digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com

Clinton not ready to release tax returns

news.yahoo.com — Resisting calls from Barack Obama to release her income tax returns, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would only do so if she secures the Democratic presidential nomination (SHOCKING)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • barkus, on 02/13/2008, -6/+114SENATOR CLINTON: Well, the Obama campaign is telling people to send in that question. (bad joke) I’ve said that I’m going to release my tax returns when I’m the nominee. (Why not now?) My entire ethics statement is on record at the Senate. (Yeah, we'll take your word for it that you're being ethical). I liquidated all of my holdings. I’m holding everything in cash so that there’s not even a question of conflict. (okay then, no problem so let's see that tax return). But transparency is an important issue. (I agree ) And it doesn’t only go to your personal finances but, you know, Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. (Wait I thought the question was about your tax return? Red herring). Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. (That scumbag, what was the question again?) So I just think that we need to get more information out so people are not driven by campaigns with partisan advantage but actually look at both of our records and really, you know, look at the comparisons and contrasts (Spin portion of the answer).
    • cashman57, on 02/13/2008, -19/+8They are both lying lawyers who have trouble keeping records. They can't contrast for the same reason sharks don't eat lawyers, professional courtesy.
      • williamdyer, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4That's the least of it. Look what happened to the last dude that was handling Hillary's tax filings. She has people. Dead people.
    • streak, on 02/13/2008, -26/+4Obama was against the war, but very conveniently did not become senator until nearly 2 years after the war began--he had no vote. Obama submitted legislation that would have had our troops all out of Iraq by next month (right). Failing to gain the support of his colleagues on that, Obama claims he'll withdraw from Iraq within 18 months of taking office--yet another absurd claim. And HRC was working on healthcare reform before Obama even took to smoking cigarettes. Face it: Obama is a Monday morning quarterback, a johnny-come-lately, and no more honest than the rest. Now that he has the momentum, his speeches are even more vapid than before.
      • jayfarer, on 02/13/2008, -1/+20He had no vote, but gave a speech on the day of denouncing the war while HRC was voting on it, at a time when it was risky for Democrats to be against the invasion.
        • streak, on 02/13/2008, -3/+2Oh, he gave a speech. He had no constituents. He had no vote. He had no responsibility except to himself. He based his opinion on the public record, apparently with no thought to the restricted information available only to sworn government officials. Now we know that information was suspect and limited. Too late.
    • mal1964, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

      Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate
      http://digg.com/remote-done/5131798/1
    • NSResponder, on 02/13/2008, -2/+24" Senator Obama has some questions to answer"

      Obama could be the devil himself, and that wouldn't answer the question that was put you YOU, Mrs. Clinton.

      -jcr
    • cwcentral, on 02/13/2008, -3/+1It's somewhat valid comment. Who is putting it on the table and commanding his supporters to make it into an issue (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/obam ... Remember, no one would have mentioned it until Obama did as an issue in the debate.

      In politics, whom ever makes it into an issue for debate can be refuted.
      • mal1964, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3I bet you get up diggs, even with a bad link.
      • CaymanCarpediem, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2I just don't understand the issue here. He introduced legislation to strengthen regulations on the nuclear industry (his supposed crooked friends). Repubs and big business types blocked the measure. He made some changes (relaxed some the the new proposed regulations) to try to win more support. After he relaxed some the the regulations (still much better than previous rules), Clinton signed-on as a co-sponsor for the bill.

        So he attempted to pass legislation to toughen rules on his supposed buddies because he thought it was right. When he couldn't get the needed support, he slightly relaxed those thoughened rules (still better than before) in an attempt to gain more legislative support to get it passed.

        So who looks more in the pockets of big business here? The one who tried to pass very strict rules on them but was forced to relax them in an attempt to get more broad support from others in congress, or the one who wouldn't support it until the rules on big business were relaxed?
    • br0ck, on 02/13/2008, -0/+8FYI, Obama posted a thorough debunking of that New York Times Exelon piece at http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02 ...
      • mal1964, on 02/13/2008, -2/+1"any leak of radioactive materials" "within 24 hours"
        That speaks for itself!
        Your link, http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02 ...
        • ssn697, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3what are you saying, exactly? Originally, the companies were not required to report leaks at all. The new bill made the wording "immediate" to mean within 24 hours. What point are you trying to make?
          • mal1964, on 02/13/2008, -4/+1If you are changing things, Does that bill really change things? Does that make you feel safer? or just sound like change if you don't know the facts?
          • ssn697, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2put down the bottle, or spleef, and try a coherent sentence.
          • mal1964, on 02/13/2008, -4/+1Him explaining the bill, look like change. from any other politician
            http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02 ...

            RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S REVISED BILL DID NOT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF LEAKS

            NYT: "In Place Of Straightforward Reporting Requirements Was New Language Giving The Nuclear Commission Two Years To Come Up With Its Own Regulations. "In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission 'shall consider'--not require--immediate public notification." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

            REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONS THAT THE REVISED BILL, LIKE THE ORIGINAL, REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC LEAKS AND THAT THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MADE THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS.

            National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]

            REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED BILL ACTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT "IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION" SHOULD MEAN 24 HOURS

            Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

            Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]


            RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT THE REVISED BILL COULD ALLOW THE NRC TO DECIDE THAT EXISTING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE ALREADY SUFFICIENT

            NYT Implied That The Revised Bill Left Open Possibility That Revised Bill Allowed NRC To Adopt Task Force Finding That Reporting Requirements Were Already Sufficient. "[The revised bill also directed the NRC to take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks. By then, the task force had already concluded that 'existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

            REALITY: THE REVISED BILL, LIKE ITS ORIGINAL VERSION, MANDATED NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

            Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]


            RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT EXELON AND NUCLEAR ENERGY WERE SATISFIED WITH TH BILL AND NO LONGER OPPOSED IT

            NYT: Exelon And NEI Were Satisfied With The Revised Bill And No Longer Opposed It. "In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute said it no longer opposed it but wanted additional changes." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

            REALITY: BOTH EXELON AND THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE DID NOT SUPPORT THE REVISED BILL AND SAID THEY BELIEVED IT WAS NOT NECESSARY

            CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]

            NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]

            NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]


            RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S STAFF BELIEVED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY EFFORTS WERE SUFFICIENT AND QUOTED A NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVOCATE AS SAYING THEY WERE UNTRUSTWORTHY

            NYT Quoted Nuclear Safety Advocate As Saying That Industry's Voluntary Guidelines Were Not Trustworthy. "Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama's efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that 'it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.' 'But of course because it is all voluntary,' Mr. Lochbaum said, 'who's to say where things will be a few years from now?'" [New York Times, 2/3/08]

            REALITY: NYT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT OBAMA SPECIFICALLY CRITICIZED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES AND VOWED TO PRESS AHEAD WITH THE BILL AFTER THOSE GUIDELINES WERE ANNOUNCED.

            Obama Called The Nuclear Industry's Self-Regulation Proposal Inadequate And "Vowed...To Press Ahead With A Bill To Mandate" Notification Of Unplanned Releases. "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) vowed Tuesday to press ahead with a bill to mandate reporting of unplanned radioactive releases, such as recent tritium leaks in Will County, saying a self-regulation initiative by the nuclear power industry is inadequate. 'While it's encouraging that the nuclear industry recognizes it has a special responsibility to keep communities informed of tritium leaks, the voluntary guidelines recommended by the Nuclear Energy Institute would still allow tritium leaks to occur without the public ever finding out about it,' he said. 'The nuclear industry already has a voluntary policy, and it hasn't worked,' he said. Obama's comments came in a prepared statement after the NEI presented a 'groundwater protection initiative' to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. It aims to improve the handling of inadvertent releases of radioactive material into groundwater at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants...David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project, called the initiative 'a step in the right direction.' He said he was waiting to see more details to refine his impression. But he agreed that Obama's legislation would add teeth to the reporting requirement. 'What's to keep today's good initiative from going by the wayside?' he said. The Nuclear Release Notice Act is backed in the Senate by Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and in the House by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). It would require notification of federal, state and county officials when radioactive releases exceed federal limits or when two occur within a two-year span from the same source, process or equipment. And it would "impose real penalties on plants" that fail to make notification, Obama said." [Chicago Tribune, 3/10/06]

