Pure Horserace: A Small Price To Pay

Hillary Clinton Paid Dearly In Taxes By Selling Off An Investment, But Avoided Paying A Political Price

(CBS)  In an earlier edition of Pure Horserace, we looked at the significance of the presidential candidates' financial disclosure statements, focusing especially on how the source of one's wealth can help enhance, or contradict, the image a campaign hopes to project to voters.

If any candidate would be aware of that reality beforehand, it would be Hillary Clinton. Notably, she filed for an extension when disclosure statements were originally due in May — and now we may have some idea of why.

A large part of the assets controlled by Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, were previously tied up in a blind trust the Clintons have held since 1983. Its investments were unknown to the Clintons until this April when, according to The Associated Press, the Office of Government Ethics instructed them to open the trust — and the Clintons, evidently, didn't like what they saw.

The investments included companies that are often vilified by Democrats: Big Oil, pharmaceutical manufacturers, News Corp. — the owners of Fox News Channel — and Wal-Mart. The trust, including those problematic investments, ended up being sold off for cash.

Liquidating those assets will cost the Clintons dearly in capital gains taxes, but keeping them could have resulted in a much steeper political price, opening Clinton up to attacks from not only the Republicans who love to hate her, but also from her Democratic rivals for the nomination — though we suspect John Edwards, with his hedge fund wealth, may have kept quiet.

Clinton has already endured accusations of a conflict of interest thanks to her service on Wal-Mart’s board of directors from 1986-92, even though that was long before the retailer became the left's symbol of corporate expansionism gone awry. Keeping investments in Wal-Mart, especially now that Clinton has joined others in criticizing the company, would have created an instant controversy her campaign wouldn't want. — David Miller


The Conviction Behind The Conversion: Earlier this week, John McCain's campaign circulated a video of Mitt Romney from 2005 in which Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, said he supported maintaining the state's relatively liberal abortion laws — even though he claims he began to oppose abortion in November 2004.

Romney has already claimed his remarks were taken out of context, but that was unlikely to be his only defense. And, coincidentally or not, he was seen today defending his recent opposition to abortion before the National Right to Life's annual convention in Kansas City, Mo.

Romney argued that his current views, and not how long he's held them, should matter most. "I know that it is not time, but conviction that unites us," he said.

The crowd frequently applauded during the speech, according to The Associated Press, but not everyone in attendance was pleased. "I'm somebody who's been consistent," said Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a longshot contender for the nomination. "I've been fighting this fight for a long time, and I believe in it and I think it's the central social (and) moral issue of our day." — David Miller


Seen It All In A Small Town: It was John Mellencamp who sang about the charms of the rural communities that dot states like Iowa, but it's Brownback who's taking the sentiment to heart. Brownback is one of the Republican presidential candidates still committed to participating in the state party's straw poll in August — and he's not going to miss a chance to gather support.

Brownback's campaign has announced that he'll embark upon a four-day, 27-town journey through Iowa, starting Monday. The Des Moines Register points out that 20 of the towns Brownback and his family will be visiting have populations of 15,000 or less. As a senator from Kansas, Brownback has relied on a breakthrough in Iowa to keep his hopes alive. But can he rally enough support from these small communities to do it? — Vaughn Ververs


If Video Killed The Radio Star … Next month, 2008 officially becomes the YouTube election when the do-it-yourself Internet Web site teams up with CNN to host a very unique Democratic presidential debate. For the first time, anyone in America (or around the world, for that matter) can submit the questions they want answered by presidential candidates by posting them on YouTube.

The Web site is already accepting questions here. And look out professional debate moderators: Some of the questions are already as good as any we've heard asked at debates in the past. — Vaughn Ververs


The Veep-inator? Arnold Schwarzenegger for vice president? That’s an interesting question raised by billionaire Warren Buffet in the latest issue of Time magazine (thanks to the Los Angeles Times for pointing this out). Buffet points out that the Constitution requires only that the president be born in the U.S., leaving open the possibility that the Austrian could serve in the second slot on an independent ticket headed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Sounds like a juicy story but also a far-fetched possibility considering everything that would have to fall into place first. Sure, it's a celebrity culture — but would the California Republican governor really want to campaign on the idea of putting Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a "heartbeat" away from the presidency? Still, The Associated Press reports today that Bloomberg is visiting New Hampshire this weekend. The mayor says it's a social call, but it will continue to spur speculation.

Update: An alert Pure Horserace reader alerts us to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution which states, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So Schwarzenegger is Constitutionally barred from becoming vice president. — Vaughn Ververs


Clear Choices: Veteran Democratic strategist Anita Dunn tells CBS News' Brian Goldsmith that primary voters in her party are being presented with three very different candidates among the big three. "The three Democratic candidates seen as being the top-tier candidates are three extraordinarily different candidates who are taking three very different paths. Each one is the best path for them, and that's one of the reasons this race is so interesting,” says Dunn. Check out today's Political Player for more.


