Mainstream media has made much of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s tax returns since they vacated the White House showing they contributed 10% of their combined $109 million to “charity” while Barack Obama only contributed one penny per dollar, and much of that to Rev. Wright’s church.

It turns out the Clinton’s charity was mostly to themselves giving $10,256,741 was donated to CFF, the Clinton Family Foundation. Bill, Hillary and Chelsea are each an officer or director and CFF paid quarter million annual salaries to other friends. CFF then contributed $2.5 million to other charities including the Clinton Birthplace project. In other words they gave money to themselves to give money to themselves.

Now that still makes the Clinton’s nearly twice a “generous” than Obama but both need a new spin meister for their whirling dervish hypocrisy.

Federal Election Commission reports show Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign with a $2.5 million debt for the month to her campaign manager Mark Penn’s firm. . . . Penn, Schoen & Berland is owned by Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, Penn’s international public relations and lobbying company. Burson-Marsteller, in turn, is owned by the British-based advertising giant WPP Group. Here’s the rub — is this “debt” is a loan from the corporations (much less a foreign corporation) which is illegal since corporate contributions are unlawful.

The fine folks over at wisegeek.com says the meaning of hypocrisy was not as tainted in the past as some some today think it is. As the Chief Hypocrite, I don’t think it is so bad……regardless of my personal habits, they say:

“Initially a hypocrite was someone who played a part, acted a part, or dissembled. Hypocrisy was the tool of actors, rhetoricians, and debaters in Ancient Greece. Specifically from rhetoric and debate, we can assign sides of an argument that a person must then take to his/her fullest capacity. We understand the side we take may not represent our true point of view; instead it’s merely a position in an argument that helps us to better understand the sides of an issue.”

It seems to be elected today, due to so much detailed, preserved and replayed press coverage and in an increasingly complex world with clashes of cultures who might not have known about each other in the not too distant past, and with so many single issue voters and bumper stickers (and web sites) is it possible for a politician to be free of hypocrisy?

So, in that sense, I ask myself (and you) what is really different today?

The wisegeek.com really says it better than I and they also have a lot of other really good stuff if you are in the mood to learn something. Book mark them, right after www.hypocrisy.com.