logical fallacy, allow me to explain.

Ad hominem arguments attempt to link the objectionable nature of the speaker with the fallacy of their argument. A claims X, there is something wrong with A, and therefore X is false--or, in your example, Ann Coulter is a raving sensationalist moron, who claims that Bill Clinton is unethical, and therefore Bill Clinton is not unethical. For this syllogism to be logically consistent, we must assume that everything Ann Coulter has ever said in her life is wrong. When she orders eggs over easy, she's wrong. When she comments on the sorry state of the Pittsburgh Pirates' bullpen, she's wrong. That's not true (as much as I wish I could say that Ann Coulter is always wrong about everything). Stated simply--even a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while. So, just because Ann Coulter said it, doesn't mean it's not true.

Straw man arguments mischaracterize an opponent's argument in a small but significant way, that retains the appearance of the opponent's argument, but has removed key support. In your example, you pick one piece of evidence cited of Bill Clinton's lack of ethics--his impeachment. Even if you're right that his impeachment was a perjury trap set by jealous ideologues (a point on which you and I actually agree, even though it reeks of ad hominem, see supra), it doesn't conclusively prove that Bill Clinton is not unethical. You've ignored the other support for the allegation--his disbarment is the most compelling in my mind. The supreme courts of DC and Arkansas are not filled with jealous ideologues. They are filled with mostly well-meaning judges. Their disciplinary boards are similarly filled with well-meaning attorneys. And nevertheless, they took his license to practice away. A mostly symbolic gesture, to be sure, but nevertheless, it indicates a disapproval of Pres. Clinton's ethics. In any event, you simply have not dealt with the argument in a logical manner.

I don't mean to insult you, or insult your candidate. I do mean to insult your argument, because it's untenable.

Posted by: crt12 | April 4, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, for the record, i think fox is news drivel and i can't stand the likes of ann coulter...sorry you find me amongst their ranks...and, no, i don't think it's a conspiracy...there are enough shameful facts to put me off...certainly not the most damning thing they've done or neglected to do...just another rank and file case of avoidance...and, yes, it does make me grow "curiouser and curiouser"...i just wish that for once they were on the up and up...and, yes, i voted for clinton...he was inspirational and evoked feelings of hope and change...being snookered once is enough for me, thank you.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | April 4, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

jazz you are mimicking Fox News and Ann Coulter.
You are right its a conspiracy that the Clintons are filing their tax returns on April 15th god forbid only evil people do that. How dare them.
Bill was impeached by right wing lunatics. Have you now joined them? Folks like Tom DeLaye Dennis Hastert, Bob Barr, and of course the infamous Dan Burton and Sen Inhoff. Congratulations, you have now drunk their ugly cool aid in the name of supporting the uplifting candidate Sen Obama. Should we expect your side to soon start quoting not only Ann Coulter but Joana Goldberg and Bill O'Reily. Your post is final proof that your campaign has truly gotten in the gutter.

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

This is a lose/lose for Billary. They'd look like secretive elites if they don't release the tax info, look like book tour fat cats when they do. Love the book haul...

Posted by: parkerfl | April 4, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

-- Because today we remember Martin Luther King this opinion piece by Juan Williams of the WSJ is poignant..

He makes the same case many people on the
blogs have been making - hypocrite who
spouts unity while patronizing racial
division. Obama has tried to dance around
that with shifting answers on what he
heard out of Wright at what point, but
the contradition in his words to his
actions, remains.

"I can no more disown him than I can
disown the black community".

Sure you can. You just leave. 20 years
ago. Americans of all ethnicities would
have then seen you could lead...


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

yes, leichtman, there are certainly conspiracy theories out there regarding the clintons...there are also facts...facts to which clinton has shown no sense of shame, which leads to a question of character...bill was both disbarred and impeached...nepotism ran rampant...pardons were a gross misconduct of power...he lied and sold his friends down the river, people who trusted and believed in him and ultimately had their credibility and character tarnished because of it...and their final coup de grace of pilfering white house items upon their departure...if this was your friend, family member or neighbor, would you be proud?...the guy is a self-serving scoundrel and his wife has shown herself to be a liar, a bully and vendictive on many, if one is to question why they haven't done something of import that they said they would do, yes, you bet your fanny, people are gonna wonder what the skinny is, and why they're renegging.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | April 4, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse might want to check the "i" part of your fyi...

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | April 4, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

TT Corridor is bad. MX trucks ripping up I35 and polluting is a nightmare. Yes, there are tweaks to NAFTA that must be negotiated.

