Hillary Clinton and the big refund

If Senator Hillary Clinton seems unusually reluctant to read the handwriting on the wall and withdraw gracefully from the presidential race, the reason might be money.

Specifically, the money she raised for the general election.

You might remember that in the long-ago days of early 2007, Senator Clinton asked her donors for $4,600, even though federal law limits an individual's contributions for the primary election to $2,300. The second $2,300 was for the general election, the Clinton team explained to the donors, and why not collect it early and show the political world some real financial muscle?

The trouble is, the Clinton campaign is required by federal law to return those $2,300 checks for the general election campaign if Senator Clinton is not the Democratic nominee.

It's possible, of course, that the general election money is locked away in a separate account and it will be no problem at all to comply with federal law and send those checks right back to the donors who wrote them.

I think we're all in agreement that this can safely be ruled out.

It's hard to believe that Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $11 million from her personal funds while there was a single uncashed check lying around the office.

That means she has to replace those general election funds, and fast, before she gets out of the race and the nice folks from the Federal Election Commission stop by her Senate office to say hi.

This would explain her plea for funds during her election-night speech in Indiana, and the fundraiser she attended the next day, and the conference call her husband reportedly held with donors on Thursday.

It's a pain to pay campaign debt, but it's a crime to use general election donations for a primary.

How much does she have to refund? It may be difficult to determine. This is an excerpt from Kenneth P. Vogel's story in the Politico, April 2, 2007:

Things could be particularly tricky this presidential cycle, though, since it’s the first in which multiple candidates are expected to raise money for both the primary and general election. That effectively doubles the amount candidates can accept from each donor to $4,600 -- technically $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

Candidates may pad their fundraising hauls by including their general election contributions in proclamations trumpeting their fundraising success. But [PoliticalMoneyLine's campaign cash tracker Kent] Cooper said it will be important for reporters to separate out such contributions, since candidates who don’t win their party’s nomination will have to refund donations for the general election.

The FEC doesn’t have a system for quickly distinguishing such funds, but it’s working on one, said spokeswoman Michelle Ryan.

So there you have it. If Hillary Clinton stays in the race all the way until the convention in Denver, she can stall the day of financial reckoning until the very moment the delegates nominate Barack Obama for president.

Between now and then, you may hear teams of political experts declare that they don't know why Senator Clinton is staying in the race, they don't know why she's risking her reputation and her political future, and they don't know why she won't listen to all the advisors who are giving her such good advice.

They may not know, but you will.


Copyright 2008

.

The Clintons knife each other

Hillary Clinton's victory speech in Indiana Tuesday night included a gracious thank-you to her supporters.

The senator's daughter and husband stood behind her while she acknowledged a long list of elected officials who had endorsed her and campaigned for her in Indiana and North Carolina.

Then she talked about her family.

"Didn't Chelsea do a great job?" she asked the crowd, to a thunderous ovation.

"And I know a lot of people enjoyed seeing my husband again," she said.

Yeee-ouch!

No "thank-you", no "great job," no stream of praise for his accomplishments, no faux affection for the cameras.

She didn't even include herself among the people who enjoyed seeing him.

He didn't look any too happy about it.

Revenge was quick.

This morning, Senator George McGovern spoke to the press about his decision to switch his support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama. He had a conversation with Bill Clinton, McGovern said, and the former president made no effort to change his mind. "He just wanted me to know that he thinks that Hillary has made a great race and it's up to her to decide when she leaves," McGovern said.

Yeee-ouch!

If Chelsea can patch them up this time, she ought to get a talk show. She'd beat Dr. Phil like a drum.


Copyright 2008

.

Tabloid update: "Obama Marriage Explodes!"

America Wants To Know likes to keep you up-to-date on the latest stories from the supermarket tabloids, and this week the paper that jumped into our hands at the checkstand was the National Enquirer.

"Obama Marriage Explodes!" the cover screams in bright yellow block letters. It promises "All the shocking details," including "Wife confronts him over cheating," "Love Notes," and "Photos."

Yes, well, not so fast.

