Of course there are new rules for the Clintons. Haven't there always been?

Dear Mr. Kaus, Please advise where your assets are? In blind trusts? In dime bags? Where?

Holy cow. How about "none of your %$#$% business Mickey"? What a sleazy panty-sniffer (As if we didn't know that, I guess). But it sure does sound like Clinton rules to me.

Look, I agree that it's appropriate to request a Presidential candidate's official government tax forms, though even that feels a tad voyeuristic to me. But we certainly don't have a right to know how they've *spent* every penny.

Background: I was a Bill fan in the 90s, I'm a firm Obama supporter, but I was never enthused ab out a Hillary run. I can think of plenty of things to criticize the Clintons on, and plenty of reasons to favor Obama, but Kaus is totally over the line here...

yes.

The answer is that Kaus is an idiot.

Actually, Kevin, that should be "Republican blogger Mickey Kaus" on first reference.

What do you mean "making up" new rules just for the Clintons? The Clinton rule has been in effect for a long, long time. (See also: Calvinball)

-mac

So what. At least the Dems care somewhat about us poor people- we would lilke health care so we work our crappy jobs and maybe we, too can live in a house someday.

Mickey should shut the fuck up and go back to blowing goats.

Kevin, since you seem to know Mickey Kaus, ask him to ask the same questions about John McCain, who is much wealthier than the Clintons and who has not released his tax returns.

I don't know, but it seems to me Hillary Clinton is lately looking for the Democratic Party to make up special rules just for her.

I don't get it. Have we ever asked this about any previous presidential candidate? Reagan? Bush Sr.? Bush Jr.? Kerry?

Hillary Clinton made this an issue and brought this attention on herself and her husband by withholding the release of her tax returns for so long. The excuse-making for the delay seemed like typical, disingenuous political stalling to ensure the release of the information would be as late as possible and therefore have as little impact as possible on the primary race. Mission accomplished. (plus the 2007 return won't be released for several months).

Also, why exactly are the Clintons victims simply because of speculation about something the Clintons have deliberately kept from the public for so long?

For comparison, Bill Clinton been unwilling to release the names of financial donors to his presidential library. Following Kevin's logic, would it be unfair to speculate whether any of the donors had received favors from president Bill Clinton? If so, that means Bill Bradley is part of the vast Right Wing conspiracy against the unfairly persecuted Clintons. (After all, Scaife and Hillary seem to have reconciled)

Or are we just making up special rules for the Clintons?

Why not, the Clintons like to make and break the rules as they see fit. Hillary herself helped write the DNC rules not to count the Michigan and Florida primaries, then ran and campaigned there. Then she has the audacity (not to mention contempt for the intelligence of the average voter) to blame Obama for not consenting to her breaking the rules she helped write.

In the last few days Hillary has been asking PLEDGED delegates (not just superdelegates) to switch to her side.

The Clintons and their supporters should be the last people to whine about "the rules", especially when it's patently obvious that the "rules" that are being "violated" here are simply the manufactured outrage of Clinton supporters who believe that anything short of blind obedience to the Clintons makes you some kind of "Judas" (you know, like Richardson).

Hillary Clinton made this an issue and brought this attention on herself and her husband by withholding the release of her tax returns for so long.

OK, so when does McCain get asked these sorts of questions, given that he withheld the release of his tax returns even longer?

Kaus is even dimmer than the goats he blows.

how much did mccain make?

I have been saying this for years: I don't understand why anyone reads Mickey Kaus. I just don't. Kevin quotes him from time to time, and JMM has him blogrolled, but why? When has Mickey Kaus ever contributed to your understanding of an issue? When has he even been interesting? I keep thinking there must have been some time decades ago when he was worth reading, but he may as well be a wingnut for all the insight he brings. He is frankly useless, neither entertaining nor informative. It's not worth a post to tell us Kaus wrote something useless and stupid again, I already assume he's doing that.

OK, so when does McCain get asked these sorts of questions, given that he withheld the release of his tax returns even longer?

The day after Hillary ends her destructive and distracting vanity tour. McCain has no competition at the moment. The press long ago stopped doing their job and in any event the press corps loves McCain because he's so accessible and feeds them barbecue.

Here's a New York Times article ("After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton") on how Bill Clinton helped a business partner with little experience in the field secure a lucrative uranium deposit in Kazakhstan. It appears that Clinton's charitable organization received a secret $31 million donation (later revealed) as part of a $100 million pledge.

It's a long, boring, complicated story about power and influence pedaling that highlights some questionable connections Bill Clinton has to Kazakhstan’s (now) president Nazarbayev, both before and after his fraudulent election.

This just illustrates an example of how it can be harder to talk about stories like this when one part of the story (the deal and donation to the charitable trust) are separated several months in time from the release of personal financial records.

I have been saying this for years: I don't understand why anyone reads Mickey Kaus.

