From the ArcaMax Publishing, Politics Newsletter:
http://www.arcamax.com/news/politics/s-320515-477440
It's hard out there for a surrogate. Especially for a Clinton
surrogate being asked why Hillary Clinton has not released the last
eight years of her tax returns. As congresswoman and Clinton surrogate
Nita Lowey made clear on "Meet The Press" last weekend, the reason
it's so hard to give a good answer to "Why hasn't Clinton released her
returns?" is because there is no good answer.
Lowey gave it a shot, but it wasn't pretty -- or particularly
intelligible. When Tim Russert asked about the returns, she opened
with the main talking point the Clinton campaign has been using for
weeks: "It's my understanding that there are 20 years of tax returns
in the public view from both Bill and Hillary Clinton."
And she's exactly right. There are 20 years worth of returns that have
been released. What's missing are the last eight years -- years in
which Bill Clinton has been making money hand over fist, and involving
himself in all kinds of interesting financial deals (see Ron Burkle,
Yucaipa, and the ruler of Dubai).
Lowey then quickly pivoted away from tax returns (clearly the 20-year
line, as lame as it is, was the only arrow in her quiver) to make
points about earmarks and the terrific work Bill Clinton's foundation
has done on HIV/AIDS in Africa -- neither of which Russert had asked
her about or have anything to do with tax returns.
Now, Nita Lowey is no slouch. She's smart and accomplished. But when
you are sent into battle armed with little more than nonsensical
blather, you are not going to end up looking very good. And Lowey
didn't. And she seemed to know it -- her eyes belied a classic case of
surrogatancholy.
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly paired herself with John McCain as of
late, making the case that they are candidates with a "lifetime of
experience," so it seems appropriate that her refusal to release her
tax returns is another thing they have in common.
While Clinton has been tossing verbal bouquets to McCain and attacking
Obama for not being "vetted," Obama has been living up to his promises
about making government more transparent. Not only did he release his
latest tax returns in April 2007 , he also just made public his list
of earmarks, and sat down at the end of last week with the Chicago
Tribune and Sun-Times to answer all their questions about Tony Rezko.
The conclusion of the Tribune?
"When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination
Jan. 27 , we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of
scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal
decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish
him. Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes
that verdict. . . . Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony
Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other
presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged."
It's a standard not being met by either McCain or Clinton.
As Sheila Krumholz of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics
said of Clinton's not releasing her tax returns: "What is the holdup?
She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so
cumbersome to just release them."
Or as John Aravosis summed it up: "People with nothing to hide don't
usually hide."
The main excuse we've gotten so far is that Hillary Clinton just has
too much on her plate. "I'm a little busy right now," she said during
the Ohio debate. "I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly
work toward releasing, and we will get that done and in the public
domain."
That was three weeks ago. Two weeks ago, Howard Wolfson promised that
the returns would be released "on or around April 15 ." But weren't
the returns completed and filed a long time ago? Doesn't Clinton's
accountant have time to print them out and make some copies. (Note to
Clinton's accountant: Many Kinko's are open 24 hours.)
As Andrew Sullivan notes, "Did they file an extension for the past few
years? If they didn't, the forms are available now."
And it's not as if the Clintons have attempted to make a reasoned
argument as to why the returns shouldn't be released -- something
about there being too much scrutiny of public officials. Instead,
they've gone with Classic Clintonism: Envelope themselves in lofty,
good-guy rhetoric while utterly failing to follow through. And then
smearing their opponents, such as their absurd attack on Obama's
campaign for "imitating Ken Starr."
The Clintons have obviously done very well during the Bush years --
well enough that she was able to loan her campaign $5 million at a
critical moment. Is it really Ken Starr-like to want to know where
that money came from? Or to ask for a list of the donors who have
contributed $500 million to her husband's library? Or to ask what
her policy as president would be regarding the transparency of huge
donations from foreign interests to her husband's charitable fund?
(See the $31.3 million donation and additional $100 million pledge
to Bill Clinton's foundation after he helped a Canadian mining mogul
secure a massive uranium deal with Kazakhstan.)
As a
In short, it's well past time for Hillary Clinton to be as "vetted" as
she claims to already be -- and to have this vetting done now by
Democratic voters rather than later by GOP hit squads. She needs to
live up to the standard she laid out for Rick Lazio, the opponent in
her 2000 Senate race. At that time, she said it was "frankly
disturbing" that Lazio was holding back on releasing his tax returns.
What a difference eight years -- and tens of millions of dollars (some
of them from questionable deals) -- can make.
========
Arianna Huffington's e-mail address is arianna@huffingtonpost.com.