Inside, we learn from a "close source":

"When they first decided to get into politics, Barack agreed to tell all, but now Michelle wants to be sure he's been completely honest. She worries there are women from his past who could destroy them."

And then, the "close source" spills this:

"Call it women's intuition, but Michelle is locked onto this notion and isn't backing down. She's afraid there could even be pictures or love notes that could humiliate them."

The Enquirer goes on to reveal that Barack Obama insists there are no women, no love notes, and no photos.

And that is what the National Enquirer used to splash its front cover with a story that makes the Obama marriage look quite a lot like the Clinton marriage.

Gosh, who would have a motive to do such a thing?

America Wants To Know will not wake up its in-house detective on a Sunday morning for this one.

We have a "close source" -- actually it's the web site for Williams & Connolly -- to confirm that there is, in fact, a direct link between the Clintons and the National Enquirer.

His name is David E. Kendall, and he is a partner in the Washington D.C. law firm, Williams & Connolly, LLP.

Mr. Kendall's biography cheerfully admits, "He began representing President and Mrs. Clinton in November 1993, in what was ostensibly a small savings and loan matter involving Whitewater Development Company, Inc. He went on to represent the Clintons in a variety of matters, including Independent Counsel, Senate, House of Representatives, FDIC, RTC, and bar counsel investigations, civil litigation, and the 1998-99 impeachment proceedings, and currently represents them in three civil matters."

They certainly keep him busy.

But Mr. Kendall also found time, his biography reports, to represent publications including the "National Enquirer (where he supervised prepublication copy review for over a decade and a half)."

A decade and a half.

Do you think, in fifteen years of supervising prepublication copy review, he made a few contacts in the editorial offices?

Well, all right, so we're cynical.

But you have to admit, it's perfectly logical for the Clintons to want to convince voters that no politician's marriage is any different from the Clintons' marriage. You can almost hear the dinner table conversation that takes place just before the pollster calls:

"I'm not voting for Hillary because her husband cheats on her and it's going to be a zoo in that White House."

"Don't be naive, all politicians cheat and lie. Obama's no different. His wife caught him cheating and there are love notes and photos, and they're no different than the Clintons."

The fact that there are no love notes and no photos and nobody caught Barack Obama cheating will not be obvious because only America Wants To Know actually went to the trouble of reading this tripe.

For the record, we greatly prefer the Globe. When the Globe tells you "Laura Claws Boozing Bush," you can take it to the bank.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "What Barack Obama didn't say."


.

Curse foiled again!

Today, in a corridor behind a soon-to-be restaurant in a future stadium in New York City, there was a battle of such mythic and historic proportion that Cecil B. DeMille must have turned to Charlton Heston and said, "I love you, Chuck, but the part calls for someone younger and more ethnic."



That's a picture of Frank Gramarossa, project executive for the new Yankee Stadium, holding up the Boston Red Sox jersey that construction worker Gino Castignoli buried in the concrete foundation of the stadium.

True baseball fans believe in curses.

(America Wants to Know is a Cubs fan, if you doubt our credentials on this issue.)

Mr. Castignoli's plot to put a curse on the New York Yankees by burying the jersey of their despised rival deep in the concrete under their new home field was foiled after the New York Post reported it on Friday.

Any normal person would have said there was nothing that could be done about it.

This is why normal people pay to see the New York Yankees, and not the other way around.



That's a picture of a construction worker jackhammering the foundation of the new Yankee Stadium.



That's a picture of Frank Gramarossa pulling the shredded Red Sox jersey from its mafia grave.

There will be no Red Sox curse on the new Yankee Stadium.

Don't mess with Zeus.


Copyright 2008

.

The logical conclusion of CBS News

It was evident when CBS News decided to replace Bob Schieffer with Katie Couric that the people running the division did not want to be in the news business.

They wanted to attract a different audience. A wider audience. An audience of people who weren't watching news broadcasts because they don't like news broadcasts.

We predicted at the time [See "Bob Schieffer's elegant exit"] that instead of expanding the audience, CBS would lose everybody.

And when the budget skyrocketed and the ratings fell, we observed Katie Couric's great skill at distancing herself from the blame [See "The coming bloodbath at CBS News"].