The pander is to use "NAFTA" as a whipping boy substitute for China, which violates ILO standards by not enforcing its wage and hour laws and its child labor laws. Further, it does not allow collective bargaining. For China to be in the WTO is like giving up on international standards.

Offering to make new Cabinet Depts. is a pander.

I am not picking on HRC. BHO panders just as hard on NAFTA. Neither of them mean it.

McC saying that he does not want to reward speculators without offering even an inspiration for a private plan to deal with any aspect of the financial mess is a pander too.

I am an equal opportunity critic tonight.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 4, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

mark that overture was to only send a message to John Edwards and as a tribute to MLK.

Free trade mark has not been exactly free, look at our sovereign wealth funds if you don't believe me. We were ready to sell our ports and banks to the Saudis, I don't really want the Saudis and Chinese to be dictating whether our banks and economy survive, I respectfully disagree my friend.
And you can't support that stupid transTexas coridor that 1/2 of Texas is upset with?

Posted by: leichtman | April 4, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

"where are their 2007 returns that they fervently promised to submit?"

One more time tax returns are due on APRIL 15TH and with an extension on Oct 15. When will these conspiracy theories about the Clintons end?

Posted by: leichtman | April 4, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

1] Mark Penn and CAFTA.
As a free trader [who thinks China must be taken to task because it violates the ILO rules blatantly] I should be glad that the Ds are lying through their teeth when they pander to the unions and attack Western Hemisphere trade.

2] HRC wants to make a Cabinet office "Department of Poverty."


Read Drucker. Read Peters. We have too many Cabinet Departments now. Arguably, three are devoted to "poverty".

Here is what we have now:

The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments-the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General. Cabinet-level rank also has been accorded to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Director, National Drug Control Policy; and the U.S. Trade Representative.

There are at least four too many departments. DHLS is a disaster.
Consolidate. No more government by mismanagement.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 4, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

FYI: From Polling since February there has been a steady decline for Obama in the most important category of all as far as Dems are concerned. The question asked--"What Dem has the best chance of winning the GE in November 2008?" With The Media hype for Obama being what it has been and continuing to be, the overwhelming majority say Hillary. This has to do with the "Internals" I speak about so often. Each and every way I look at the EC map, I cannot find any way for Obama to win the GE. For some reason, as I have stated before, the "Envy/Jealous" Factor combined with the "Hate Clintons" Factor are what appears to be the motivating reason/cause for those Hell bent on destroying the Dem party for the "Idiot-Ology" of the Far Left Wing of the party. As much as I disagree with "svreader" most times, as to how he/she states comments against Obama, Most are stating FACTS that are often ignored because of the way they appear to be only against him.

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

it is to their credit that their tything was generous, but as with much that is the clintons, there is the unknown and the dubious connections...where are their 2007 returns that they fervently promised to submit?...and is there a solid explanation as to why 13 million of this income is connected with a firm that is connected to the ruler of a time when hillary was raging against the support of giving dubai access to working american ports...or the (i think) 10 million given by a fellow who is now under investigation for selling senior citizen information to unscrupulous telemarketers...all of this money given for bill's consultation's tiresome to consistently and constantly have to question seems there are always caveats.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | April 4, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I hope those of you who gave money to her campaign feel a bit ripped off now. She clearly hasn't gone hungry a day in her life or gone without health care. With that kind of money, why is her campaign asking for more money from people who can't afford it? Is this why she waited so long to release her returns? Clearly she is trying to give it time to blow over before the PA primary but I hope the unemployed people of PA keep this in mind when they go to the polls. Barack has been poor and organized poor communities, he is much more likely to be in tune with real peoples' needs.

Posted by: Exfan | April 4, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Talk about a non-issue.

The fact is, Senator Obama could make just about the same amount in speaking fees even if he loses the nomination.

The most we can hope for is that the candidates understand how the rest of us live. Fortunately, I think all three candidates do--unlike our current President.

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

Too many errors in judgement are surfacing, Obama, and isn't this the quality that you claim to have, superior than Hillary?

These stories about "boneheaded mistakes" are becoming too repetitive in nature and do you expect us to ignore this?

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

Because today we remember Martin Luther King this opinion piece by Juan Williams of the WSJ is poignant..

"Mr. Obama's major speech on race last month was forced from him only after a political crisis erupted: It became widely known that he'd sat for 20 years in the pews of a church where Rev. Jeremiah Wright lashed out at white people. The minister cursed America as worthy of damnation, made lewd suggestions about the nature of President Clinton's relationship with black voters, and embraced the paranoid idea that the white government was spreading AIDS among black people.

