The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[SWTXBelle]

Not that I'd vote for either of the Dems., but I do think Hillary should release her tax returns AND her papers from her time as first lady. I'm not believing that, oh, she would, she's just been busy.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Not that I'd vote for either of the Dems., but I do think Hillary should release her tax returns AND her papers from her time as first lady. I'm not believing that, oh, she would, she's just been busy.

Yep.

[nittanyalum]

I'm not predicting there won't be ANYthing for critics to feed on once the Clinton tax return is released, but I think Obama's team are mainly reacting to the talking heads last night that said he was getting dinged by the Rezko thing and the staff member/Canadian official dealings and he needed to hammer on the "question" about her releasing her returns to try to deflect some stuff on her. Everything I've read in response to what's been lobbed is that their 2007 return will be released on or around April 15th. Isn't that tax day? Is it unreasonable they don't file/release their return until tax day?

And all of her papers have been given back to the Archives from what I understand and it's up to them to release them.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I'm not predicting there won't be ANYthing for critics to feed on once the Clinton tax return is released, but I think Obama's team are mainly reacting to the talking heads last night that said he was getting dinged by the Rezko thing and the staff member/Canadian official dealings and he needed to hammer on the "question" about her releasing her returns to try to deflect some stuff on her. Everything I've read in response to what's been lobbed is that their 2007 return will be released on or around April 15th. Isn't that tax day? Is it unreasonable they don't file/release their return until tax day?

And all of her papers have been given back to the Archives from what I understand and it's up to them to release them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...linton-hiding/

It doesn't appear to be just the 2007 return. It's all their returns since they left the White House.

I don't really believe that it's the archive that won't release her papers. I think it's terms that she set (or Bill set).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...linton-hiding/

It doesn't appear to be just the 2007 return. It's all their returns since they left the White House.

Ok, I misspoke. According to the article, they plan to release all of those returns on or about April 15th. Real judgement can come after that happens (or if at that point it doesn't happen).

I don't really believe that it's the archive that won't release her papers. I think it's terms that she set (or Bill set).
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

You do realize that article is from October 2007, right?

Let's join each other in 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022902989.html

Great last line:"So calling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it's theater that has no bearing on reality."

[PeppyGPhiB]

I really don't care how rich or poor any of the candidates are, and whether they had to take out student loans to get their law degrees or not. For that matter, I really don't care too much how they do their taxes, either. All of these things are distractions from the important stuff, and I really think the democrats should shut their mouths and stop bringing up stuff that could haunt the party when it gets to the general election. The Democratic party insiders and strategists really need to have more foresight. If they thought to anticipate what media or the Republicans might say/do later, they wouldn't do some of the stuff they do.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ok, I misspoke. According to the article, they plan to release all of those returns on or about April 15th. Real judgement can come after that happens (or if at that point it doesn't happen).

You do realize that article is from October 2007, right?

Let's join each other in 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022902989.html

Great last line:"So calling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it's theater that has no bearing on reality."

The article I posted is less than five months old. I don't think that much has changed.

The law says that the materials should be available to the public five years after an administration ends. The documents aren't. Perhaps they should have started the vetting process within the five year window, so the documents would be available now.

While you are accepting of a Washington Post's editorial page contributor's take, I'm not. I think the Clintons are happy with the hold-up, or they would make more things available themselves, like the tax returns.

And if they hadn't had a reputation for withholding documents that might be damaging, I think I'd be more accepting of the claims in the article. But they were, and I'm not.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I really don't care how rich or poor any of the candidates are, and whether they had to take out student loans to get their law degrees or not. For that matter, I really don't care too much how they do their taxes, either. All of these things are distractions from the important stuff, and I really think the democrats should shut their mouths and stop bringing up stuff that could haunt the party when it gets to the general election. The Democratic party insiders and strategists really need to have more foresight. If they thought to anticipate what media or the Republicans might say/do later, they wouldn't do some of the stuff they do.

I think that the financial stuff is actually relevant since there's a perception in the public mind that some folks have been bought or are beholden or just in bed with some pretty distasteful folks financially. The sources of income are worth knowing in my opinion. But I don't hold it against anybody that they are rich.

