Obama > Clinton on Transparency (Calling Bullsh*t)

by horizonr, Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:37:33 PM EST

Originally posted at One Million Strong

Today's entry from Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times is a one-sided hit job in which
Sweet obligingly calls Senator Obama a hypocrite on transparency.

After whining for days about the long-overdue grilling she got at last week's debate, Hillary Clinton
is, predictably, "piling on" to this ridiculousness -- and, in the process, trying to dodge questions
about her own shocking lack of transparency -- by linking to Sweet. The lead story on Clinton's
news site -- the cloyingly named HillaryHub -- features a large photo of Philip Johnson's Glass
House over the boldfaced headline "Obama's Glass House."

Maureen Dowd is right. Hillary Clinton has "the gift of gall."

At any rate, Think on These Things is "on it" with a handy -- and very comprehensive --
Obama v. Clinton Ethics & Transparency Comparison Chart which makes it very
clear who has the superior record on these issues.

Extremely useful.

(Note to Sweet and Clinton: Context matters.)




Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, transparency, ethics, lobbyists (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 53 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Obama > Clinton o (2.00 / 2)

So why don't you answer sweet's charges.

giggle.

when hypocrisy is exposed it makes people squirm , it's not a pretty site.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:45:38 PM EST

Re: Obama > Clinton o (none / 0)

sorry " sight ".


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

Sweet's implicit argument -- that Obama (or any candidate) should not be proposing principled
advances unless he (or she) either has always exceeded or is currently exceeding those proposed
advances in his (or her) own "house" -- is prima facie absurd.

The rest is a matter of debunking Clinton's right to push this argument when her own record
is 50/50 the same or much worse than Obama's.

The chart makes quick work of that.


by horizonr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

Sweet was pointing out hypocrisy , thats all.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

Is Clinton against transparency? In all likelihood, no. I imagine (and hope) that she would say all sorts of things in favor of greater transparency, etc. if she were asked. So, looking at the chart reveals that she is even more hypocritical. Either that, or she is against transparency.


by DPW on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

Clinton is all for transparency, and has promoted legislation for more, but she doesn't pretend she is any better than any other Democrat. Once someone starts pointing out the mote in her eye she is perfectly justified pointing out the log in their own.


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

Thats not the point of sweet's post , you are going off on a tangent.

Clinton is not attacking any of her rivals on that issue , Obama is and sweet just happens to point out several instances in which he hasn't been open.

The point of her piece is hypocrisy . Not a clinton vs. obama thing.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

But, that's what I'm saying. If the point of the piece is hypocrisy (which I assume we are defining as behaving inconsistently with one's espoused positions), then Clinton is more hypocritical (assuming that she supports greater transparency). Sure, Obama isn't perfect, but he's better than anyone else--and far better than Clinton.

The real implication is that one shouldn't criticize another unless he or she is pure (that's what the glass house metaphor is supposed to communicate). I think that's an excessive approach to these things. The chart demonstrates that Obama's record on transparency is substantially better than Clinton's, and I think that gives him grounds to criticize Hillary, despite his imperfect record.


by DPW on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

The chart doesn't show any of the "transparency" legislation she has co-sponsored. Nor does it mention the Clinton administration's "re-inventing government" initiative, run by Al Gore, which made the federal government far more transparent than anything Obama has ever proposed.

The chart is cherry picked, biased and worthless.


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

Do you have any links to some Clinton accomplishments on transparence that are omitted by the chart. I'm genuinely interested.

I think the chart referred to in this diary just considers those matters specifically addressed in Sweet's piece.


by DPW on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

typos.... (none / 0)

Excuse the typos. Should be "some of Clinton's . . ." and "transparency."


by DPW on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

Here is the history of reinventing government, the largest transparency and reform effort in our government's history.


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

I visited the site you linked and looked at the summary of accomplishments from 1993 to 2000. I didn't see one example of policy that really increased transparency. There was one category of reforms entitled "Transforming Access to Government Through Technology," but none of these reforms appear to have changed disclosure requirements or the content made available to the public. Rather, these reforms just make it more convenient to get information that was already made available. Please let me know if I've missed something.


by DPW on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

Dig a little deeper. I respect Obama's focus on transparency in government, I agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant. In most cases corruption is hidden under layers of bureaucracy and public but hard to locate paperwork. Reinventing government streamlined the bureaucracy and made the documentation available and searchable.

What Obama has proposed while in the Senate are fine but small steps, they have nowhere near the scope of the reforms that Al Gore drove on behalf of Bill Clinton.


