Now Hillary is claiming some of that money was combat pay.

Title of Hillary's next book, to be written after she loses the nomination: "It Takes A Billionaire".

Earlier I was middle of the road or even ok with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Over the last year I've come to see her as abrasive, divisive, establishment and just uninspiring. Although I'm really an independent I just switched to Democrat so I can vote for Obama in May. He's a bit of a long shot but easily beats Clinton or McCain on what he offers.

$250,000 for a speech?!

Nice work if you can get it.

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes

Wait...I thought "rich" people didnt pay taxes?

One point I didn't hear from the pundits: The Clintons were clearly hurt by Bill Richardson's defection but I didn't buy the spin job. It was presented like they had helped him out of the kindness of their hearts and he hadn't shown them enough loyalty. It's a nice take but I don't get the feeling the Clintons act out of kindness. It's all ambition and doing what's best for a result that helps them. If Richardson was helped along the way that's just a byproduct.
What I see from Hillary is relentless, calculated ambition in an annoying - even boring - speaker. And not even a microsecond of thought to wonder about lying. She would literally say she's been to the moon if she thought it would get help get her elected. I can't believe you could watch a Hillary event compared to an Obama event and just by the crowd and the excitement level, not understand who the star is here, and who is the lesser politician.
Finally, with all this talk about Operation Chaos, I still go back to New Hampshire. I think New Hampshire was rigged to keep Hillary in the race. She was behind 42 to 29 going in and behind by the same amount in some exit polls and yet - in "one of the most surprising comebacks in political history" - she somehow won. This thing should have been over then, and I felt at the time that New Hampshire was fixed. Everything we've seen since only proves why the GOP would want that to happen.

I wonder just how much of that "$10.2 million in charitable contributions" they got back in tax credits.

Wait...I thought "rich" people didnt pay taxes?

Just so. Not already being rich, Hill&Billy had to "earn" their income, so it got taxed at the astronomical effective rate of 33/110, or about 30%, leaving them a scant $77 million over those eight years to treat as their own money. Assuming they could put that pitiful remainder to work in investments, it could earn double tax-exempt interest and qualified dividends, and that would get the effective rate down well below 15%. That's what being "rich" means. That, and not having to give those tiresome speeches anymore. One note of hope, though, on the earned income: their FICA contributions would have been capped at about $28K each year per couple, just like anyone else. For them, that means about two tenths of one percent of their average income. For a couple earning $100K a year each, it's more like 14% (assuming self-employment).

I'm an Obama supporter who just returned from Hillsboro, taking my 11-year-old child to the Clinton rally. (Took her to see Obama as well--practical civics lessons.) Clinton had a lot more specifics to talk about than Obama, but I am not persuaded to switch my vote in the primary. But in the general election? A Democrat vs. McBush? This is about as close to a no-brainer as they come.

Someone else here already noted that the Clintons paid a king's ransom in federal income taxes. OK, so they made a king's ransom as well...this is a problem why exactly? If you don't feel like forking over a bunch of money to hear Bill or Hillary Clinton give a talk, then don't.

I'm wondering why we expect candidates for president to have the "common touch"--why we want them to be prospective drinking buddies. We've just had 7+ years of a drinking buddy in the White House, folks. Give me Hillary Clinton in preference to Dubya any time.

I'm going to leave the politics of resentment to the Republicans, who practice it far, far more thoroughly and effectively than the Democrats.

I wonder just how much of that "$10.2 million in charitable contributions" they got back in tax credits.

You have their tax returns. You could look it up. You could also discover what you probably already know: that charitable contributions are deductible expenses but do not earn tax credits. You already know that they paid $33 million in taxes from the news reports. What is the point of this ridiculous question?

As to their charitable contributions, the linked article with the return states that they contribute to their own foundation. The foundation has retained a majority of the contribution. My cynical nature makes me wonder about a post-election amended return. It would only happen if she loses, and we would probably never know anyway. We shouldn't begrudge their success, there must be some great perks for putting your life out there and taking the heat of public office.