Editor's Note: Pure Horserace is a daily update of political news as interpreted by the political observers at CBSNews.com. Click here to sign up for the e-mail version.

[griezz]

The other aspect is her husband's record. Lest we forget, some of the worst international crises slipped by on his watch. Remember the Yugoslav civil war? The dog's breakfast that was Somalia? A little thing called the Rwandan genocide? The Clintons were the ones in charge and they did nothing; worse, they ordered the UN Security Council not to intervene in Rwanda, condoning the slaughter of hundreds of millions. It seems that they really didn't care about human rights.

[griezz]

Frankly, I am less concerned about Senator Clinton's history in blind trust than I am about her qualifications. Why should people vote for her? Because her husband was President? So what? She did not do anything of significance politically in that time. Her one attempt at political involvement, the public health issue back in 1993, quickly died due to public objections. Therefore, she is no more than a familiar name on a one complete term senate history.

[cfin5]

Oh! So it does thuck having to pay more taxes on the money that you've earned Mrs. Hillbiliary! You can afford it better than us treadmillers down here on the economic latter. This is excactly why I dont need your historically failed socialist theories taking what is left over in my back pocket.......Go donate your own millions to save the poor, not my 5's, 10's, and 20's that I already owe somebody else!

[cali-rep]

forthepeopl1:

do you still have your straightjacket on since escaping from the looney bin? you're a psycho. You want to impeach Bush and Cheney for war-crimes -- assumably the deaths of our (all-volunteer) military. However, you want to storm D.C. and kill them all? A Hypocrite if I ever heard one.

don't act like you're some martyr wanting to take our country back, you're just some looney who wants people to follow him. Do you serve kool-aid at those meetings of yours?

I have seen you post that same thing again and again in other forums, please, save us the psycho-babble....then again, I'm not feeling well today and needed a good hard laugh...maybe I should be thanking you.

In the mean-time, see if you can find any of those people in the nice white coats to take you home for the night.

[frb01]

After reporting everything financial on John Edwards I wonder if the same media is going to give the Clintons a pass on their wealth. I think they will which is unfair.

[forthepeopl1]

But what Mr. Bush didn't mention, and what he almost never mentions, is the National Debt.

With good reason.

On the day he took office, the National Debt stood at this unfathomable number:

$5,727.776.738,304.64

In fiscal shorthand, that's $5.7 trillion dollars. Trillion with a "T."

Six and a half years later, the Bureau of Public Debt tells us the National Debt clocks in at a staggering:

$8,835,268,597,181.95

That's $8.8 trillion %u2013 an increase of $3.1 trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. And that amounts to a jump of 54% during Mr. Bush's watch.

If you wanted to pay it off, dividing it equally among the U.S. population (estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau to be 302,103,675), it would come to $29,245.82 for every man, woman and child.

Sot it's not really hard to understand why Mr. Bush almost never mentions it.

The National Debt has gone up more on his watch than under any other president.

BUSH HAS THE B,A,L,L,S TO SAY ITS THE DEMS FAULT.HE PUT 3 TRILLION ON IN LESS THAN 6 YEARS. WHAT A APE

[radiob-2009]

A update on the candiacy of Drew Shelt

June 15, 2007
Dogpile Gazette






Dogpile Missouri: We caught up with Drew our hometown champion on the steps of the state capital yesterday and inquired to his campaign for president. He stated that all was going well and that momentum was gathering in his favor. When pressed on issues such as Iraq he replied that he had a concrete plan to end the war inside of six months of his presidency. Asked about the immigration issue he again reiterated that he had the only viable plan. Asked about his plan and details of Drew was quick to respond to our questions with great insight and knowledge of the subject. He spoke fluently to the mixed audience outside the steps of the capitol, which was followed by applause. He promised his plan would indeed provide better security at home and abroad. He then went on to state that he would not only finish the war in Iraq inside of six months but he would also put an end to the war on terror bringing it also to a end inside of two years. Dogpile residents and America will indeed be watching this candiate.

[infidel_us]

CBS is SUCH an apologist network for the Clintons......the bias is so thick you could walk on it.

"Shazam, we had the trust since '83 and we never ever knowd what was in it....."

PAHLEEEZE.......would a republican in the same circumstance get such a pass from CBS (or any MSM outlet?)

[gkc99]

So now let's hear about Mitt Romney and where he got $200,000,000!

Did he pawn the "plates of gold"?

[brianbwb-2009]

to mh4cbs1,

There are also those who speak the truth because it helps get them support to get elected, but once in they forget about truth, and reveal themselves to be just more of the same corrupt class (or lack thereof) that preceded them.

There are those who walk the straight and narrow, (so far as we know)until the opportunity to steal enough to buy impunity, then decide to become the same as before.

My point is be careful of the Rons, Dennises, and others who look innocent, they also know how the game is played, and play it close to the chest.