            Obama Said Exelon's Adjusted Notification Policy Was "Not Enough When It Comes To Nuclear Waste." "The releases came from a power generating station run by Exelon Nuclear. Exelon says that no public heath risk exists. But the company has changed its notification policy. The philosophy now, said company spokesman Craig Nesbit, 'is to go beyond legal and regulatory requirements.' But Obama said philosophy is not enough when it comes to nuclear waste. 'Notifying state and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law,' he said." [CQ, 3/3/06]

            RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT OBAMA INTRODUCED THE BILL, AND HILLARY CLINTON SIGNED ON "LATER"

            NYT: Hillary Clinton Signed Onto The Bill "Later." "To flag systematic problems, it would also have required reporting of repeated accidental leaks that fell below those limits. Illinois' senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, a fellow Democrat, was a co-sponsor, and three other senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, later signed
          • ssn697, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4uh, yeah, thanks. I read the article. I still can't figure out what the ***** you are trying to say, and now I just don't care.
    • deanlowe, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2This is just a PR stunt by the Obama campaign. Senators have to release tax info when they get elected and she was re-elected in 2006.
      • terminal157, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Then why doesn't she release it anyway? It's not for the principle of the thing, surely. If she could avoid seeming like she has something to hide without it somehow hurting her, she would do it in a second. So it's probably something that would hurt her.
  • JlmAWP, on 02/13/2008, -2/+92Hillary, does it ever stop? Want some credibility? Just show it. No wonder we have a hard time trusting you.

    "I voted for it, but I hoped it wouldn't pass". Let's get a list going of these moron-esque statements and moments, then put them together in a large list that even the larger media can enjoy and share.
    • yodaj007, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2Put together the list, then make daily calendars out of it! You could have a quote for every day of the year. Just like President Bush. If they did such for Clinton or other previous presidents, I don't know about it. They probably did, I guess.
    • rz8472, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2WHAT. THE. HELL.

      I hope Obama brings this up in the next debate. Hillary probably got that $5 Million from Bill's involvement in Boratgate, hence the lack of disclosure.
  • dunderballer, on 02/13/2008, -4/+32To be fair, Obama shouldn't have accepted, and should return, the $200,000 from Exelon executives being that he has and will continue to play a significant role in energy legislation.
    • lettruthout, on 02/13/2008, -28/+3I agree, plus nuclear energy is a failed energy source that we should not be subsidizing.
      Yet FTA...
      "Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted that Sen. Clinton had co-sponsored the nuclear regulatory legislation she now criticizes."
      • Dhalgren, on 02/13/2008, -1/+31nuclear energy is a failed energy source? WTF are you smoking, coal?
      • DreadPirate, on 02/13/2008, -0/+17The newer generation of nuclear reactors are far more viable, safe, and efficient than those currently in operation. If we were to build more of them, we would have to rely less on power sources such as coal for our increasing power needs. Even former anti-nuclear-power activists have started to change their minds as the new designs are shown to the public.
      • endersadvocate, on 02/13/2008, -2/+13logged in to digg you down
      • ncairns, on 02/13/2008, -2/+15"...plus nuclear energy is a failed energy source..."

        That's not true at all. Nuclear energy is a fantastic energy source. Granted we need to develop a better mechanism to deal with radioactive byproduct than burying it in a mountain, but to do so we need to fund alternative energy research.
        • Dhalgren, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2Waste is an issue, but there are reactor concepts that minimize waste. I live in Phoenix, AZ and about half of our power comes from Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Right now, they are just keeping the waste on site, but that really isn't a permanent solution...
        • yodaj007, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2I think it makes the most sense, from the point of view from President Bush and the other neocons, to send the waste overseas to the countries we've invaded and bury it in the ground.

          I wonder why they haven't thought of that...

          ... or have they?
        • 0xception, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4specially w/ breeder reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) waste can be cut down by quite a bit...

          And the only reason we have radioactive waste has to do w/ the material we are using in the nuclear reactions. there are materials we could use that have perfectly safe by products... (again to fully utilize these and other methods, like ncairns stated, more research is needed)
        • hamdogger, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1"...plus nuclear energy is a failed energy source..."

          i admit i don't know much about the subject, but that sounded like a pretty asinine statement to me. nuclear energy has not failed, it needs development.

          however i do applude a country like austria which denounces its eight neighboring coutries' use of nuclear power plants and powers nearly 50% of its land with water and air.
        • hamdogger, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1*actually, i never applude, i usually just applaud.
        • barkus, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1"...Granted we need to develop a better mechanism to deal with radioactive byproduct than burying it in a mountain..."