Now the New York Times reports that CBS News president Sean McManus is in talks with CNN news group president Jim Walton about "a deal to outsource some of [CBS'] news-gathering operations to CNN."

This raises an obvious question: If the executives at CBS don't like the news business, why don't they just get out of the news business? Why don't they broadcast a nightly show about dancing celebrities who design high-fashion clothes on an island with Donald Trump?

No, no, no, that's not necessary, there's no reason for any of the news executives to lose their jobs.

The network will simply "cut costs while maintaining the CBS News brand, although in a much trimmed-down fashion," the New York Times reports.

CBS is paying Katie Couric $15 million a year, and she is going to sit in the anchor chair and look serious until her contract runs out.

Because nobody at CBS is going to admit that it was a mistake to kick Bob Schieffer to the curb after his ratings actually increased during the time he anchored the nightly broadcast.

And nobody at CBS is going to admit that it was a mistake to let John Roberts get away and go to work at CNN.

Instead, CBS is going to negotiate a deal that will end with the network's miscast anchor reading lead-ins to John Roberts' CNN reports.

Here's some free advice for Bob Schieffer: Set up a webcam at your kitchen table and upload a daily newscast to YouTube, where you can draw the younger viewers and have the last laugh.

See you on the Internet. Drop me a note at Susan@ExtremeInk.com and say hi when you get here.


Copyright 2008

.

Vice President William J. Fallon

The Democratic nominee for president should think about putting this man on the ticket:



That's Admiral William J. Fallon, until just recently the commander of U.S. Central Command, responsible for overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Bush administration ousted Admiral Fallon after Esquire magazine published a profile of him that highlighted his opposition to a war with Iran and his desire to draw down U.S. troop levels in Iraq right now.

Where does Admiral Fallon stand on tax policy? On trade? On the environment? Is he even a Democrat?

It doesn't matter.

There is no issue more important than the war in Iraq, except perhaps the war in Afghanistan, not to mention the war with Iran that the Bush administration may be planning.

When decisions are made about whether to pull troops out of one country or deploy them to another, it would be immeasurably reassuring to have someone high in the administration who really knows what he's doing. Someone who can evaluate the intelligence and the reports from the commanders. Someone who doesn't need to build a reputation for toughness.

This is from Admiral Fallon's biography on the U.S. Navy's web site:

Adm. Fallon commanded Attack Squadron 65 embarked aboard Dwight D. Eisenhower, Medium Attack Wing 1 at NAS Oceana, Va., and Carrier Air Wing 8 aboard Theodore Roosevelt during a combat deployment to the Persian Gulf for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Assigned as Commander, Carrier Group 8 in 1995, he deployed to the Mediterranean as Commander, Theodore Roosevelt Battle Group and commanded Battle Force 6th Fleet (CTF 60) during NATO’s combat Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia. Adm. Fallon served as Commander, 2nd Fleet and Commander, Striking Fleet Atlantic from November 1997 to September 2000.

Shore duties included assignment as Aide and Flag Lieutenant to the Commander, Fleet Air Jacksonville, and to the staffs of Commander, Reconnaissance Attack Wing 1; Commander, Operational Test Force, and Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. He has served as Deputy Director for Operations, Joint Task Force, Southwest Asia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and as Deputy Director, Aviation Plans and Requirements on the Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington. His first flag officer assignment was with NATO as Assistant Chief of Staff, Plans and Policy for Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. He was then assigned as Deputy and Chief of Staff, U.S. Atlantic Fleet followed by assignment as Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff, U.S. Atlantic Command. Adm. Fallon served as the 31st Vice Chief of Naval Operations from October 2000 to August 2003. He was the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Atlantic Fleet from October 2003 to February 2005. He served as Commander, U.S. Pacific Command from February 2005 until March 2007. Adm. Fallon is a graduate of the Naval War College, Newport, R.I., the National War College in Washington, D.C., and has a Master of Arts degree in International Studies from Old Dominion University.

His awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, and various unit and campaign decorations.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Admiral Fallon "one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today."

