ABC's Tapper claimed Clinton was "cooking the books" because she has not yet released information on primary campaign funds
In an April 2 posting on his weblog Political Punch, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) campaign "can be seen as cooking the books" because the campaign has not disclosed how much of the reported $26 million Clinton raised in the first three months of 2007 is available for primary election spending. While the phrase "cooking the books" might suggest wrongdoing or illegal activity by the Clinton campaign, the 2008 presidential campaigns "do not have to make detailed fundraising and spending reports public until April 15," as the Associated Press reported on April 2.
Moreover, other candidates have not given full information on their first-quarter fundraising. Tapper did not mention, for example, that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has also not disclosed how much of the funds he raised are for the primary. McCain reportedly said only that "most" of his money was for the primary campaign. Neither has McCain nor former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) disclosed the amount of cash each has on hand.
Tapper's Political Punch post, in full:
Sen. Hillary Clinton has a lot to crow about today, what with her record-setting $26 million fundraising quarter.
Except....
For some reason...
We don't know how much of that money is for the primary and how much is for the general. And that's significant. Because she cannot touch the general election money unless she wins the nomination.
And, until we know what the breakdown is, we won't know who actually "won" the money primary this quarter. It seems entirely possible, as of this writing, that someone else could have raised more primary funds.
Clinton's $26 million comes from 50,000 donors, we are told. Former Sen. John Edwards raised $14 miilion [sic] from 40,000 donors. Sen. Barack Obama raised an undisclosed sum from 83,000 donors.
In short - Clinton seems to have more major donors than the others, more donors giving the maximum allowed by campaign law -- $2300 for the primary. But I'm guessing since she seems to have relied a great deal on these major donors that a lot of them maxed out, giving $4600 total - $2300 for the primary, $2300 for the general election (to be returned if she doesn't get the nomination.)
The significance is that this can be seen as cooking the books since Team Clinton refused to differentiate as to how much of this money is for the primary and how much is for the general. Unlike, say, Edwards, who provided that breakdown.
None of the experts on this issue whom I have talked to think it's credible that the Clinton campaign wouldn't have an idea of the breakdown as of now. None.
Which means they were likely trying to get a big splashy headline about the $26 million ($36 million when you add the cash transferred from her 2006 Senate campaign account) without those niggling details about what she can actually spend.
Mission accomplished.
But at a price, I think.
Jake Tapper can be seen as cooking his brain.
Jack Tapper is an Obama agent.
Yeah, funny how 2008 seems to be one big contest between the Dems. You'd almost think there aren't any good Republican candidates.
Jack Tapper is an Obama agent.
You mean like when he asked "just who the hell is Barack Obama" on ABC a month or so ago?
Nah, man. He's an agent all right. A GOP agent.
Whoopee, raise all the money you want, candidates. Roll in it like a robber after a purse snatching. Spend wisely, for the propaganda it will buy you must serve you well after the suckers fall for it. I hear the Swift Boaters are available to take some more Judas cash.
If Clinton WAS cooking the books, she could just release whatever information she wanted you to hear!
Off-topic but Clinton related- I heard Sean Hannity (radio) today, and he seems to have some very real concerns regarding HRC as a candidate.
Apparently his sources (The tabloids, WaPo, and various women, I kid you not) are hinting that Bill Clinton's sex addiction treatment may not have been successful.Sean cautioned his listeners to consider the problems that this could cause should the Clintons end up in the White House.
This warning was, I assume, directed at that group that includes those taking Sean Hannity seriously and considering voting for HRC. I'm trying to imagine one member of that group.
He was probably trying to deliver some good news. After all, Bill's last presidential infidelity is still providing ammunition for the cons (though I'd say they're firing blanks).
This IS the same HRC who so carefully misplaced, lost, deleted, or whatever copies of the Rose Law Firm billing records associated with the Madison Guaranty Trust bank falure, is it not?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/recs.html
I am SURE she wouldn't be doing anything to obfucate important financial records, now would she?
NL, I think you need a Drudge-style hat, with these investigative skills.
Old accusations in the Whitewater/Castle Grande cases!
I'd suggest you spend a "ride-along" day in a lawyers office, preferably real-estate or tax specialists.
But wear your depends, and hold onto your seat.
"cooking the books" does indeed suggest illegality. and since all this will be available by april 15 anyway, it's hard to see the advantage of this "cooking", and what "price" she will pay for it. sounds like just more right wing halftruths and spin. someone determined to smear clinton. in your words mr. tapper, "mission accomplished".
It's a good catch, and worthy of notation, this "cooking the books" bull... these guys get a lot of mileage out of doing this, out of using slang and metaphors and other strange (vague) language, to imply something, without actually saying it... in this case, to imply some kind of accounting impropriety, without actually saying so.
Now, when the Bush administration does this (as they do on a regular basis), they merely prove what we already know: That as agents of financial and other private interests, they think nothing of making their public statements as deceptive and misleading as possible... to deceive and mislead seem the chief purpose in the clever crafting of those statements...
...but why would anybody even pretending to be the 'press' do this?
Why say "cooking the books", intentionally as a way of implying something improper, when supposedly acting as a conduit of information or honest opinion (as the honest 'press' does as a matter of it's business)?
Unless such talk isn't meant as information or honest opinion, but instead is just more deception and misdirection (like it is practiced by the Bush administration)...
...in which case those who do that, as pretending to be the 'press', also prove themselves (as does the Bush administration), as not being the 'press' at all, but of being simply public relations specialists, serving some financial or other private interest, as does the Bush adminstration themselves.
We should always be on guard for this kind of talk, from these kinds of people... this use of slang and metaphors and other strange (vague) language, from the Bush administration and their many "media" hacks.
Jack Tapper? He's not a gay porn star, is he?
You know... I didn't have dinner yet, today, thus, I must be STARVING MYSELF!!