Here is where the racial tension at the heart of Mr. Obama's campaign flared into view. He either shared these beliefs or, lacking good judgment, decided it politically expedient for an ambitious young black politician trying to prove his solidarity with all things black, to be associated with these rants. His judgment and leadership on the critical issue of race is in question.

What hasn't Obama done?

He no longer asks black people to let go of the grievance culture to transcend racial arguments and transform the world.

And he chooses not to confront the poisonous "thug life" culture in rap music that glorifies drug use and crime.

Posted by: vammap | April 4, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

A note to the Obama camp:

Do not waist your time in trying to SPIN this one, because it got too late for any of your sidetracking the issues. You have been caught!!!

Now, let's get to the debates and the issues that differentiate these 2 candidates and who is more ELECTABLE!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 4, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

JD I don't recall you demanding that the McCain's dip in to his wife's largess? Have I missed that sir?

Posted by: leichtman | April 4, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

typo: . If the Clinton's had not given to charity that would be one thing but even their detractors should admit that giving 10% or $10 million is generous and apparently there were tax strategies that they legally could have used to reduce their tax rate from 31% that they refused to do. Shouldn't that be enough?

Posted by: leichtman | April 4, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama gave less than 1% to contributions and note that it was mostly to his church and Rev. Wright. Interesting?

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

bondjedi --

Hi. I hope that you are feeling well and wish you a good weekend.

But you miss the points about my posts regarding Obama and Rezko.

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.

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 7:11 PM | Report abuse

As for HRC and Bill's largesse, seems to me that they could donate more of that to their own campaign to make up the $500k-to-$3m difference in spending in PA, between themselves and Obama. Unless they realize that they're finished.

Or, of course, they much prefer spending other people's money to their own. (No way, a liberal wants to do THAT? I'm shocked)

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Their 2007 tax return is not due for filing until April 15 unless they pay in last year's estimate and then get an extension. That explains why it has yet to be released, mine is not complete as I imagine are at least 50% of American's tax returns.

Our resident CPA here says the return looks clean shouldn't that be enough?

How will that wealth play to blue collar voters? I don't recall Edward, John and especially Bobby Kennedy ever having problems with the poor and blue collar voters and the Clinton's wealth pales in comparison. In fact I recall Bobby especially being reveared in Appalachia, Scranton and Youngstown. If thinton's had not given to charity that would be one think but even his detractors should admit that 10% or $10 million is generous.

Could it be that they delayed as a strategy to have the Obama supporters beat up on them and then to show they were once again wrong about demonizing the Clintons? Otherwise I agree that they should be proud to show that they gave $10 million to charity and the wait made no sense at all. The Obama supporters don't want to hear this but I think they underestimate their decency and charity, perhaps this will give all of the Clinton haters pause to rethink their disrespect.

Shouldn't we ask the Obama family how much of their income they have given in the last 8 years to charity? Is that not a fair or reasonable question to ask?

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

He said he would release them as soon as he became the nominee, but he hasn't yet.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2008 05:53 PM

Hey drindl, I know you're a hater, but I'm surprised that even you don't know that he isn't really 'the nominee' yet.

Or is this just grasping at straws to take yet another mis-aimed shot?

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

Too much to do about nothing and I laugh at all of the hyper and mystery created by some of the media and a few of you here. Common sense tells anyone with any degree of intelligence that releasing all of these records would have been time consumming. But let's get to the facts here and that is they paid their taxes and were ver generous in contributions. Can Obama's camp deliver in the same fashion? Anyhow there is no comparison on the two and it should have been obvious from the beginning. So, what bone are they trying to pick now or invent?

It is so funny how a lot of you fail to realize that as a former President, Bill Clinton, like the others will benefit from a lot of speeches and appearances and will be paid well. If you insist on questionning his record, why don't you look at Jimmy Carter's.

As far as Hillary, she has a record established already of merging with middle America by her actions alone and no one can dispute this.

How about Obama, does his tal;k match his deeds?

This story is over, so let's move to the issues at hand and stop sidetracking which is the Obama camp's ploy to avoid the comparisons that with deeds Hillary is far above her competition!!!

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

To those who'd like to believe that the Clintons haven't released their 2007 tax returns because they're somehow hiding something -- c'mon! Please, please, give it a rest. Go find some other sinister thing to imagine about the Clintons.

