THE.personal.IS.political

Hillpocrisy Attacks (Tax Edition)

Obama released his taxes months ago, because he believes in government transparency. He has devoted a lot of time in both Illinois and the US Senate to ethics reform, and his financial transparency reflects that.

For months Obama has been requesting that the Clintons follow suit and disclose their financial records, but time and time again they have refused to disclose their financial secrets until they have secured the nomination. That in itself is very striking. Why do you refuse to follow suit and disclose your financial records until after you secure the Democratic nomination? Doesn’t that basically confirm that there is something damaging that you want to keep hidden? Obama began pressing the issue again after it turned out that Hillary dropped $5 million of her own cash into her campaign, in clear violation of the spirit of campaign finance reform according to Bill, just a month before. So now financial disclosure took on a whole new meaning, especially given Bill’s lucrative business deals since leaving office, not to mention special contributions. It would be nice to know who is trying to buy a president. But she has continued to refuse (just like she has refused to release records from her First Lady years, even though those apparently count for all of her executive experience).

Recently Hillary has been talking about the importance of “vetting”, so Obama has raised the question yet again, why can’t we see her tax returns? The Clinton campaign responded by changing the subject, and accusing Obama of being just like Ken Starr (no, you can’t make this kind of crap up):

When Senator Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief* and steward of the economy**, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton. I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.

So, lets recap. Hillary is all about vetting and saying she has nothing to hide, while saying Obama does. Obama has fully disclosed his financial records, without being pressured, months ago. Hillary has continually refused to come clean until after she wins the nomination, while refusing to explain why. We already know Bill has been getting money from all over the place, and then they used that money to fund her then-failing campaign. So the only logical next step would be to request she makes her financial records transparent just like Obama has. But apparently asking for tax records is akin to imitating Ken Starr. Well that makes sense. And this indignation coming from the imitators of Karl Rove, right. So the Obama camp responds:

It is absurd that after weeks of badgering the media to ‘vet’ Senator Obama, the Clinton campaign believes that they should be held to an entirely different standard. We don’t believe that expecting candidates for the presidency to disclose their tax returns somehow constitutes Ken Starr-tactics, but the kind of transparency and accountability that Americans are looking for and that’s been missing in Washington for far too long. And if Senator Clinton doesn’t think that the Republicans will ask these very same questions, then she’s not as ready to go toe-to-toe with John McCain as she claims.

Oh, and the funny thing is, back in 2000, she thought income tax disclosure was VERY important, funny how things change when you are the one with something to hide:

Eight years ago, when Hillary parachuted into NY to become our Senator, she and Howard Wolfson became completely obsessed with opponent Rick Lazio’s tax returns, which he did not release until the end of August..

They talked about them at every opportunity. In early July, Hillary called it “frankly disturbing.” A guy in an Uncle Sam outfit was dispatched to be a nuisance at various Lazio events in August. Howard himself showed up once to try to rattle Lazio by offering him a copy of some Chappaqua property tax receipt after Lazio said he’d release his state returns as soon as Hillary released hers (which didn’t exist, because she had just moved up here).

This produced a lot of coverage. We’ve copied one of the stories after the jump, if you’re interested. But obviously, what brings it to mind is the current discussions of when, if ever, Clinton and Wolfson will release her tax returns as she runs for president this year. Their attitude has been, basically, when they feel like it.

Pressed again today by the Obama campaign, Wolfson said: “Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15.”

Maybe a reporter could, like, actually risk getting Wolfson mad by trying to pin him down on whether “on or around April 15” will definitely be before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, and why a 2001 return from a sitting NY senator can’t be copied by, say, March 15?

Without being too cute here, the question is why Clinton and Wolfson were so obsessed by Lazio’s returns that they were disrupting his events, but they now treat it as an irrelevancy when Hillary’s returns are requested. There’s occasionally the suggestion that different standards apply to a primary. But that makes no sense, especially when you’re already an officeholder. Republicans are entitled to see Hillary’s returns before making their decision, but not Dems?

No, it seems more like a reflection of the way Hillary and her team think. Principled people would reason as follows: “Since we made a huge fuss about Lazio’s returns in 2000, to be consistent we should be very diligent about being just as transparent as Obama and releasing our own returns this year. Otherwise, we would be behaving like hypocrites.”

But that’s not what they’re doing. So the reasoning is apparently this: “We acted like Lazio’s tax returns were a big deal in 2000 because it was in our self-interest to do so, and this year we’ll act like our returns aren’t a big deal because it’s in our self interest to do so. We don’t act on principle, and we don’t care about being consistent, and we don’t care about being hypocritical.”

Yes, you read that right. She called her opponent’s refusal to disclose his tax returns “disturbing”, and she even hired someone to go to his events wearing an Uncle Sam costume to harass him! And all that was just fine and justifiable. Cut to 8 years later when Obama says she should do the same, after she started personal financing, all the sudden that is horrible and he is just like Ken Starr and that is no way to win an election. You can’t get much more blatantly hypocritical—err, hillpocritical, than that. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

I hope this means David Plouffe can start showing up to Hillary events wearing an Uncle Sam costume.

*This refers to her fearmongering ad. In response a reporter asked her top advisors to name a single time she has been tested, to back up her claim to superior commander in chief cred, and none of them had an answer, and indeed there is absolutely nothing to back up her argument. Yet somehow, she keeps making it. Kinda reminds one of Bush and the WMD’s…but at least he finally admitted there were none.

**This refers to her using the debunked “NAFTA-gate” smear against Obama, even though there was no facts backing it up, and even though her own campaign was implicated just the same as Obama’s. Nevertheless, the media’s unwillingness to criticize (point out the obvious to) Hillary allowed her to squeak out a win in Ohio on that lie. And notice, they are still using the attack.