I'll all for being cynical, but I doubt the Clintons are using their charitable foundation as a holding pen during the elections. Do I think Hillary is going to have the foundation make some high profile donations closer to the general election? Yes. Do I think the foundation is going to payout to the Clintons post-election? No.

Everything we've seen since only proves why the GOP would want that to happen.

So Bill, you are saying that the GOP is rigging Democratic primaries now?

I wouldn't lay it on the GOP as a whole. I do believe elements within the party rigged Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004 and New Hampshire this year. It was also interesting how the MSM discussed New Hampshire in such lengthy stunned terms without bringing up even the possibility that it was rigged. Now, of course, New Hampshire is cited as an example of Hillary's tremendous ability to comeback. I don't see it that way. The polls had it one way before and after with a brief moment in the booth where Hillary came out ahead. That's suspicious and I heard pundits say it was the biggest aberration from the polling in political history. Then they went into contortions trying to explain it, settling on the idea that it was because Hillary cried.
Your question ignores the bigger question: Why is this subject even open to debate? Why do we have a system of electronic voting machines with no way to verify the results? Isn't that already unacceptable? To quote the GOP Messiah Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify."

Consider what may be behind some of the Clinton's income. Suppose that you are a business that wants to get Hillary to vote a certain way in the Senate. You give Bill a "speaking fee" of $250,000, and you get the vote. Voila!

This is my favorite punchline from the Oregonian's front-page story today about Hillary's visit:

"Clinton said that when she and her husband left the White House in 2001, they had few assets and were 'starting out like 22-year-old newlyweds.' She said the big financial success they received from their books and the former president's speeches was a 'great American story.'"

How did the reporters stifle a giggle? Far from a classic American rag-to-riches story, this is a fine illustration of an universal truth: power begets wealth. . .

Oh, maybe it is NOT the "great American story," nearly as storied as one who underachieved his inherent family stature, cheated on his wife, ditched her and abandoned their children, married a dropdead gorgeous dripping-rich ditz twenty years younger, and spent her money to coverup the crimes, incivilities, and character faults of his scratching and clawing power-mad climb to prominence. Is it greed for riches-wealth that gropes for power, or mania for power-lust that gropes for money? Depends on who tells which story, eh?

P.O.W. to Power Broker, A Chapter Most Telling, By Nicholas D. Kristof, Published: February 27, 2000
It was 1979, and it was becoming clear that he would never make admiral like his father and grandfather. He had always dreamed of doing something great, of imprinting his name on the history books, but at age 42 he found himself with a stuttering military career and no base from which to go into politics. ... On top of that, his personal life was a mess: Although he was still living with his wife, he was aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich. ... For a candidate running on character and biography, it is also an awkward time to remember: Mr. McCain abandoned his wife, who had reared their three children while he was in Vietnamese prisons, and he then began his political career with the resources of his new wife's family.

And Jon, maybe someone was NOT "saying" anything, and only reading the evidences, [Refer: BlackBoxVoting.ORG/ and/or: www.BradBlog.COM/ ], of NewHampshire ballot fraud complicity which has that Secretary of State and staffers indicted, resigned from office, and/or soon imprisoned on conviction in criminal trials. Tell me this, Jon: The reason you regularly sound so stupid in your voice here, is it because the only things you know are what you read in the fascist propaganda catapults of newspaper reporters' notes copied from FUXNews? Or do you have a direct website link to the stupidity?

Not that I am any Hillary shill or fan -- quite the opposite. Since Hillary's supremacist racist endorsers are newspaper pissants and FUXNews frauds and Rash Lamebrainers and LIARS -- wow!, a quadruple redundancy -- then I oppose her. As I long have, and continue, opposed against all the Bushbutcher fascist MasterRacism. And I endorse her primary opponent.