          We should bullets out the stockpiles of depleted uranium. What harm could it do?
      • mrASSMAN, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1WOW. Nuclear energy is the future clean and most promising energy source for the entire planet. It's just a shame the US has stopped investing in new plants for decades, we'd be having much cheaper oil now if we did, plus cleaner air.

        (clap clap, point point)
    • Jordan117, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4I don't think candidates should give back campaign contributions unless they've already demonstrated a conflict of interest in that area. For instance, Obama was given a significant amount of money by the telecom industry, but that didn't prevent him from voting against immunity for the telecoms in the Senate today. Hillary, who received even more money from them, was not present for the vote. Which is hilarious considering how she attacked Obama for voting "present" back in the Illinois state senate (which he was asked to do by allies, natch).
    • ZenMojo, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Considering the money wasn't bundled OR from lobbyists, that's kind of a moot point. Obama has almost 150 million dollars. Exelon money is .05% of that money. The money didn't come from executives, it came from general employees.
    • Innocentious, on 02/13/2008, -1/+0Come on, its a contribution, you are not obligated to anyone for anything once you are in office, why don't people understand this. Who cares if the Arian nation gave Obama money for crying out loud, use the money to do good. A contribution is meant to say, "I belive in what you stand for" thats it. Its not to cury favor. Get over it.
    • neio, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Jeebus, is every single ***** politician on the take or WTF is going on?
  • bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -3/+16Why is $200,000 from Exelon employees a big deal. Let's say he's received $10,000 from employees at the startup I work for over the last year. Is he now lobbying for us? Yes, I know there is a difference between $200,000 and $10,000. Still, it's weird Clinton of all people would bring up shady people in real estate (Whitewater) and corporate donations.
    • streak, on 02/13/2008, -3/+4Uh, like, maybe she's trying to illustrate how all candidates have conflicts of interest.
      • Dhalgren, on 02/13/2008, -1/+13Like a husband who was President for 8 years? Really, this just feels like a bad National Treasure type movie. Hillary and Bill stashed something in the white house, and the only way they can get it back is for Hillary to run for President. Add a few explosions, and you got yourself a blockbuster. Someone else can come up with what they stashed...
        • MikeSD34, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Porn. *shudder*
        • SlimFastForYou, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Incriminating evidence. Maybe something about NAFTA's true history or Oklahoma City bombing. Or have control of Presidential records pertaining to 9/11 away from honest eyes. I dunno.
        • senatorpjt, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Hillary's soul in a briefcase. Sorta like Pulp Fiction.
        • Bravesguy18, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1That does sound like a movie. I'll expect the script by Friday.
      • streak, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Obamites really are in fantasy land.
    • Boondoggie, on 02/13/2008, -2/+2Let's not forget fundraising from China while giving them nuclear secrets.
  • digitallysick, on 02/13/2008, -1/+57She must have something to hide....
    • streak, on 02/13/2008, -10/+3just like BHO
      • ncairns, on 02/13/2008, -3/+5Nope. He released his return.
        • streak, on 02/13/2008, -4/+1Oh, I didn't realize Obama listed all his campaign contributions on his tax return. That's news to me. His wife probably makes nowhere near what Bill Clinton makes for a speech either, and the Clintons no doubt file jointly. Can't say I blame the Clintons at all for maintaining more privacy unless/until necessary. It's all a part of actually being accomplished in life, just one of many places Obama hasn't been yet except in his dreams.
    • cwcentral, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4OF COURSE!

