In politics, honesty is not always the easiest policy. Barack Obama got a reminder of that when he released a list of "earmark" expenditures he has proposed — including a $1 million request for the University of Chicago Medical Center, where his wife, Michelle, is a vice president. In his meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board, Obama indicated that he should have left that item to fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, but he’s willing to disclose it and be held accountable.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, often seems to operate by the maxim that silence is golden. When asked whether she would release a list of her earmarks, her spokesman dodged the question, while declaring that she is "proud of the investments in New York that she has secured." But for now, at least, not proud enough to let voters know what they are.

This exercise in secrecy is part of a Clinton pattern that grows more worrisome all the time. The former first lady often says that she, unlike Obama, has been thoroughly vetted, rendering her impervious to Republican attacks. In fact, there are some important things unknown about her — and her conduct suggests she wants to keep it that way. Which raises a question for voters: What is she hiding, and why?

There is, for example, the matter of the Clinton tax returns. Obama has released his, but she has stalled on following suit. ( John McCain also has balked.) When asked about them in a February debate, she insisted she would make the returns public. But when asked if she would do so before the March 4 primaries, she replied, unconvincingly, "Well, I can’t get it together by then, but I will certainly work to get it together. I’m a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep."

Clearly this is a sensitive point with Clinton. When Obama pressed the issue recently, her spokesman accused him of "imitating Ken Starr." Never mind that clean-government groups like Common Cause also have called on her to release her returns.

Why are these documents so important? Partly because such basic information is rightly expected of modern presidential candidates. John Kerry released his in 2003, before the primaries even began. Partly because they would reveal details on what her husband is being paid for consulting, and who has paid for his travel.

Disclosure might shed light on Bill Clinton’s dealings with the likes of Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra — whom the former president accompanied on a 2005 trip to Kazakhstan. Giustra landed a major uranium mining deal on the trip, and not long after made a secret $31 million donation to Clinton’s charitable foundation.

Bill Clinton has declined to disclose the donors to either his foundation or his presidential library, which makes it hard to know if wealthy individuals may be trying to curry favor with the woman who may be president — and if so, who they are.

Maybe all the suspicions are unwarranted. But the best way for Hillary Clinton to put them to rest is to let the sun shine in.

Source: Chicago Tribune