I agree with what you are saying about it being smarter not to damage each other, but it also may be the case that airing it now makes it seem like old news by the general election. There's just no way to know.

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

and this is being whispered along

(US News) Senior Democratic strategists, many of whom had previously panned talk of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, are now talking up the idea of a ticket headed by Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

"The campaign has created a lot of hurts, but it might be the only way she can get to the top job," said a party strategist with ties to the Clintons.

"It would give her a chance to deal with all her negatives, but she'd have to prove herself in the job," said the strategist. Another suggested that the twinning is unlikely but might be the best way to rally the party against John McCain, the likely Republican nominee. "If it happened--if, if--they might be able to build on the change message by saying this is the biggest change in politics ever."

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket makes much more sense than an Obama-Clinton one. Hillary brings the experience and better policy ideas, and Barack is on the backburner "inspiring." I'm not a fan of Obama but, as a VP, he'd have a claim to experience and be in a perfect position to ascend to the presidency in 8 years. I would think that an intelligent Democratic party would see and encourage this as a way to control the White House for (potentially) the next 16 years.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

If Hillary, Obama, or McCain wins the presidency, this country deserves exactly what it will get, and it won't be peace, privacy, and prosperity, I can guarantee you that!!

Kap...so this means that you are among those who feel like there are NO good candidates this year and if possible, you would want a do over with new candidates?

[SWTXBelle]

I think Hillary and Obama should just do "rock, paper, scissors" to see who is the top of the ticket. Think of the campaign money it would save!

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Kap...so this means that you are among those who feel like there are NO good candidates this year and if possible, you would want a do over with new candidates?

Other than Ron Paul, that's exactly what I am saying (though I don't know if a do-over with new candidates will exactly calm my fears).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Other than Ron Paul, that's exactly what I am saying (though I don't know if a do-over with new candidates will exactly calm my fears).

You sound like a whole bunch of conservatives I know...

Funny part was I was just discussing this isue in a podcast last night about how this a year in which there is somethign for everyone and on the flip, there are those that are nowhere near happy with the candidates.

For some, a shoe is on the other foot.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

This is probably going to come out wrong, because I'm typing but here goes:

I don't know if either of the Clinton's took out student loans. Maybe neither of them had to because their families were either already wealthy and just paid outright for it for their educations... maybe they started a nestegg when the two were born. (If they didn't get loans?)

Why does it matter if/when they did, and even if they did, why would it be wrong that they are already paid off? They are at least 10ish yrs older than the Obamas, and her husband was the President of the US for awhile and prior to that he was doing all kinds of snazzy jobs where I'm sure they would have used funds to pay off the loans if they did have them, they both had books, and I'm sure they get paid to give speeches and all, they would have to pay back their loans just like everyone else.

I took out student loans... a bunch... and I've been out of school for almost 3ish years now... guess what? I'm not a millionaire, I don't make an insane amount of money... but I've managed to pay off more than half of them already. I'm not even 27 yet. It can be done. Does that make me some super rich elitist person? No. I just lived on a tight budget and put whatever free money I could to pay off the bank.

I just don't get this whole "well I just paid off my college loans so see? I'm just like you! You should vote for me!!!!" stuff.

What does Bill Clinton's Presidential Library have to do with any of this? Him & Hill are two completely seperate different people.

Sorry but I'm not buying the whole "YEEEESSSS WEEEEE CAAAAAAN!!!" crap.

I don't know where the hell you went with this. I only pointed out that the "just paid off their student loans" appeals to many people as they too have struggled with debt. It doesn't make the Clintons "bad," it has nothing to do with them.

Others have explained why the Clinton tax returns are important and yes they are something that Obama is focusing on in response to Hillary's negative campaigning. But short answer: it looks SHADY that you can't release your tax returns until the campaign is almost over, the day before the PA primary in fact, when we're not talking about current returns but also past ones.

[GeekyPenguin]

To me, it's appealing that the Obamas understand firsthand how much student loans suck. Between my boyfriend and I, we'll have six figures - we both have college and law school loans. The real kicker is that we both went to law school for free and we still have over $100,000 in debt. I feel like Obama is going to understand this a little more than Bill and Hillary, who never really seemed to have issues paying off any loans they had from law school.