The tax returns of those who run some sort of business e.g., Bill Clinton, are complicated. The Clintons' are made even more complicated by their various trusts. Self-employed persons thus rely on accountants to prepare their tax returns, and many end up filing extensions because we're either still waiting on or gathering various info.

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

"All his disclosures so far have done, is raise questions on why a campaign contributor would have a spouse buy an adjacent lot that the seller wanted sold in the deal, and the substantial price-cut on the Obama house."

That reads really confusing (probably because it makes no sense), but I sense what you are getting at. Again, if you have some moldy pseudo-scandal out there, at least get the story straight.

This is "fresh" from the WP, 12/17/2006

"In June 2005, in what Obama now describes as a 'boneheaded' mistake, Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent properties on Chicago's South Side, closing the deals on the same day. Seven months later, wanting a bigger yard for his $1.65 million house, Obama bought a slice of the Rezko property for $104,500.

After news of the deal broke last month in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he had erred by creating the appearance that Rezko had done him a favor by selling him a portion of the lot. For the first time since he entered the national spotlight, the 45-year-old freshman senator found himself on the defensive, discussing a personal decision he had come to regret.

'There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate,' Obama said in a telephone interview Friday. 'There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him.'

Obama recently donated to charity $11,500 that Rezko had contributed to his federal campaign account."

Maybe the tinfoil on your head equates crimes with errors in judgment. Who knows. I'm sure that Senator Obama will be hearing this ancient myth trotted out in the coming months ad nauseam, and he will be as sick of hearing the Rezko nonsense as the rest of the informed public who has picked up a newspaper in the last year.

Then again, I'm sorry to have corrected you, because you will probably move on to the Obama-is-Muslim fairytales, now that your obvious error is pointed out.

Tell svreader I said hi.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 4, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

What favors did the Billaries return for the money made in speeches ?

Posted by: svarada123 | April 4, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

-- You have good reason to be sure of that, because he already has. --


All his disclosures so far have done, is raise
questions on why a campaign contributor
would have a spouse buy an adjacent lot
that the seller wanted sold in the deal, and
the substantial price-cut on the Obama

Sadly, there don't appear to be open
personal-gain questions like those, on
Hillary's comprehensive disclosure today...



Posted by: straightmedia | April 4, 2008 6:24 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 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that is a lot of hot dogs (what the little people like myself are eating these days)

I wonder, with that amount of wealth, that Senator Clinton couldn't have given her campaign more money. She earned it, why can't she spend it on something she wants? At least I would know she is beholden to no one but herself.

of course, that didn't help Romney...

Posted by: corridorg4 | April 4, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Why has the Washington Post not covered, at all, the Mark Penn/Colombia story reported in the Wall Street Journal---this morning.

Posted by: dslee25 | April 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Why the Democratic Race Could End in North Carolina

When will th Democratic Race end?


Posted by: f.fox1212 | April 4, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if seeing the $100 million figure on the front page of every newspaper is going to make people feel compelled to continue donating to their campaign...

Posted by: thecrisis | April 4, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

mnteng... the difference is whether you made your money working or investing. if you made it working, you pay more in taxes. that's just the simple fact of this country's taxation system.

It used to be different, not all that long ago. Money not earned by your blood, sweat and tears was considered 'unearned income' and taxed at a higher rate.

And as I mentioned on another thread, I bleive Guiliani makes this much in speaking fees also.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sure Barack, will now open up the books on his Resko-assisted upscale house purchase in Kenwood, IL"

You have good reason to be sure of that, because he already has.

If you're going to riff on stale scandal, at least get it right. His home purchase and the "grimy" details have been public knowledge for years.

You're an svreader meat puppet, by the way.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

As a CPA and Obama supporter, I took a quick review of the Clinton 2006 tax return and I must say, it looks clean to me. In fact, I could quickly save them tens of thousands of dollars by getting them to take about $2,000,000 out of their CitiBank savings and applying it to their mortgage, assuming there are no prepayment penalties on the mortgage. Right now, over $100,000 of their annual mortgage interest exceeds allowable limits and is non-deductible. That would be so easy to remedy and lower their tax liability.

I see no story here unless the blue collar types in PA won't like the size of their income. But I must give credit to the Clintons for their openness. It's a bit confusing why they waited until now.

Posted by: optimyst | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

And I have to add, the Clintons earned their money. Cindy's is all inherited.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse


Thanks for the clarification. I always figured that there were tax loopholes that rich people could take advantage of that aren't available to the rest of us. Nice to know that isn't always the case.