Back before the internet era he wrote for The New Republic and apparently got to know people like JMM and Andrew Sullivan. TNR at that time was known for its often contrarian writing, and Kaus got stuck in the mindless contrarian mode to the point that it's all he knows how to do. That is, between bouts of goat blowing.

One other point about Kaus is that back in the dark days when the web was young and the MSM was obsessed with the Tubesteak Messiah, Kaus was one of a very small number of theoretically non-wingnut voices writing, so he managed to parlay his protoblog into a paying gig early on. These day, there are plenty of people writing from our side of the street, so I take your point - I dunno why anybody reads him either.

jimBOB : Kaus is even dimmer than the goats he blows.

Sorry, I forgot to add a LOL. That's the funniest thing I've heard all weekend. =)

hey now, goats are fairly smart, compared to, say, sheep, and they are actually useful. I think we should stop insulting them by insinuating that they would consort with kaus ;-).

The Clintons have always been held to a different standard. For God's sake, thanks to Paula Jones, we even were made privvy to the curvature of Bill's penis!

By comparison, Dubya was never even asked how many times he has been arrested (the answer is 4-5 times). Isn't THAT a fair question for a presidential candidate?!?

I vote for random new rules only for Clintons.

Though, Kerry was very forthcoming.

Shoes. I want to know about shoes and haircuts.

As far as income goes GHW Bush would be a pretty interesting subject, as will W in a few years. In a fair world someone would keep tabs on former legislative and executive branch politicians.

Kevin, where have you BEEN for the last 16 years? OF COURSE there are special rules for the Clintons.

And remember, no question of them is EVER ANSWERED SUFFICIENTLY. Every answer to every question only generates MORE QUESTIONS. We must always dig more and more and more and ever deeper into their personal lives.

Those are the Clinton Rules.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Yes, of course there are special rules for the Clintons, even amongst the Dems---we can see it in the egregious smelling of salts that Obama supporters and the media have engaged in throughout the primary, every time Clinton acts like a candidate and not a tea party guest.

More to the point is: how can a country that outright worships the rich (because this is, ya know, America, and it could happen to any of us!) get its panties in such a bunch over...RICH PEOPLE!!

Yes, of course there are special rules for the Clintons, even amongst the Dems---we can see it in the egregious smelling of salts that Obama supporters and the media have engaged in throughout the primary, every time Clinton acts like a candidate and not a tea party guest.

Posted by: Riggsveda on April 6, 2008 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINK

Agreed. For a good example, of this, see, Augustus' sexist comment above, calling her attempt to win a close contested election as a "vanity tour." "LOL" indeed.

My reaction to the articles about the Clinton's wealth was twofold --- First, wow that's a lot. Second, good for them, they gave a lot to charity. Probably more than most (including me) would have.

My reaction to Mickey's paragraph above was also twofold: One, what a douche. Two, the clintons "ONLY" gave $44 million of their $109 million to charity and taxes? ONLY? Exactly how much does Mickey Kaus think the Clinton's should have given? 40 percent seems like a lot to me. Am I off base?

I detest Kaus as much as any commenter but I believe there is a decent reason for holding the Clintons to an exceptional standard in regards to the sources of their income.

As a duo that approached a co-presidency, certainly a presidency and a First Lady with exceptional status, the Clintons were, naturally and legitimately, given access to the most powerful, both in the US, but perhaps more importantly, the international arena, developing contacts and relationships, which I would argue are far above the rest of any presidential contender. Additionally, Mr. Clinton has a track record of procuring both campaign and presidential library monies from questionable sources. But most importantly, it was an open secret of their desire to return to the White House.

So the question stands: what deals have they made with the rich and powerful, especially foreign governments and concerns?

The same sort of questions should have been asked more forcefully and frequently of W and Cheney as neither was no ordinary candidate but a member in good standing of the American oligarchy. Such questions would be due to Jeb should he run or to Michelle Obama should she run in 2016.

Should tougher questions and higher standards be applied to the most powerful....treating the Clintons or the Bushes or their ilk as one would treat a Huckabee or a Kucinich is plainly naive.

And just because an asshole like Kaus happened to stumble near that advice doesn't make it wrong.

I seem to remember attempts to make something out Mrs. Kerry's monies (but not enough effort to applaud the how much of it was given away) despite the fact that it came primarily to her previous REPUBLICAN husband! But, of course, there are SPECIAL RULES for the Clintons...and, sadly, it's all about HATE (I prefer to think it's envy that two people are that bright and articulate and have devoted so much of their lives in public service...now BY GOD let's crucify them for having some financial reward after decades...we ALL know that Repugs don't keep they money they give it to POOR PEOPLE...HA!

How often do you hear anyone in the media discuss the fact that Papa Bush has made money in his post-presidency by giving speeches for the Reverend Moon? His willingness to do so in South America gave legitimacy to the Moonies in that area of the world. This gained favor Moon who is the owner of the Washington Times which then supported Junior for president. Imagine if either Clinton did something like that.
Yes there are different rules for the Clintons.