Esquire's profile describes the grueling work schedule that Admiral Fallon maintained as commander of Centcom. "Fallon travels at least three weeks out of each month, spending, on average, two weeks in theater, meaning the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, and Central Asia," wrote Thomas P.M. Barnett, "He travels to Iraq and Afghanistan every month like clockwork."

Senator John McCain has made eight trips to Iraq and still isn't sure which militants are al-Qaeda and which ones are Iranian-backed Shiites, but he thinks the "surge" is going splendidly and believes the United States ought to have troops in Iraq for the rest of our lives, if necessary.

Admiral Fallon disagrees with that view. He thinks there is another way to protect the national security of the United States.

He told Esquire that what America needs is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

And he's no armchair quarterback.

William J. Fallon for Vice President.


Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in reading "A Plan to Get Out of Iraq: Blackstone's Fundamental Rights and the Power of Property" [2004] and "Why the Iraq Policy Isn't Working," [2005] along with "The Motive for War: How to End the Violence in Iraq" [2006], and "Hearing from the Troops" [2008].

.

Bill Clinton's tax problem

On March 28, a web site called Cayman Net News Online published a story about former President Bill Clinton's "substantial financial stake in three Cayman Islands-registered investment entities."

They were referring to President Clinton's investments with Yucaipa Companies, a Los Angeles-based holding company founded in 1986 by billionaire Ron Burkle. The investments, according to the report, "are believed to offer the former president a fairly risk-free potential yield in the order of tens of millions of dollars."

The Cayman Islands have no domestic taxation system, but President Clinton is still liable for U.S. taxes on income earned through Yucaipa's investment funds.

"The crucial, and as yet unanswered question," said Cayman Net News, "is whether the money in the funds represents a salary, taxed at a potential high of 35 percent, or equity compensation, which could only attract 15 percent taxation."

Yesterday afternoon the Clintons released their tax returns, perhaps answering the crucial question.

We say "perhaps," because we have no expertise in tax law.

But a cursory look at the Clintons' 2005 return finds a $5,000,000 payment from "Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I" reported on Schedule E, "Income or Loss from Partnerships and S Corporations."

Bloomberg News dug through the tax returns and found $15.4 million in income from Yucaipa since 2003. Reporter Ryan J. Donmoyer calculates that it was twenty percent of Mr. Clinton's income during that period.

Mr. Donmoyer got some tax lawyers on the phone and reports that they think "the Yucaipa partnership income for Bill Clinton looks to be a form of salary because it was in round numbers for most years."

Yucaipa paid the big guy $1 million in 2003, $4 million in 2004, and $5 million in 2005.

Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, told Bloomberg News that "the flat amounts received from Yucaipa are odd" and agreed with other experts that it indicated Bill Clinton was paid for performing a service.

Apparently, if that money was a salary, President Clinton owed 35 percent of it in income taxes.

Apparently that's not what he paid.

Apparently, the whole time that Hillary Clinton and her husband have been telling anyone who'll listen that they didn't want George W. Bush's tax cut and they don't need it and they should be asked to pay more, they've been evading taxes with a sketchy partnership in the Cayman Islands.

If the usual pattern holds, Bill Clinton will spend the next week thunderously denying that he did any favors for Dubai or any of Ron Burkle's other interesting partners. He'll point his finger and turn red and accuse the Republicans and the media of trying to destroy him, HIM, the most generous and charitable ex-president that he's ever seen in his lifetime.

If he thunders loudly enough, maybe everyone will be distracted from the question about the tax rate.

Everyone except NBC's David Shuster. You can't get anything by David Shuster.

Now we know why the Clintons tried to get him fired.

There's always a reason.


Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "A Principled Walkout?" and "The Clintons play smashmouth."

UPDATE ON 4-5-08: ABC News reports on its web site, "The [Clintons' tax] returns also show that the 31 percent tax rate was applied to the $15 million in supplementary income the former president earned from his partnership in an international investment fund based in the Cayman Islands."

This only goes to prove once again that I'm not as good as David Shuster.

But if the Clintons benefited from investment returns enhanced by the tax-free shelter of the Cayman Islands, I still think they should stop calling for their taxes to be raised.


.