It's hard to imagine "earning" $50 million just from giving speeches. Wonder what that comes to per word ...

Posted by: mnteng | April 4, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

.'I've got 8,000 people living downtown who don't want a bunch of puking Republican lobbyists on the streets at four in the morning.""

I think I'd like this Thune.

So now, where are McCain's returns? He said he would release them as soon as he became the nominee, but he hasn't yet. His wife is apparently worth in excess of $100 million, so maybe that's why.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

* The Clinton paid nearly $34 million in taxes over the last seven years -- 31 percent of their adjusted gross income.

* Over the past seven years, the Clinton have given more than $10 million to charity -- 9.5 percent of their adjusted gross income,


Golly! It's a scandal!!

As I tasked neophyte Obamaites for weeks -
each time they went ape over "what is she

TOLD YOU - nothing there. You learned
nothing from Ken Starr?


Dept. of Why Obama Dupes Were Duped

- Hillary, has been planning this run for
president since the '99-'00 era. She doesn't
put that at risk, with nefarious dealings to get
rich on the sly.

- Had the Clinton's cared about money and
personal gain over public service, they'd have
stayed in private law practice - where they'd
both have dominated with their degrees and
intellects. Instead they went to public service,
in their 20's. Both of them. Look at the garbage
they've had heaped on them, for 2 decades
now. Yet they soldier on.

The Clinton's were never wealthy, until the
close of his presidency when they could start
to sell books and command big speaking fees.

Which in turn, is also why they won't disappear
now on low funds - as Brokaw suggested over
the weekend. They obviously have major future-
earnings power, and could borrow against it if
they really had to.

I'm sure Barack, will now open up the books
on his Resko-assisted upscale house purchase
in Kenwood, IL...

WHAT is he hiding?



Posted by: straightmedia | April 4, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Hill's current spam is more begging for money. I think one reason why they were so reluctant to release the tax returns is they didn't want likely donors to know that there is plenty more money where that $5 million loan came from.

From here on out, money is the defining narrative as both candidates play out the string. Hillary does not have the money to compete with Obama's media buys in all the remaining states, so everything the campaign currently has is going into one final push in PA. If she doesn't win there, the media money is gone for NC, IN, and Guam.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 4, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I little Friday afternoon humor for y'all.

As you may or may not know, St Paul, MN, host to this summer's GOP convention, is an extremely blue town, where blue means Democrat, though if you want to think of blue laws, that's not inaccurate. There's been some discussion to change bar time to 4 AM (which was recently lengthened to 2 AM) for the duration of the convention. This proposal has not been popular with everyone who has a say in the process, as reported by the MN Post:

"The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported Wednesday that [St. Paul City Council member Dave] Thune said: "...I've got 8,000 people living downtown who don't want a bunch of puking Republican lobbyists on the streets at four in the morning.""

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2008 5:48 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 work.

It never got done.

So people who voted Barry into office froze, and some of them froze to death.

Heck of a job, Barry!!!!

I wouldn't vote for the guy for dog-catcher!!!

Neither should anyone else.

Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

To AverageJane... have you tried donating? I don't think so. Assuming that the more than $10m that the Clintons gave away are all tax deductible, then they still have given at least $7 million post tax. In no measure is this small. Regardless of the tax benefit, very few people can match the Clinton's generosity.

Posted by: CPCook | April 4, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Where are their 2007 returns? Why hold off on those?

Posted by: fatboysez | April 4, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Where are their 2007 returns? Why hold off on those?

Posted by: fatboysez | April 4, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

mnteng: on the personal side the bush tax cuts slashed the rates on unearned income -- dividends, cap gains. This looks to be pretty much earned income (from speeches). It's hard to do much with that.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 4, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

This should liven up the prez race a bit. Whipped cream and personal checks for abortions, anyone?

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 4, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow... Very, very impressive. For many, income is a measure of success. If this measure is used, the Clintons are a successful couple. What is more impressive is the amount that they gave away to charity. Almost 10% over 7 years is amazing. No matter how the Obama camp spins this, I am now more impressed with the Clintons.

Many Obamaniacs would say that the Clintons were hesitant to release their tax records. I honestly did not care whether the Clintons released their tax records or not. It if it not required by law, then it is not required. Obama should have filed a bill to make it a requirement if he really believes that this is an issue. Of course, he was never in the senate to do any filing. Anyway, the Clintons had no reason to be ashamed of their returns. If at all, I am very envious of their success and generosity.