Q: What more is there to know? Or are we just making up special rules for the Clintons?

A: Mickey Kaus is an idiot.

What we need to know now is HOW MUCH DO THE CLINTONS PAY FOR HAIRCUTS!?!?!

Of course, we don't need to know what ray-gun and chimpy's dad, and dur chimpfurer pay to get their locks tressed and "prettied up"...

How much money you make, how you spend it, how big your house is, how many you have, or how much you spend for a haircut only count if you are a Democrat. Republicans can make as much as they want, any way they want, and spend it any way they want because their party philosophy boils down to "I'm gettin' all I can, any way I can, and spending it any way I want. If you think there's something wrong with that, you're a Commie pinko sucker dammit."

Essentially, the modern GOP has successfully legitimized perpetual, unchecked, greedy adolescence. But maybe, just maybe, people are getting a little tired of the spoiled teenagers. Not to mention the fact that wrinkly 70 year olds who still think and act like teenagers are just grotesque.

"And assuming it's invested, what are they going to do with it later?"

And assuming they're going to use their investment returns to buy consumer goods, what do they plan on doing with these consumer goods?

Gotta agree here. Odds are it's in blind trusts, just like, iirc, the 99 other millionaires in the Senate.

I certainly don't remember this much talk about Chimpy's money, and he'd actually been investigated for his sleazy maneuverings on stock sales.

And when will the press start asking for the McCain returns?

My favorite story so far was on NPR Friday afternoon, when the reporter suggested that zillionaire that she is, Clinton still has the support of the working class (fair enough), while implying that the Obamas ----- getting by on less that a million a year ----- are much more in touch with the working class.

Really?

Why not acknowledge reality: presidential candidates in the past 30 years from both parties have very little understanding of what it is to live paycheck to paycheck in America.

At long last Kaus must disclose what he does with the goats after he has had his way with them. None of them have come forth, which brings forth many questions that must be answered:

Were they *willing* goats?

Were any of the goats under age?

Did Kaus “dispose� of his victims?

Does Kaus have any links to the sleazy underside of the goat sandwich industry?

How did Kaus pay for the goats?

If Kaus did not pay for the goats, what favors did he grant for their use?

Why has there been no investigation of Kaus’s goat abuse?

Maybe I'm misinformed, but I thought it was normal to inquire about wealthy candidates investments. At least I remember the wingnuts trying to make John Edwards investments an issue back in 2004 -and I figured these sorts of questions were normal. Also it has been noted that the Obamas have not accumulated much wealth, the insinuation being that they weren't smart enough to get ahead.

So what are the statistics regarding presidential candidates investments?

Actually bigTom there was no such insinuation about the Obama's mental acumen. What has been stated is that the Obamas are still young, so their fortunes are still rising. They do pretty well as Obama himself readily states.

Cool speech. Sound Familiar Obama supporters?

...we must put politics behind us and work together to make the promise of America available for every one of our citizens.
I am optimistic that we can change the tone in Washington, D.C. I believe things happen for a reason, and I hope to move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of the recent past.
Our nation must rise above a house divided. Americans share hopes and goals and values far more important than any political disagreements.
Republicans want the best for our nation, and so do Democrats. Our votes may differ, but not our hopes.
I know America wants reconciliation and unity. I know Americans want progress. And we must seize this moment and deliver.
Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens.
Together, we will work to make all our public schools excellent, teaching every student of every background and every accent.
Together we will save Social Security and renew its promise of a secure retirement for generations to come.
Together we will address some of society's deepest problems one person at a time, by encouraging and empowering the good hearts and good works of the American people.
These priorities are not merely Republican concerns or Democratic concerns; they are American responsibilities.
George Bush, Dec. 13, 2000 - acceptance speech

The last President to understand what it was like to get by paycheck to paycheck was HST.

As for Kevin's question, I assume it was rhetorical.

"Fair enough."

What an ego. Noble Kause as judge on what is fair. It's too bad that saying none of your business sounds so evasive and secretive, but it also provides endless woolgathering fodder for everyone who has column inches to fill and red meat to feed their readers.
Actually most of the money paid for Viagra and all the abortions that the Viagra caused. There ya go Mickey, run with it.

i think u idiots are easily diverted just like the rest of america. why are we going after the clintons when chenney has profited like no other has profited of a war? im discusted with americans cakling like geese over studid shit.
u should be concerned with things like : war pfrofiteering, criminals in office getting indicted and still collecting pensions,govt getting paid when all fed funds should go to the illeagal war, war crimes against a pres of the usa, and congress givin them selves a raise to cover their yearly gas expenses while the rest of americans have to choose food or gas for the week.u people probably dont care. u just want to come on this site and gossip. instead of standing up and sayin " we arn't gonna take it anymore".
its my opinion that this country is due for some real hard times , and its are govt that has put us in a very bad position in the eyes of the whole world. on top of that the govt has destroyed our constitution (patriot act- habeous corpus) im sure our forfathers would be very dissapointed in the populous of the country, and so am i.

