Everybody has a dream, I guess. If yours is to be Taylor Marsh, I say, "Be well! But be careful of the heels. Metaphorically, of course."

I think your diary is almost amusing. I understand the German judges gave it an 8 for rhetoric and a 1.7 for substance. Better luck next time.  

Nah.

Why did you change names?

Those were mostly poor Chinese.

AH..So latinos and hispanics are all poor and can't possible earn their own money, right? Maybe the Obama campaign should hire you as their outreach coordinator.

So, you don't care about all the business deals that the Clintons have been involved in that have allowed them to increase their net worth by about $30 million over the last six years.  But you are concerned about a ten foot strip of land that Obama bought from Rezko for $110,000?

Can you say hypocrite?

says the person who's spent the past 12 days hyping a story about Obama buying a strip of land at above market value

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-080303-clinton-finance,1,5982452 .story

Here's the link from the Chicago Tribune. It has been covered by other media outlets as well.

WASHINGTON -  In December 2004, former President Bill Clinton made a much-publicized appearance at a launch party in New York for Accoona, a new Internet search engine billing itself as a rival to Google.

Clinton's presence at the gathering at Tavern on the Green in Central Park was a coup for the unheralded, privately held Accoona, which paid for the former president's appearance by issuing options for 200,000 shares of stock to Clinton's charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation. In 2006, the Clinton Foundation sold the shares for $700,000.

Another celebrity hired by Accoona, Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, did not fare as well. Kasparov also was paid in stock options, but his agent said he has not exercised them because his financial advisers told him last year that the shares were worth less than their $1 option exercise price.

The Clinton Foundation's good fortune with Accoona stock is among several lucrative transactions involving the former president's personal and charitable finances. Since leaving office in 2001, Clinton has wiped out millions of dollars in legal bills and become a multimillionaire through a brisk schedule of speechmaking and book-writing, as well as a pair of consulting and investing agreements that have yielded as-yet-undisclosed sums.

Clinton also raised more than $362million for his foundation through 2006 and secured pledges for billions more.

There's other financial dealings which raise questions mentioned in the article.  Since the account that Hillary used to loan money to the campaign is a joint account with Bill, it puts all of his financial dealings on the table along with hers since it's evidently helping to finance her presidential campaign.

Too busy every minute of every day for the past 7 years.

Since when were the tax returns of other Americans your business anyway?

hey, I'm poor as dirt and I never file my taxes on time.  As long as I pay the estimated tax I can file for all the extensions I need.  April 15th is your last day to PAY, not necessarily file.

So quizzle me this -- if there's something shady going on here, wouldn't you think the Bush Administration IRS would be all over them?

This isn't about breaking the law, dammit, it's about RELEASING which they are not legally compelled to do.

Do we have a right to see them?  Yes.  But there is zero evidence or reason to believe anything illegal or evasive is going on here.

I think there are ten pointy-eared senior accountants ammending all those returns right this minute trying to put together the set of returns least likely to make them look filthy rich -- and another ten spin doctors holding every line up to the light to imagine every possible way that line can be used against her.

That's good politics, not illegal behavior.  when the "release them" noise becomes more damaging than the returns themselves they'll release them.

This not about the tax returns due 4/15/08; it's about years and years of tax returns that have long been filed.

What's in there?  What are they afraid of?

>>Obama has spent this whole past year trashing Hillary Clinton<<

Links?

he is still the favorite to win the nomination.  Hillary is just running glamor campaign.  She doesn't have a chance to win the delegate race.    

Name one crisis where she was at the center and her "tested" judgment saved the day. Name one - just one.

If she was sitting in on security meetings during the Clinton administration without clearance and offering her unelected 2 cents to the point of altering policy, that would be both illegal, and counter to representative democracy.

Using that as a standard, could you not argue that Laura Bush's First Lady experience is far more significant with regard to national security credentials than Hillary's given Laura's tenure during a time of a multi-front war.

Since no one here will do the homework....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lissa-musc atine-and-melanne-verveer/hillarys-unpre cedented-e_b_76883.html

http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/06/leaders hip-pink-clinton-cx_ag_0906clinton_2.htm l

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2 /20/205647/071/860/460876

You're a riot, Alice. Hey, what part of Maine? I lived there for many years.

I. Don't. Care. I can't believe there is anything in them that will shatter the earth any more than I believe Obama's friendship with Rezko means he's chock full of shady skeletons. Hillary Clinton is one of, if not the most vetted woman in the world. Stick to the issues, baby. Stick to what matters to people who want to figure out how to pay their bills, how to stay healthy or if they're not how to afford treatment, how to educate themselves and their children, how to help the earth heal, and how to protect ourselves from those who mean us harm. Stick to the issues.

Her reluctance to release tells me there is stuff in those returns that can be crafted into sound bites and create a passing storm of media scrutiny of their finances and who pays Bill to do what.  what that tells me is she is one shrewd politician looking for the right window in which to release them.

It tells me that when all the dust settles, as with every other long withheld Clinton tax return, we'll see nothing there but a couple of people with a huge combined income that can be a short-term political liability for a Democrat.  

Well, you can only test the theory by going there.

I don't believe many superdelegates will be swayed by ominous rustling of papers and threats to explore all sorts of unnamed nooks and crannies.  The challenge is to identify a specific issue that will actually cause a problem in the GE, and I personally doubt it can be done.  I expect this whole meta-issue to die out following much saber-rattling by Axelrod and company.

But again, I trust you understood the point of my first paragraph.

But the problem with this is that if the Obama campaign engages in mud-slinging, it's likely to hurt Obama more than Clinton. For instance, if the Obama campaign pushes the Hsu money-bundling story (which is a pretty old and vetted story anyway), it will open itself up to scrutiny about its own problems with bundled donations:

Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the Obama campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are employed by law firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum raised by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms: $2,650,000. (There are also dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall Street working the Armani-suit and red-suspenders cocktail circuits, like Bruce Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs; J. Michael Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; Louis Susman, managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. Each raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.)

Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists.

Source: Bankrolling a Presidential Brand;Why Wall Street Needs Obama: The Obama Bubble Agenda by Pam Martens, Counterpunch Magazine, Feb. 16-29, 2008.

Since it's Obama, not Clinton, who's running as the squeaky-clean candidate that eschews politics as usual, he has more to lose from this "vetting process" than Hillary.

And does anyone really want to see a replay of the S.C. debate, where Obama brought up Hillary's association with Walmart and Hillary responded by bringing up Obama's association with Rezco? I sincerely doubt it.

Hillary is on her second term.  Obama hasn't even finished his first!

Your arrogancy in not being reasonable that campaigns change. Are you saying that Obama has never had to shift gears? I believe I hear them right now.