Posted on 03/06/2008 7:53:08 AM PST by jdm
The gloves will come off, Barack Obama has promised his supporters, and it looks like he may have already taken his first swing at negative politicking. Calling Hillary Clinton one of the most secretive politicians in America, the Obama campaign publicly demanded that Hillary release her tax returns. Team Hillary responded with a Rezko question:
Barack Obama’s campaign took fresh aim at Hillary Clinton Wednesday for refusing to release her tax returns, asking in a memo circulated to reporters, “What does Clinton have to hide?”
“In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted,” the memo stated. “When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton’s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process.”
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s chief strategist, also said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday that Clinton has a history of non-disclosure and is the least-vetted candidate in the presidential race.
Clinton had said she will only release her tax returns if she captures the Democratic nomination, though her communications director, Howard Wolfson, issued a statement Wednesday indicating she would do so around April 15.
The demand also came from Obama himself, an interesting development. Obama had insisted that he would not get into attack politics, and for a while he didn’t need to do so. Until Tuesday, Obama had rolled up eleven straight victories in primary contests and could afford to keep himself above the fray.
Unfortunately, that left him vulnerable to Hillary at just the moment when two obstacles appeared in his path to the nomination: the NAFTA Dance and Tony Rezko. Hillary exploited both openings, and Obama’s response hardly gave an indication that he could fight a tough general-election campaign. Now he has to answer Hillary’s attacks with some of his own, not so much to increase her negatives — could they go any higher? — but to prove to the superdelegates that he is up to the task in the general election. A few more stumbles and his pledged delegate lead may not be relevant in Denver.
The question then becomes whether Obama can maintain the image of a reformer and a new kind of politician while personally engaging in negative campaigning. For people like John McCain or even Hillary, their resumes give them a clear identity. Without his identity as the savior of modern politics, Obama has almost literally nothing to present to voters.
The media refuses to ask her where the $5 million loan to her campaign came from.
A good reason to make public her tax returns, for I too wonder where she got that kind of cash. More cattle futures perhaps?
The empty shirt is attacking the dirty shirt.
Hillary’s response is simple: “what about the details of the purchase of your home, how did you come up with the money to purchase it, what role did Tony the Syrian play, how did Ton’y wife come up with the money to buy the adjacent lot, how did you manage to buy the house for 20% below asking price?
So asking for tax returns somehow equates to a supposed witch hunt about sex? What did Hillary do to earn money, anyway?
Begone disturbing lap dancing image...
They're now an extremely wealthy couple of capitalists.
According to reports, her 2005 and 2006 returns show tens of millions of dollars from lobbyists, foreign governments, and speech fees.
Pass the popcorn.
Remember when Al Gore’s returns showed a few hundred dollars of used clothes donated to charity. What a stingy miser.
Personally, I think the reason she doesn’t wasnt to release them are that they will show thay they paid fewer taxes % wise than most people.
Hillary’s tax returns are right next to John Kerry’s SF 180.
I’m more interested in Rezko’s tax returns.
Did they ask Romney where his multi-million dollar loans to his campaign came from?
I was not a Romney supporter, but it seems pretty obvious that it was from legitimate business; and not from foreign sources as is likely in Clinton's case.
Why is it likely it's from foreign sources? Both Clintons got seven figure advances for books and he makes millions in speaking fees. Five million is probably not that significant a part of their net worth.
They had no need to. He reported them above board and openly in his monthly disclosure forms. He earned his income as a private citizen. On the other hand, she has only been a senator earning less than $200k. She is a public servant, as is McCain, and should have more scrutiny.
Their book deals and his speaking income have never been a secret and have netted them millions over the last few years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.