OK, fair is fair. Clinton -his-went to Cloud 9, income tax evasion services, her's went to youth creams, effective speaking classes at Dale Carnegie on line.

McCain--high quality Vodka, antique guillotine devices, the misses, beer, pills, on line classes to get rid of her vacant stare.

Obama-- bowling lessons, the misses--on line charm school classes

He's a Warlock. She's a Witch. BURN THEM! BURN THEM!

Every culture needs a scapegoat. Ours is the Clinton family.

I swear to God, I saw a book called "Men who Stare at Goats" and thought it was Kaus's autobiography.

And Kevin, you and Sully are his only readers.

Kevin, have you ever taken a chill moment and allowed yourself to "see" M. Kause? I watched the guy on a bloggingheads clip and saw a lot of affected intellectualism and a pretty base style. He's a bit like Coulter, a fake intellectual with all his parts shined up but none in working order. The method he uses here is typical of the journalistic lightweight. A cheap attempt to assert an idea or establish conventional wisdom my asking a question. And, it's none of his or yours or my business what these folks do with their money. I know he is a colleague...but he really is a waste of your time.
PS: this money thing! As soon as the Clinton's put their personal info out there it is subjected to huge manipulation. But they were criticized for delay. I spent some time in Lefty blog comments and was horrified at the Troll / / GOP'er infiltration, and dumb assed Dem infiltration of those boards with gross distortion of the report. Go have a look at RAW for example. I can see McCain taking this thing..I really can.

If Obama does it, it's Presidential. If Hillary does it, it's vanity. There is no point in the left-leaning sites I used to read, because they are just as skewed and hateful as the right-wing sites. Thanks loads, you guys, for taking away the only voice of dissent and replacing it with shrill sniping at another Democrat. Good luck with your campaign; I'm sure you don't need the Clinton supporters or the moderates (people who don't like Dem-on-Dem violence), since you clearly have no sensitivity to or room for their views.

It's simple: Mickey Kaus is a piece of shit.

If he ever grows up, he might become a shit.

A few reasons: The pardons, Hillary is the wife of an ex-president, the cattle futures, whitewater, Burkle.

These are unique factors.

Kaus is a Democrat, by the way. Interesting to see the ad hominem attacks and no discussion of the facts.

Now ait a minute:

1. Kaus blows goats, we hear.
2. The Clintons are scapegoats.

What kind of rumors are people trying to start?

Dear Mr. Kaus, Please advise where your assets are?

Goats gotta eat.

Glenn Greenwald nails it:

Barack Obama is an exotic elitist freak because he went to Harvard Law School and made $1 million from his book.

Hillary Clinton can’t possibly have any connection to the Regular Folk because her husband, who grew up dirt poor, became quite wealthy after being President.

John Kerry was completely removed from the concerns of the Regular People because his second wife was rich.

By contrast, George W. Bush was a down-home, salt-of-the-earth Man of the People despite being the grandson of a U.S. Senator, the son of a President (who greatly magnified his riches in his post-presidency), and the by-product of an extremely wealthy, coddled life.

Ronald Reagan was pure Americana despite spending most of his adult life as a very wealthy Hollywood actor (and converting his post-presidency into far greater riches still).

And John McCain is as Regular a Guy as it gets, even though he dumped his first wife (the mother of his three children) after she was disfigured and disabled by a near-fatal car accident so that he could marry his much younger, much prettier, and extremely wealthy heiress-mistress, whose family riches then launched his political career and sustained a life of luxury for almost three decades (that’s how McCain’s rustic “Sedona cabin� — i.e., his sprawling compound — came to be).

I happened to catch Skippy Isakoff on MSNBC this morning talking about this topic. He said the release of her tax returns would just generate more questions. Well, of course they will, Skippy - especially with tools like yourself occupying most of the real estate on the speed dials of the GOP's opposition reseachers. I'm sure they'll have some unsourced crap ready to whisper in your ear any second now, so you can turn it in to a juicy column or sound bite and pump it into the "mainstream" discourse. Then you'll be able to scuttle away from it like some sort of especially ugly crab..."Well, Tim, I don't think there's a lot to it, but we have to discuss it because it's out there...."

*

Why hasnt McCain released his medical records yet?

Where is McCains money?

This kind of stuff makes me want to vote for Mrs. Clinton. The only reason I will not vote for Mrs. Clinton, is that Bill Clinton has already been the president for 8 years. We have had 20 continuous years of either a Clinton or a Bush. It's time to give someone else a chance.

Too bad for Hillary. But then, there a millions of Americans without even one president in the family. So there it is.