If anything happens to the opponent, it could (from the preliminary manner of today's media, falsely framing her shortcomings and thin support as being ascendant in Democratic politics except for principals of truth and justice), and 'anything' occurs in a way to cast Hillary suspect, then we all can recognize in an instant, that it is more record of the longmade murderous pattern of Bushbutchery against democracy and civil order proponents -- John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Salvadore Allende, Anwar Sadat, Mel Carnahan, Paul Wellstone, Benazir Bhutto, Eliot Spitzer, and you next, dear reader, as you are among those of us working for slavewages to pay a mortgage and buy a future, with monopoly dollars which the fascist supremacists deliberately now are destroying. [Refer: www.GlobalResearch.CA/index.php?context=va&aid=8450 ]

The literal Bushbutcher homicides enstates control of massmind media employees who are literally scared to death to publicize the pandemic fascist crime spree of extreme rightwinger nattering Republican nationalists. And deathly fear explains why the living made in the pay of media is a Big Lie living, and those despicable persons are avoided, downcast, as Judas betrayers of humankind, or Benedict Arnolds of American democracy.

Besides the coercion of blackmailed media coverup aiding and abetting NH ballot fraud against Bushbutcher opponents, the fascist propaganda news has since censored its paying subscribers and readers from knowing and thinking the following truths in evidence:

The US Establishment Media in a Nutshell, by Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, April 5, 2008.
In the past two weeks, the following events transpired. A Department of Justice memo, authored by John Yoo, was released which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. ... The U.S. Attorney General appears to have fabricated a key event leading to the 9/11 attacks and made patently false statements about surveillance laws and related lawsuits. Barack Obama went bowling in Pennsylvania and had a low score.
Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:
“Yoo and torture” - 102
“Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73
“Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16
“Obama and bowling” — 1,043
“Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)
“Obama and patriotism” - 1,607
“Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079
And ... even Iraq — that little five-year U.S. occupation with no end in sight — has been virtually written out of the media narrative in favor of mindless, stupid, vapid chatter of the type referenced above. “The Clintons are Rich!!!!” will undoubtedly soon be at the top of this heap within a matter of a day or two.

And news NOT buried under blackmail threats, is made-up lies for bribes.