Posted by: CPCook | April 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

This should shut up a few of the "Clinton Haters" but no way. I just got the PET-scan cost of $7,879.75, along with some other tests costing over $2,000.00, and this is only a drop in the bucket. Thought this might be of interest to those of you concerned about the cost of health care.

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

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 5:29 PM | Report abuse

One more thing comes to mind:
"Speeches don't put food on the table." Hillary Rodham Clinton

In light of the information in these returns that looks like a particularly unfortunate thing for her to have said.

Posted by: judgeccrater | April 4, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS FROM THE GF HERALD :Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., arrived in Grand Forks at about 3:40 p.m. at the Grand Forks International Airport.

Obama was aboard a Boeing 757 with a large American flag painted on the side of the plane.


This is probably the only time in decades that GF airport has ever seen a 747. Typically the FedEx planes are the biggest ones to every cross that tarmac. I gotta laugh at the thought of this little town getting overrun with Secret Service and black SUVs ala Beltway. It's just too funny. Well, I'm off.

Boy, am I off.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 4, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Will BHO generate campaign commercials that hammer her over this? It's a pretty tempting target."

What would the commercial say? "The Senator's former president husband is overpaid as a feature speaker"? Hardly compelling. The Obama campaign doesn't need to publicize the numbers. If anything, make the less direct argument that the Obama's are closer to being in touch with the average American than the Clintons. But given the Obamas live in a 7 figure house, its a matter of degrees.

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a tax expert, but a 31% tax rate seems pretty high -- after the Bush tax cuts, I mean, and not historically. Of course, they're clearly not hurting for money.

Any tax attorneys out there care to comment?

Posted by: mnteng | April 4, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, regarding the previous post, I'm referring to the $20 million Hilary Clinton claimed to have raised for her campaign in March.

It's actually a little more than $5 million she can actually use.

Posted by: rohnjay | April 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow! No wonder Bill's lips are loose. If I got paid that much for running my mouth I'd think that whatever thought popped into my head must be pretty darn valuable too and darn the consequences.

I agree with thecrisis: those blue collar D's in PA are going to be a little less comfortable supporting someone who makes as much in a month as the worker makes in 20 years.

Hard to see how the "undecided" category won't grow as a result of this revelation. Will BHO generate campaign commercials that hammer her over this? It's a pretty tempting target.

Posted by: judgeccrater | April 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's $20 million includes $15 million for the general election, and only $5 million for the primaries.

They're going back to the same big Democratic donors they started with, and those people have already given the $2,300 maximum for the primaries, so they're contributing against the $2,300 for the general election.

The Clintons are begging for this money so at least they can post a decent figure like $20 million for the month. If people knew she only received $5 million versus his $40 million, the numbers in PA and IN would crumble.

Posted by: rohnjay | April 4, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The charity donations are impressive...but it's hard to not find ways to donate $10 million to charity when Bill nets five times that much in one year of public speaking. That left them with what, $50 million to live off of, after taxes, after donations? Rough life...

Posted by: thecrisis | April 4, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"None of Hillary Clinton's presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information."

Yeah, but she only did it kicking and screaming.

To give the devil-in-the-pantsuit her due, the amount donated to charity is pretty good. It sure would be nice though to pay off those small businesses her campaign has been stiffing these last few months.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 4, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

This is so Clintonian...

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

First of all, Obama couldn't pull together 30 years of returns even if he wanted to, because he doesn't have 30. He might not even have 20.

Second, they've delayed this so long it's disgraceful. Obviously, keeping these numbers out of the press was to help her "common man" pitch in Ohio. It doesn't sound so good if the headline reads "$109 million."

Yet despite the delay, they now proudly proclaim it doesn't get any better than this, ignoring the timing issue.

It's not unexpected at all, and it's not unusual politics of spin. But I am sick of it.

Posted by: MShake | April 4, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I am not a Clintonista, but the 9.5% to charity is pretty impressive. I'd be interested to hear how that record of giving is responded to, in particular by the Obama camp, who perhaps gave much of their time, but not their tithes.

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

Averaging about $10 million per year for almost a decade - very impressive. I'm sure it will help her argument that she's better in touch with ordinary people than Obama, who had a $200k salary until he wrote his book in 2005, which netted him what, $1.6 million?

For the amount of money the Clintons make, Hillary sure has been bad with it on the campaign trail. This all further confirms the fact that I'd rather see our nation's budget in the hands of an Obama Administration than a Clinton or McCain administration.

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company