Umm - well it is an issue because Clinton was able to keep her campaign afloat with a $5 million loan - I mean unless the Clintons had not seriously cashed in they wouldn't have been in a position to pull that kind of stunt. Is this not an issue? It means that Bill Clinton's cozying up to Central Asian dictators has had a substantive impact on the primary campaign - how is this not an issue? Isn't this exactly the kind of sleaze we are supposed to be against?

I think actually that this gets at the heart of why it's important that Obama is running now - he is not yet an ultrarich, out of touch politician (which is a natural progression for most politicians - I don't blame the Clintons for this, they're only human after all), and he even openly recognises that as he stays in government he could morph into one of those (like the Clintons have - fresh from Arkansas they used to understand, now they've moved in elite rich circles long enough to have lost touch).

If anyone asks a wealthy Republican where their money went then the person asking is always accused of incitng "class warfare".

If anyone asks a wealthy Republican where their money went then the person asking is always accused of incitng "class warfare".

Obama made $900,000 dollars last year. That is super rich compared to the vast majority of Americans.

@Pat, I'm with you. I didn't read any further after I saw that Kaus was criticizing the Clintons because they "only gave about $44 million to the IRS and to charities."

Kaus becomes more irrelevant with each passing year. Why does anyone link to his blog anymore?

For stupidest comment on this thread, the hands down winner is reader. And a good example of the "heads you win, tails I lose" school of thought that makes it impossible to have any kind of conversation with a certain segement of Obama supporters. Obama wants credit for having more legislative experience than Clinton. And reader also wants him to have credit for, unlike Clinton, not being in office so long that he's a rich out of touch politician. Christ. Go hand out flowers and Obama tracts at the bus station, will ya?

To put a finer point on what BernieO posted upthread, the Bush family fortune orignally came from war-profiteering (Samuel Bush made millions in WWI selling rifles to the Army while Prescott Bush helped build the Nazi war machine). How much blog space has Kaus devoted to digging into the Bush family ill-gotten wealth? Didn't think so.....

Thersites,

Thanks for noticing what I was doing.

I think it's a genuine legit question to ask of any and all presidential candidates.

I'd also like to know where famous, wealthy columnists invest their money. When you see prominent columnists push green stuff, will that benefit them personally? And so on.

It's not fair to single the Clinton's out for this scrutiny but I totally believe it's legit for all powerbrokers, from former first ladies to NYTimes op-ed writers.

At what point does it no longer become necessary to pay attention to known idiots like Kaus? Do you feel some obligation to comment on his nonsense?

W was GIVEN Rainwater's share of the profits in the baseball deal. Rainwater later got no-bid contracts from the state of Texas. Sure sounds like W was bribed pre-office holding to me.

The day after his own Justice Department closed the case on W's insider trading case, W turned over a memo that showed that he had, in fact, been warned about insider trading on the deal.

Have I missed Kaus's outrage on either issue?

Tell Kaus to go frell himself.

Pat: Agreed. For a good example, of this, see, Augustus' sexist comment above, calling her attempt to win a close contested election as a "vanity tour." "LOL" indeed.

You're calling me sexist based on your implied argument that women cannot be guilty of vanity (only men)? Yes, and I suppose that pointing out that Hillary's electoral math doesn't add up is also sexist because of the stereotype that women can't do math? Even if the person pointing it out is a woman who worked for the Clinton administration, supports Hillary's candidacy, and has written a book arguing that the world would be better off if women were in charge? I guess Didi Meyers must also be a Clinton-hating sexist.

But thank you for bringing up another Clinton rule: all criticism of the Clintons is unfair persecution and always indicative of some greater flaw in the person making the criticism.

Pat: My reaction to the articles about the Clinton's wealth was twofold --- First, wow that's a lot. Second, good for them, they gave a lot to charity.

I generally agree - it's nice to see people becoming rich following a lifetime of public service. There are far to many people who have become disgustingly wealthy doing little or no good for the country and its citizens (or worse, obvious harm, like Cheney and so many of the Bush cronies).

Bill Clinton's charitable work is also exceptionally commendable.

But if it's fair game (and it is) to question Obama on how and why he benefited (in the tens of thousands of dollars) from his dealing with Rezko, then certainly it should be fair game to ask how and why Bill Clinton received $15 million from Burkle or $100 million in pledged contributions for his charity from Giustra, right? But the implication of Kevin's post is rather the opposite, as are many of the comments.

The tragedy of this campaign for Bill and Hillary and the Democratic party itself is that the Clinton campaign didn't stay positive. Hillary is at her best, and very impressive by any rational measure, when she is talking about policy and issues that matter in the lives of ordinary Americans, whether it is health care, jobs and the economy, or even or standing in the world. I personally think she's better than Obama when talking about all but the last topic (and only down by a little).