Sample list from Media Matters for America (dot ORG):
ABC's Ross falsely claimed that McCain has already released his tax returns, March 20, 2008
AP, WSJ left out FEC chairman's statement that McCain cannot withdraw from public financing system without FEC consent , March 21, 2008
USA Today's Page on McCain's Al Qaeda-Iran falsehood: "[M]ost Americans can't tell you the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, either", March 21, 2008
On Iraq war fifth anniversary, NBC and ABC failed to point out that administration's original justifications for war have been debunked, March 21, 2008
Fox News panel ponders significance of Richardson's beard, March 24, 2008
Chicago Tribune falsely claimed Clinton, Obama, and McCain "essentially agree" on immigration , March 25, 2008
In reporting "surprising good news on sales of existing homes," ABC ignored 24 percent decline in sales from Feb. 2007, March 25, 2008
Media continue to ignore McCain endorsers' controversial comments, March 25, 2008
O'Reilly: Media Matters is an "awful, despicable ... outfit," "fascists" who espouse "anti-Americanism", March 26, 2008
Claiming McCain "is running as the most fiscally conservative" candidate, LA Times cited one bill, which Clinton also opposed, March 26, 2008
MSNBC's O'Donnell falsely claimed McCain "called for Don Rumsfeld's resignation", March 26, 2008
CNN re-airs smear video, no mention of McCain campaign's attacks on Obama patriotism, March 26, 2008
Wash. Post's Dobbs criticized Clinton for citing "somewhat misleading" 1996 Post report that the Post has yet to correct, March 27, 2008
Just weeks after criticizing McCain for exploiting campaign finance laws, Wash. Post dubbed him a "champion" of campaign finance reform, March 27, 2008
Morning Joe allowed McCain adviser to falsely assert Clinton and Obama are "talking about raising taxes across the board", March 28, 2008
Wash. Post claimed McCain "most aggressive" of the three major candidates in "identifying ways to reduce spending," ignoring cost of Iraq policy, March 28, 2008
In reporting on McCain's stated opposition to government "bail out" of "big banks," Wash. Post, NY Times failed to note his approval of Bear Stearns aid, March 28, 2008
CNN, LA Times uncritically reported McCain's false claim that Obama and Clinton proposed "a multibillion-dollar bailout for big banks and speculators", March 28, 2008
Brooks, Broder praised McCain's rebuke of Bush-style unilateralism, but didn't mention McCain's past comments attacking allies who opposed Iraq war, March 30, 2008
Media report McCain's recent efforts to tout his military record, but not that he told Kerry not to do so in '04, March 31, 2008
Kurtz falsely claimed that "[u]nlike in 2000," McCain is "now us[ing]" POW experience "in some of his TV advertising", March 31, 2008
Touting report on Clinton aide's connection to subprime lender, Fox News ignored report on McCain's aides' lobbying for "notorious lender", March 31, 2008
On Hannity & Colmes, Rove falsely claimed Obama was not a professor, April 1, 2008
Limbaugh: "[A] lot of these feminists and women ... think they're owed" a Clinton win; "they've had two or three abortions", April 1, 2008
2000 campaign video shows McCain highlighting time in Vietnam, despite his -- and media's -- false denials that he did so, April 1, 2008
Matthews: Does Obama "connect with regular people" or just African-Americans and college grads?, April 2, 2008
Matthews wrongly suggested Obama exaggerated cost of a tank of gas, April 2, 2008
Following pattern in the media, CNN's King uncritically repeated McCain campaign's false attacks on Democrats, April 3, 2008
Faulting Dems for "twist[ing]" McCain's "hundred" years comment from NH event, Wash. Post's "fact checker" Dobbs ignored McCain's evasions at same event, April 3, 2008
Despite having to correct Ross' false claim that McCain has released tax returns, ABC still ignored McCain in report musing about Clinton tax returns, April 3, 2008
CBS report on candidates' tendency to "exaggerate ... his or her record" ignored several McCain distortions of his record, April 4, 2008

Oh, btw, did anyone mention every Republican candidate including the McCains have NOT released their income tax records -- it seems UNlikely that his income taxes are paid current and legal.

So, Jon, there (above) is documented reason your voice here sounds stupid, if you buy in and believe only what newspapers and TV sell. As for "saying that the GOP is rigging Democratic primaries now?," that was said months ago and is old news "now." Today's NH news, which massmind newspaper and TV Republican propaganda is censoring, is that criminal trials are scheduled for GOP-directed ballot counting fraud. As smart-spent money already knows, NOT having been wasted buying newspapers and TV.

Whether power obtains money, or money obtains power, or power obtains sex, or money obtains sex, or sex obtains power, or sex obtains money, the six transactions of the three fundamental motivations in human nature make lively discussions -- and are the ONLY stories ever told sold, in at least one accounting. (circa 1948) Harry Truman: "I read ALL the books in the Independence City (MO) Library. And it seems to me, down through (all) History, great men [sic] have fallen for one of only three reasons: money, sex, power." (circa 1998, Jay Leno: "ALL jokes are about either money, sex, or power.")

Now, perhaps professors of massmind media can divine some different 'meta-motivations' of collective conscious drives and urges in collective behavior. I rather doubt it, and instead think Truman's truth applies in the case of media employees who operate in motivations for personal wealth, grab-ass, or influence within the huddled masses, by imposing an ignorance curtain precluding public knowledge of what he or she 'employee' does in the dark behind it. So, public access is never allowed in the media bunkers to see the work of making news stories, only the workers come out, on paid occasion, and relate descriptions of the scene. As one noted example:

LBCC locks into pop culture festival, by The Entertainer, ALBANY — A three-week Festival of American Popular Culture will be held at Linn-Benton Community College from April 4 through April 25. The festival includes live musical performances featuring Oregon artists, art exhibits, cultural presentations and a movie series. ... Peter (Ames) Carlin, feature writer for The Oregonian, will present Television and the Nation’s Collective Subconscious from noon to 1 p.m. Wednesday, April 23, in the Russell Tripp Performance Center.