      Campaign finances are a huge strategy point. Obama's finances for his campaign are mainly lobbyists (see opensecrets), individuals like us, and other politicians--fairly public. Hillary's is mainly coming out of pocket and through private contributions I'm sure. So if Obama knew how much she had in reserves personally, and if it was small, then he'd spend all his cash now to seal the nomination and crush her. If she has lots of reserves, he'd be a bit more conservative... Knowing easily helps his strategy.
    • Bravesguy18, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Biggest understatement of the year.
  • kemp34, on 02/13/2008, -22/+29Clinton and Obama both found themselves on Judicial Watch's "Top-10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of 2007" (note: the report was non-partisan and also on the list were Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee).
    End the Demopublican monopoly now!
    • ncairns, on 02/13/2008, -4/+13"note: the report was non-partisan and also on the list were Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee"

      ***** it was.

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judicia ...
    • tabledesk, on 02/13/2008, -1/+11Let's be real: the first claim the top ten list makes against Obama, one about a "suspicious real estate deal," was a personal matter where he bought a _piece_ of his new neighbor's property after buying his current home in Chicago. Obama is on record as saying that the whole affair was a "boneheaded" nuisance. The last claim of the blurb says he addressed campaign affairs while in his Senate office, a federal violation. That statute is logical, but hardly something that warrants labeling him as MOST CORRUPT OF THE YEAR.

      http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announ ...
    • yodaj007, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3EVERYTHING is partisan. NOTHING is without bias.
    • ricky125, on 02/13/2008, -1/+8kemp34's, I have to call ***** on you. "...Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law...", why do conservatives feel the need to lie. facts work better when surrounded by truth. calling this conservative, judicial watch ***** non-partisan, is like calling fox news fair and balanced.
      • vw195, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Why do conservatives feel the need to lie?? Is Hillary a conservative ??!? Pot, kettle etc...
        • senatorpjt, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2Hillary doesn't feel the need to lie - it's an autonomic response, like breathing.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1The lie gets around the world before the truth gets its shoes on. Stop digging this douche up.
  • cashman57, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5Maybe she should look for them in the map room?
    • utharvey, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1hahaHhahA - i dont think many will get this joke, tho.
    • sotopheavy, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2please explain joke
  • mit7, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3Brilliant strategy... get nominated out of curiosity for her tax returns...sadly she can't claim presidential privilege like, some people I know
  • shupy, on 02/13/2008, -18/+5Stupid.

    Why should she do anything because someone else demands it? When she is nominated, she'll do it as required.

    You all waste so much time ranting and looking for dirt. How about educating yourself about issues. How many of you know who will be on the ballot for your state and local offices? What are their stands on the issues that are going to impact you?

    • dildoolielly, on 02/13/2008, -1/+9She is a public official. She should release her income statements. Clinton apologists have gone insane!
      They're basically denying that Senator Clinton has any political responsibilities. How pathetic is that?
  • dildoolielly, on 02/13/2008, -1/+26Americans are not ready for Senator Clinton to be president.

    Not ever
    • yodaj007, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Well, maybe after she's old and senile, possibly suffering from Alzheimer's. She'd be a terrible president, but still better than the one she'd make now.
    • senatorpjt, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4If we switch to a Parliamentary system, then we can elect George Clinton.
      • wheeloffish9, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2Only with a Funkadelic Coalition
    • streak, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I guarantee no one in the U.S. is ready for Obama to be President, including the man himself. Obama is more eloquent, but even George W. Bush was more accomplished when he took office.
      • Bravesguy18, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Do you just say things and do you actually think about it?
  • AdamaObama, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3This article proves, once again, that Hillary is out of her goddamned mind!
    • streak, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1And you're inside your goddamned mind.
  • Comatorium, on 02/13/2008, -0/+9I'm still waiting for her to release that snuke.
  • kidjay, on 02/13/2008, -0/+16she's just such a slimy *****.
  • bradcrc, on 02/13/2008, -2/+4 I don't blame her. I wouldn't want everyone trying to find things to complain about with my income either.

    The better news is that if she's saying "only if she's the nominee" she must think there's a pretty good chance she's not going to be..." Which I'm glad to see. :)
  • kavery, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6It's not going to matter anyway. Virginia, DC and soon Maryland voters just joined much of the rest of the country in seeing the light.