When Hillary started to lose a few races to Obama, however, the campaign switched into negative "kitchen sink" mode: attack and criticize Obama, especially on non-issues to take him off message (marginalize him as the "black" candidate; stigmatize his supporters as fad or cult followers; dismiss the states Obama won as "insignificant" or caucuses as "undemocratic"; dismiss his campaign speeches as all style no substance; accuse him of plagiarism; accuse his pastor of hate speech, and by implication Obama himself; comparing him to Karl Rove and Ken Starr; accuse Obama of trying to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan because he doesn't support Hillary's efforts to break the rules she helped write to not count their primaries, and so on).

And of course we can't even count all of the narrow-casted whisper campaigns against Obama as being a Muslim, having attended a terrorist-training madrassa as a child, is unwilling to say the pledge of allegiance, and so on because these were conducted by unknown surrogates. But yes, let's pretend we have no idea who is behind it, despite there being one clear beneficiary, because we can't officially rule out, say, Mike Gravel.

I think the Clintons would have been better served to have stayed positive and continued to run on Bill Clinton's impressive record. That might yet have been the winning strategy, but I suspect they decided not to try and squeak by on a positive campaign but to go for a knock-out blow.

Losing a positive campaign would likely have positioned Hillary as the de facto leader of the senate (heaven knows Reid isn't a true leader). (Her unwillingness to make a graceful exit and assume an even more commanding leadership role in the senate raises the question whether her time in the senate was indeed merely a vehicle for getting back into the White House, rather than a sincere desire to help represent the people of New York).

Waging this dirty campaign, however, has consumed a considerable amount of goodwill that both Bill and Hillary Clinton enjoyed, as evidenced by her approval rating hitting new lows. They only have themselves (and Mark Penn) to blame - it was their choice to go negative and try to win at any cost. The blowback was entirely predictable - they just hoped they would have emerged on top.

This is far more attention than the two-legged bladder polyp that is Mickey Kaus deserves.

Isn't Kaus an infamous idiot? On a par with that jackass who did, probably still does, the mock-impartial democrat-attacking blog at--where--MSNBC? CNN? (Tell me what I'm thinking of. It was infamous, like the crap Broder spews.)

Slate-style, Broder-style, New Republic-style smugness and stupidity, always attacking democrats, never republicans.

After charities, houses, taxes, gifts to Chelsea, lawyers, gifts or loans to your campaign, and some generic investments, how much do you think is left? Anything?

You end up with 10-20 million in real estate? 10-40 million in stocks and bonds? What more do you really need to know? Do you think they've secretly started up factories in China that run on slave labor?

George W. Bush's oil and baseball investments--his entire fortune is basically gifts and kick-backs from his political supporters--have always been of a foul nature on their face. WHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT THAT???

You have finally grasped it, the rules are different for the Clinton's. No media concerns in 8 years of a war presidency about Cheney and his Halliburton stock options, or Bush family members on the board of a large military contractor. But much concern about Bill Clinton making speeches all around the world for money. I hope Obama learns a lesson from this. The media will never credit a Democrat with answering a question. Inevitably, they will ask another question and for greater detail just to keep the nonsense going.

Hey Mickey you're so fine,
You're so fine you suck on my
Big dicky,
Hey Mickey...

Waging this dirty campaign...

How fucking tripe, Augie. Why don't you give up the long Hillary is the wicked witch of the west posts? You obviously don't know what a "dirty campaign" is. You sound like a prom date who is pissed at a rival for having a better dress. Jealousy is so unbecoming...

Thersites,
Thanks for noticing what I was doing.
Posted by: jen flowers on April 6, 2008 at 4:11 PM

My pleasure, ma'am. When a puerile mind combined with a grasp of the obvious is called for, I'm your boy!

see? the goat was asking for it, your honor!

Puhleeze - I actually don't understand why my comment seemed so stupid to you. I think that this is a serious problem with our political system - it's not exactly something I came up with either, I think it's been a criticism levelled by lots of people over centuries I bet. And like I said this is not some weakness that the Clintons themselves have - it's human nature to identify with the circles you move in. I certainly don't begrudge the Clintons that - I do the same thing. What I have trouble with is that the Clintons don't own up to it, unlike Senator Obama who openly says that he's running now before he completely forgets what it was like to draw a salary of 14k a year. $100 million changes people, and while there's nothing inherently morally wrong with that it's just true and we should accept it and think about it.

Moreover you're ascribing an argument to me that I never put forward - I never said anything about Obama having more legislative experience than Clinton. That's you projecting, friend. Go back and read what I actually wrote before coming to conclusions about me. It's important at these times to think for a little while before racing to the keyboard and pounding out vindictive screed; Senator Clinton's supporters seem to have a hard time learning this lesson. Again, I understand it. It must be frustrating to realise that you're fighting an already lost cause. If the tables were turned I'd be pretty testy as well (though I'd like to think I wasn't making as dishonest arguments as the Clinton campaign is making vis a vis Florida and Michigan and the electoral vote total metric, etc. but who knows? We'll never know I guess).