[radiob-2009]

The latest from Drew Smelt tell me what you what to hear and I will tell you.Exclusively from Dogpile.

[mh4cbs1]

Read this article! Outstanding summary of how we were LIED into Iraq by these NeoCon fascist SOBs.

http://www.commondreams.org/arc
hive/2007/06/15/1896/

Get your head out of the sand, get informed. Then impeach and JAIL Cheney and Bush for their Crimes, and vote the slimey spineless and complicit Democrats OUT of Congress.

The candidates, with the exception of Republican Ron Paul and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, are just more of the same lame fake snakes, unwilling to speak the TRUTH (and they know it!)

[sjc_1]

It was interesting watching the cable business channels talk about how she could have made more money and pay less taxes if she had told the trust what investments to avoid.

I guess dodging taxes is a from of right wing patiotism

[radiob-2009]

June 6, 2007
Dogpile Gazette






Dogpile Missouri: Our very own Drew Shelt former city councilman has entered the presidential race. This is a first for Dogpile to have a native from Dogpile run for the presidency.
We caught up with Drew Shelt and asked him some questions. On the question of why he was running he replied that he felt it was time the people of this nation had a candidate that did not represent the corporations and instead represented the people. When asked of the current contenders for the office he merely hung his head. Asked what he would do if elected he replied that he would restore America to its owners the American people. When pressed on what he would do specifically on issues such as Iraq, the war on terror, dependence on oil, and various subjects he amazed all of us with quick and well thought out plans with details. How Drew Smelt a relative unknown of Dogpile could possibly garner national attention and actually win the race he replied it is in the hands of the people where it belongs. Amazed by his quick response we pressed for details on how he would end our dependence on oil, his reply was to promote the development of existing technology and advance new technology in an expedient manner. Solutions are all around us; the problem is big oil and lobbyist who have circumvented the exploitation of the alternative fuels and technologies. Dogpile and the nation will be watching Drew Shelt.

[forthepeopl1]

THIS IS AMERICA'S ACCOUNTABILITY OVERSITE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


nJULY 21 2007 IS WHEN AMERICANS WILL BE FREE AGAIN

EVERYONE THAT WANTS TO HELP WITH THIS SHOULD BE TALKING TO ALL MEDIA OUTLETS AND TELLING THEM THAT AMERICANS ARE READY TO TAKE WASHINGTON ON AND ITS NOT A FEW AMERICANS ITMILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT WILL TAKE BACK THERE COUNTRY..

I AM WILLING TO GIVE MY BLOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK TO WHAT OUR FORFATHERS WANTED.

AM A VET AND AM READY TO TAKE CHARGE OF THIS AMERICAN BOYCOT/COOP IF WE THE PEOPLE DONT DO THIS NOW WE WILL BE GIVENING UP ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND WHAT ALL OUR VET HAVE DIED FOR..

DAVID A BELANGER,VET US ARMY,[e-mail]

ok so wants to join in on this great american REVOLUTION


they cant kill millions of americans at once so if we charge them all at once we will win and take them out and hang them all..

just like in the old days of the west...hang them from the trees in front of the whitehouse and see how many start telling the truth about what they have done to all us americans..


its time to take all this *** and take our government back now..

they are the ones that started this and we will finnish it now..we the people will take our country back and everyone in washington can sit there and thinks we the people are ok with what they are doing..go ahead and let them think that we are comming to take them out

[forthepeopl1]

every person in washington should be investagated for haveing stock in anything that the lobbest down there fight for

lobbest should be held accounatble for makeing our leaders steal americans money..

they all have a closet full of stuff and its time for all americans to open all closets

[randalds]

Posted by forthepeopl1 at 04:32 PM : Jun 15, 2007

Sorry, wrong answer. The correct answer was "Who are the republicans. Republicans". Still thanks for playing and don't forget to pick up your home version of The Politics Blame Game on the way out.

Next!

[infidel_us]

It was a "blind trust" and they didn't know what the investments were. Yet, the headline says, "Hoping To Avoid Conflict Of Interest, Blind Trust With Investments In Oil, Drug Companies Sold."

Sounds to me like they knew what was in it. They probably made a fortune by bad mouthing "Big Oil" and selling short. There ought to be an investigation. I guarantee, if they were republicans, there would be.

Two faced crooked democrats.

[forthepeopl1]

she is a pig and lier like her husband and i hope all the dead soils they have made while makeing millions of our dead troops was worth it.

they each have a seat on the table of governors down in hell

may they burn there forever for the deaths of our troops. i mean murders of our troops

[randalds]

She saw a minor problem with investments in her blind trust and she took care of it. No big deal. Funny how it seems as if many people have forgotten that one of the jobs of politicians is to fix problems, not create more like Bush does. Now things have gotten so bad that it's become news when a politician does the correct and honest thing. Guess we've gotten used to the republican way instead.