    You can't plug the Titanic's hull with chewing gun.
    • streak, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Exactly. Divulging her tax return at this time was not only not required but it would have been foolish and called into question her qualifications for President for having unnecessarily divulged private information.
  • weacman, on 02/13/2008, -5/+0meaningless story

    Better: is she for single payer? is she against the death penalty? is she against free trade? is she against nuclear power? Is she for withdrawing from most of our 725 military bases around the world?
    You know, things that actually matter.
    • OogSeattleite, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3So, somehow you think that the things she's promising you (single payer, death penalty) are more reliable than the actions she's actually done (whitewater)? Actions speak louder than words. Promises are meaningless, especially from someone so dependent on spin.
  • tringtring, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Frankly, I am a bit surprised by her statement...no one is under any illusion is Clinton is a nice lady...and no one in under the illusion either that her husband and partner-in-crime is a great gentleman...the folks who are going to vote for (which I hope will be few) are gonna vote for her inspite of her well-known poor record...so why bother? why not make a virtue out of a bad thing and tell the world, yeah I am corrupt, but look, I am pretty honest and open about it!
  • lanzemurdok, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Oh, that dog o mine!
  • gluon, on 02/13/2008, -5/+5Posts like this are destroying Digg. Digg spreads hate like jelly on toast.
    • OogSeattleite, on 02/13/2008, -2/+7Posts like this inform people who may not yet have read between the lines. For every bad post, there's a good post. It's up to the individual reader to decide where they stand.
  • rficwizard, on 02/13/2008, -4/+3I could never get elected in America, because I would refuse to answer personal questions that I did not consider relevant. I do not want to elect politicians who are willing to tell us anything to get elected. I would be thrilled if a politician had the guts to say, "that's personal, and not relevant to the election." We don't have a right to the details of their personal lives. I don't need to know a candidate's religion or sexual orientation, or the details of their income, or any of the countless other personal details that the press seems to think are relevant. I need to know where they stand on the issues, and whether they have the integrity to stand up for their beliefs when times get tough.
    • Boondoggie, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2>I need to know where they stand on the issues, and whether they have the integrity to stand up for their beliefs when times get tough.

      And just how do you propose to figure out if they have any integrity if the basic questions about how they run their life are off limits? As Ross Perot said, "If your wife can't trust you, how can I?"
      • rficwizard, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I personally wish they had the integrity to say that the details of their personal lives are irrelevant. I wish they had the integrity to insist on full dialog of issues, rather than sound bites. With the drama that currently passes for political debate, there is no hope for intellectual discussion, because anything one says must be simple enough to fit in one sentence. This is not helped by publishing more irrelevant details. It can only be solved by insisting on a discussion of issues.
    • OogSeattleite, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2Don't be naive. Where they stand on the issues are just words. Personal character, track record, the way they've lived their life speaks volumes. How can you discount that? Bush #1 promised "No New Taxes". Did he stick to it? No. Was he held accountable? Partially (no second term). The point: if people had looked more at his business dealings and dynasty building and less at his promises, we may never have had a Bush as president. And wouldn't the world be a better place?
      • rficwizard, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I am not naive enough to believe that the silly details that the press inundates us with are a substitute for a full dialog about the issues. Even the so-called "debates" are just sound bites. If we insist on soap opera, that is what we will get. If we insist on professional, rational discussion of issues, that is what we will get. Which do you think would be better for the country?
    • cordtripper, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4dont you think that elected officials have a right to release their income to make sure they are being honest specially when running for the highest elected office. if a NY senator has 5 million in liquid assets to provide her campaign with a loan and has never held a high paying executive job dont you think there should be some scrutiny as to her finances. or should we just be like well she took a 10 million dollar payoff but thats not relevant to the issues.
    • azbmr, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Your comment reminds me of a movie called The Contender:
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/
  • dizturbd2, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5*Coughs while saying "*****"
  • thirdeyeopen, on 02/13/2008, -7/+5what a dirty *****
  • theNord, on 02/13/2008, -4/+6I used to like Hillary but this race has turned her into a douche.
    • tnoy, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Newsflash: She's always been like this.
  • mbraynard, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6Well I guess this means we will never see them.
  • magicjamers, on 02/13/2008, -4/+1Play swat the flies with a mega fly swatter!
    http://digg.com/playable_web_games/Mega_FLY_Swatte ...
  • svensko, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0Portal reference LOL
  • gannondork, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2There was never any doubt in my mind that she would not release her tax returns as she probably has been bought and paid for so many times that her morals are lower than that of a two dollar whore. Now I can laugh at all the big companies that wasted their money bribing her campaign as she has little chance if any at becoming the next president.
  • finethug, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4If Clinton don't have anything to hide she need to release her tax return...
    what is she afraid of?
  • ilikedemoon, on 02/13/2008, -6/+5Hillarys a ***** bitch.
  • mpphan, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4She has been using the tax return money to pay for all the lotion and makeup on her face.
  • Siouxper, on 02/13/2008, -1/+20Dear Hillary:
    What do you have to hide?
    Sincerely,
    An American Voter
  • papipablo, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Translation: our accountants won't be able to make my tax returns look remotely kosher for another couple months.
  • finethug, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4If Clinton don't have anything to hide she need to release her tax return
    It is just that simple!!
  • NSResponder, on 02/13/2008, -2/+3That's it, she's lost. The democratic party dodged a bullet.