But don't worry about it Puhleeze. As I explained on my mission to the bus station, Saint Barack Obama brings good news to all. I promise that when Saint Barack Obama walks on water over to you with His mighty latte in one hand and His holy Birkenstocks girding His feet you'll accept that He's bringing change even you can believe in!

Let me make the obvious points before I answer the question:

1. Kaus's writing demonstrates that he's a right-wing commentator. Why he insists that he is not would be a fertile ground for a psychiatrist with way too much time on his hands.

2. Now we know why Hillary was balking at the disclosure-- she knew people would whoop at it. Every presidential candidate in recent memory has had a seven-figure net worth (at the very least), most people don't know it.

3. Of course this is unfair. For decades, people complained that the Clintons were living off public money. Now that they aren't, there's something wrong with that.

With that settled, where did the other $56 million go to? Hush money to Vince Foster's killers, obviously.

Mark Penn is now gone from the campaign.

Have we ever asked this about any previous presidential candidate?

If you know your Somerby, you know that when it comes to the Clintons, anything is allowed.

I saw David Gergen on CNN the other day insisting that Chelsea should have to answer questions about Monica Lewinsky.

Writing about this stuff is just an easy day at work for Kaus and his ilk.

And I'd like to see Kevin answer his own question.

That would be $109 million over the period of 8 years, which comes to around $13.6 million a year. Sure, a nice income but it isn't exactly excessive.

What, Democrats aren't allowed to make money?

You know that Mickey Kaus is as invest in crap as is Joe Klein invest in it. If you are not willing to do any leg work, if finding the truth is simply far to hard and are lazy at heart, then why not write shit?

It's kind-of-like Drum and his peak oil shit. Kevin doesn't know shit about the oil industry, because Klein and Kaus share the love of stupie opinons minus the hard work of finding the truth.

It's the TIME trash mag in a nutshell, as well as TNR. Half truths can fill your bank account but it will NOT make you a real journalist. Drum isn't real news anymore that Kaus is news, or Klein is news, in fact, I think the work is "Media whores," the lot of them.

When Ronald Reagan received $2 million from Sony soon after he left the presidency there were a lot of questions raised. It was a lot of money for just showing up for a short visit to Japan.

It turned out to be legal but it had the feeling of a backhanded bribe: do us a favor while in office and we'll do you a favor after you leave, except there was no specific favor to point to, unless one counts a series of deregulations favorable to a number of companies like Sony. Somehow it got dismissed as an issue despite being raised again when the senior Bush started taking large sums of money for being... well, an ex-president.

In the years since, there's been an attitude that former presidents are out of politics and therefore there's nothing really to worry about, except of course sitting presidents must surely think a little about what kind of money they might receive when they leave office. But with his wife running for the most powerful job in the world, President Clinton can hardly claim that he's out of politics. Not when he's taking that much money for being... well, an ex-president.

We need to know more about what's going on, who's giving the money, if they're connected to those donating money for Hillary's campaign, and what they expect in return for their generosity. After all, we're not talking about ordinary people. We are talking about the most powerful people in the world who seem to attract an awful lot of new friends... and money.

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe if Mickey Kaus wants to hit up the night-blue scag before he writes a column, it's none of our business.

If I were Bill and Hillary, I'd be investing in defense contractors. Solid, but great growth potential.

Elmo: How fucking tripe, Augie. Why don't you give up the long Hillary is the wicked witch of the west posts?

By all means feel free to point out any factually incorrect statements I've made. I do make mistakes. But you make my point by attacking me simply because I've pointed out things we all know the Hillary campaign has done (and speculated about a few things that likely have her finger prints on them). You also exaggerate the criticism, perhaps to enhance the all too familiar theme of the Clintons as victims. Yes, poor Hillary, how dare anyone not agree with absolutely everything she says and does at all times.

Elmo: You obviously don't know what a "dirty campaign" is.

You do realize that with this statement you are acknowledging as true my criticism of the Hillary campaign (that it is negative) immediately after you ridiculed it. You do so not to contest that Hillary has run a negative campaign, but to argue the degree of how dirty her campaign has been.

Personally, I'm not a fan of moral relativism. The notion that you can excuse any bad behavior simply because you can point to worse behavior in others is to concede that you have no firm morals or principles at all. I've had quite enough of that in the last 7 years, thank you very much. The fact that Hillary is not as dirty as Bush isn't exactly an appealing selling point for your candidate. A lot of people are simply sick and tired of people who are willing to do or say anything to win, including bloodying their own.

Elmo: You sound like a prom date who is pissed at a rival for having a better dress. Jealousy is so unbecoming...

Your analogy is poor - people aren't jealous of behavior they find repugnant.

I started off supporting Hillary. I spent a lot of time and energy talking her up to people and even defending her in the early stages of her switch to negative campaigning. I didn't want to believe that Bill Clinton was trying to frame and marginalize Obama as the "black candidate" after South Carolina. I even remember thinking she had a point when she dismissed Obama's message of 'hope' and 'change' as being hollow sloganeering. But then I remembered that she was married to "the man from Hope" and it became unavoidably clear that her criticisms were insincere gainsaying.