And at such occasions, the free opportunity exists -- if one can stifle a giggle or an outright guffaw -- to interrogate and compare media employees' ideas and knowledge. As with, perhaps, a PQIQ (Pop Quiz IQ) test in the (above listed) massmind misperceptions -- True or False -- discerning which false parts are broadcast intentionally, knowing 'better,' and which parts are unintentional, not knowing 'better.' Or, perhaps, interrogating and comparing some local yokel's sensibilities with a wider, wiser-studied composition such as provided in the internet convenience of website collections.

An example, for instance, refer: www.LewRockwell.COM/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html

Those who practice politics have always understood how their systems depend upon a popular attraction to the status quo; how their power feeds upon a neurotic fear of change. There is always some one or some thing that can be hypothecated into a threat that will cause humans to solidify into a controllable herd, to be directed to whatever ends their puppet-masters have in mind. “Infidels,” “communists,” or “terrorists,” provide just a smattering of the fear-objects held up to frighten men and women into collective obedience.

Where Matters Stand - by Butler Shaffer - March 28, 2008 -- There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~ Johann von Goethe

We live at a time in which collective insanity has become the norm by which human behavior is to be judged. The willingness of men and women to commit their thinking, their lives, their material wealth, and the lives of their children and grandchildren to wars, genocides, torture, police-state brutalities, and the destruction of economies, reflects the danger in all forms of collective identity. To the union of fifty states with which we are familiar, has been added another: the state of non compos mentis, in which most Americans have taken up residence. From the normally neurotic to the regularly irrational, most of us have, at best, a sense of detachment from the causes of our destructiveness. When teenagers engage in the mass killing of their classmates or shopping mall patrons, the herd-response is to criticize the guns, rather than the attitudes and values upon which our children have been raised. If one of these high-school assassins had gone to Iraq and killed the same number of equally-innocent persons, he would probably have received medals for his accomplishment, and his family would have treated him as a hero upon his return.
For at least a year now, the mainstream media has been obsessed with the 2008 presidential election, as though this event portends some fundamental change for America.
...
We have turned ourselves into the grotesqueries most of us have become by a willingness to identify ourselves with collective entities.
...
But when the source of one’s collective identity is embarrassed – as by engaging in a war that cannot be won, and ought never to have been undertaken – a sense of personal embarrassment ensues. Milton Mayer discovered this when, following World War II, he lived in Germany to discover what ordinary residents of that country thought of Hitler’s police-state.'They Thought They Were Free' was both the overall response and the title of Mayer’s book. This is the mindset that seems to trouble most Americans regarding the Iraq war. To admit that the war is criminal and immoral, is to admit that, by identifying with the state, one’s sense of being is also criminal and immoral.
...
Even though Ron Paul will not soon become president, his candidacy did inflict irreparable damage on the political establishment. After witnessing, on live television, how his own party schemed and gyrated in an effort to keep him out of the political debates; and how the mainstream media refused to even acknowledge his presence as a candidate – all the while trumpeting others who Paul left in the dust in primaries – intelligent minds need no longer question the conspiratorial nature of all politics.
...
Hillary, John, and Barack – and other political hacks – are the detritus lying at the base of a collapsed system that serves no purpose useful to productive and honest people, and is destroying life. The depth of the lies, swindles, theft, and butcheries upon which the political racketeers have depended, is far too evident to be explained away as problems of "management," or to be resurrected in the name of "change."

"The depth of the lies, swindles, theft, and butcheries upon which the political racketeers have depended, is far too evident to be explained away as problems of "management," or to be resurrected in the name of "change."

Sure, turn this into another PDC thread.

"... another PDC thread."

That's funny, IMO.

Me thinks Charles Dodgson is writing under a pseudonym again.