    -jcr
    • petrodollar, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Why haven't numbskull republicans been rehashing those vince foster conspiracy theories lately? I'm honestly curious.
  • insomniac8400, on 02/13/2008, -2/+2She clearly takes this race very seriously.
  • jellygraph, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3Hahaha, seriously, Hillary is all Bush (and, no, I'm not making reference to armpit hair, I'm making reference to the fact that there is very little difference between her and GW ***** Bush).
  • ZenMojo, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2The media, for all of its supposed Hillary hate, has absolutely no interest in pointing out what she refuses to share with us.
  • xlar54, on 02/13/2008, -2/+3These two scum balls make me ill. Hundreds of thousands donated to them by lobbyist groups. And they both want to claim innocence and promise to rid the earth of lobbyist groups. I call ***** on both of them.
  • 11b1p, on 02/13/2008, -3/+1would you want to show your future employer your previous tax forms I wouldn't its nobodies business.
  • MurphyWatson, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3You mean you will tell us after our only other choice is McCain?
  • Shibby03, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1"Many of the states Obama won that night, such as Alaska and North Dakota, would not be competitive for Democrats next November, she said."

    As a Voter In North Dakota I find it hard to believe that it won't be competitive in December. While the state does tend to lean Republican for presidential canidates. the "high density population centers" of Fargo, Grand Forks and Bismark.. have been able to put 2 demcrats in office in the senate along with a Democrat for Governor.
  • liquidmetalband, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Looking more like Hitlery every day
  • digindrivefast, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2"....needs for public disclosure in the other two branches.
    Public financial disclosure by certain high level political appointees, as well as certain senior
    career employees of the executive branch, was first introduced as a statutory requirement in 1978
    with the passage of the Ethics in Government Act, Public Law 95-521. At that time, public financial
    disclosure was intended to --
    --increase public confidence in Government;
    --demonstrate the high level of integrity of the vast majority of Government officials;
    --deter conflicts of interest from arising because official activities would be subject
    to public scrutiny;
    --deter persons whose personal finances would not bear up to public scrutiny from
    entering public service; and
    --better enable the public to judge the performance of public officials in light of the
    official’s outside financial interests.2
    OGE believes that all of these goals remain valid today."
  • ryanhayn, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Well, I was the Clinton family's personal investment advisor for 5 years, and I know for a fact that Hillary has received many substantial tax cuts/exemptions from being in at least three adult films with Monica Lewinsky. She was actually given a $120,000 quarterly stipend just for agreeing to use BIG BLACK DONGS! I think she's worried Obama might find out about the BIG BLACK DONGS.
  • donthateme, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2How about that charity guy whose donation wasnt claimed by Hillary? It was on you tube, then he
    tries her in court but mysteriously finds himself arrested while in South America just before the trial. Of course, since he didnt show up justice wasnt served. What happened there Hillary? We want to know?
  • orangeLemon, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0Is it just me, or does she just not want to answer any questions until she becomes president?
    Sad thing is there is a very good chance she will obtain the democratic nomination, since a lot of uneducated voters (a majority in some states) are unaware of how much she has to hide, and how much she is hiding. But if she does get elected there's always impeachment.
  • JebBlack, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1The Clinton Crime family.
  • restive, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Wow, she's really trying to tank her candidacy. Let's see...Obama releases his records...she won't release hers. Who will people trust more?
  • Bravesguy18, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I found the Clinton's tax return in a lockbox they borrowed from Gore.
  • caponumen, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Goodness, Karma is not going to be kind with the American public......
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.