I have to say that Augustus is cleaning up on this thread. I loath Kaus, but I do think that it is perfectly fair to wonder where the Clinton money (including library and foundation donations) has come from. I'm sure that most of it is from unobjectionable sources, but things like the Kazakstan story are more than a bit worrisome. And one doesn't have to be someone, like Kaus, who constantly argues in bad faith, to believe this.

Oh, I see that Kaus is saying that people should be asking not just where it came from (fair question) but what it is invested in (presumably who cares). He really is a tool. I should have read more carefully.

Am I the only one here who's noticed from these tax returns that the Clintons collectively gave over 10% of their income to charity, while the Obamas over the same 7-year period gave up less than one percent of theirs -- and further, that most of that went to Pastor Wright's church?

Each had to overcome questions as to the somewhat dubious nature of their wealth before winning the Presidency.

B.S.

If there were "questions" they were between their confessors and the candidates.

Asd I recall, a fair amount of what Bill Clinton did in the five years or so after he left office was to raise money for his presidential library; he was pretty energetic about it, too. I wonder if a good bit of the 100 millions or so might have in fact been in this column.

hdware,
I see you've been reading Roger Simon. Nice.

By using google, I was able to find out in 5 seconds that the Clinton's have their own charity foundation "The Clinton Family Foundation", and I'm sure that a considerable amount went to this foundation.

But then again, as you point out, the Clinton's are all about themselves, so I'm sure it all went to his library.

Why Kaus is employed by anyone is the real mystery.

My goodness, our "special needs" child Augustus has certainly been furiously typing away on this thread.
What long posts, with no clear coherence to the argument, and such convoluted writing. I wonder if he's not writing his poli-sci master's thesis.

If so, I think that we should all be on his examination committee!

What Augustus said at 7:01p yesterday. Oh, and is it true that Mickey Kaus blows goats? I keep hearing this rumor...

Anyway, if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for her over McCain...If you lean even slightly to the left, you'd have to be - and I rarely use strong phrasing like this anymore - a complete fucking idiot to not vote for whoever the Dem candidate is this election cycle.

Well the Clinton's certainly seem fine with applying special new rules only to themselves especially when it comes to questions of viability and which states and voters should count but in theory I agree that they shouldn't be required to reveal their finances anymore than any other politician. However, once you start lending your campaign money out of your own coffers which have largely been filled by special interests seeking access to your husband then perhaps more scrutiny of them is warranted. And while your tax returns may be your own business it becomes a little problematic when you've based previous campaigns (Senate 2000) on questioning your opponent's unwillingness to reveal theirs.

whalt,
Now that she released her tax returns, it isn't problematic at all, is it?

Optical weenie: What long posts, with no clear coherence to the argument, and such convoluted writing.

Or... maybe you just have ADHD and reading comprehension issues. =)

Sorry Augie, I'm too old to have ADHD, or even ADD as it was called before that. ADHD wasn't even around when I was a kiddy in college.

Funny how no one points out that McCain dumped his first wife (who had been badly disfigured in a near-fatal car crash)and married his present wife who is a mult-millionairess right after his divorce was final. And he was 42, she was 25 at the time.
Why is no one asking about where his money comes from. And if the media is going to go on and on about how inspiring his biography is, the least they can do is include the sleazy parts. Apparently only Democrats are held to high standards.

We probably would ask this question of anyone who wanted to be President that reported income of less than $375,000 in year 2000 and roughly $13.5 million per year every year after that......that warrants looking into - no matter who you are.

IIRC, the Clintons were multiple millions in debt to various lawyers after Bill left office. So some portion of the $109 million went to paying off the debt imposed by the VRWC...

Thanks OpWi, I'm pushing forty and all, but reading you, Damn! This shit never gets any better!?!
Fine...I'll dig in...

DR: No, not reading Roger Simon. Roger L. Simon, yes--so, should we sic Moses Wine onto the money trail, already?

My comments conncerning Clintonm's fundraising for his PL were based on how the National Archives expects these things to be built: the ex-Prez and his or her friends have to raise the money, build the facility to National Archives specs and provide an endowment. THEN, the shiny new PL is turned over to National Archives. I know that Bill Clinton _and_ his supporters did some serious hustle to raise the bucks for his Library.

And yeah, in the end, it's all about the Clintons--for both their friends zand their enemies. Just check the editorial column of our local daily, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, for their notable recurring potshots and slurswipes at Mr. Bill.

Whether you are out of touch is not a matter of you biography. It's a matter of your intention and your attention.

Connecting to ordinary people is not a matter of your bank balance. It's a matter of your rhetoric and your attitude. It's a matter of how you look, how you sound. It's a matter of reaching out, and understanding how someone else might feel, not getting all caught up in yourself.