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

You quite rightfully give credit where credit is due...Al Gore.  It was more Al's thing than Bill's and Bill needed to be pushed in this area.   But I think you are downplaying the significance of what Barack was able to accomplish with the earmark legislation, despite it being less than he wanted.  It is a major step in attacking the pork bills.  Rather than characterize it as small steps, I think it is more taking the ball from Al and running with it.  


by Piuma on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

well if you go around attacking other candidates on secrecy , don't expect your own closet not to be checked out too.

And if there are inconsisitencies you will be open to the charge of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy only occurs if you go around acting holier than thou , clinton is not doing that but Obama is .

Thats the point of Sweet's piece. If Clinton was attacking Obama then she can be open to those charges.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

You wrote: "Hypocrisy only occurs if you go around acting holier than thou . . ."

That's just not true. Hypocrisy just requires that you behave in a way that calls into question your commitment to espoused positions. To the extent that Clinton claims to support transparent government, her behavior demonstrating a lack of commitment to that position constitutes hypocrisy.

That being said, almost everyone falls short of the ideal every now and again. Sweet's piece seems to be showing us that Obama is not perfect, that he has in some instances failed to live up to the Obama ideal. That is worth noting, and I have no problem with that. However, a comparison of records should also be noted so that we may evaluate how much each candidate fails to live up to their ideals.


by DPW on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama &amp (none / 0)

Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person for an act of which the critic is also guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrite

1  : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion  

2  : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

-- hypocrite adjective

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrite

The essence of the glass houses metaphor is to point out that Obama is attacking Clinton on this issue while his record is lacking . Clinton is not going around criticizing others.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama &amp (none / 0)

I know some people would like to make sweet's piece into a clinton vs. obama thing , but the essence of sweets piece is to show obama's hypocrisy.

Now if you want to compare obama's record and clinton's on transparency thats an entirely new debate and is not the essence of sweet's piece.

You tried to soften the blow on Obama by saying he is lacking in some areas etc , but if you are going around criticizing someone on that issue and you are lacking in it then of course you would be called a hypocrite.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

I've noticed this 'holier-than-thou' phrase quite a bit recently since the Clinton campaign first used it.  It's curious, as there are many, more mainstream, ways to say the same thing, self-righteous, 'taking the moral high ground,' and so forth.  And here you are connecting it to 'hypocrisy' which it really doesn't mean at face value, though it implies it.

The thing I find interesting is that it almost casts a negative on Obama's religiosity, a point which many on the left are uncomfortable with.  Do you suppose her campaign is having a subliminal swing at him over that as well?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

Its a quote from Richardson in the Drexel debate. And regardless of how some on the left feel, Obama has no monopoly on religious feeling or phrasing. The problem is his habit of pitting the religious against the secular.


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

It's not his monopoly which seems the issue with progressives but that he is religious at all, so to speak.  How do you mean about pitting the religious against the secular?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

It wasn't used by the Clinton campaign, so your post makes no sense (is, to use your term, bollocks :-) )   It was used first by Bill Richardson.  Unless you contend that he now works for the Clinton campaign, he speaks for himself.   And for many of us.  He is absolutely right.  We are seeing the veneer come off more and more.   That is always the problem with those uttering charges that claim that they themselves are better than anyone else.  It usually ends up being crap.    


by georgep on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

You mean Richardson isn't working for Clinton?


by horizonr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Sorry, Richardson then.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

Obama has never claimed that he is now or has ever been, in every case, as good as what he's proposing.

Sweet should look more closely. That's not hypocrisy she's seeing -- it's progress.


by horizonr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

From the Drexel debate:

Obama: And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.

...

And that means being open and transparent and accountable to the American people. And that's one of the hallmarks of my previous work in the state legislature, in the United States Senate, making sure that Americans know where our money is going, what earmarks are out there, what kinds of pork barrel spending is being done, who's bungling money for who.

Apparently transparency is not a "hallmark" of his "work in the state legislature." The records the National Archives have already released give us more insight into Clinton's internal communications than we will ever get from Obama's time in the legislature.


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what public document from his time in the... (none / 0)

legislature is not available to the public???

my understanding was none...


"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama
by bored now on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (none / 0)

Sure, progress, or "evolution."    Yep.  Conveniently, as was pointed out by Sweet several times before, Obama "evolves" just in time for major career-furthering events.  


by georgep on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton.... (2.00 / 1)

"Sweet's implicit argument -- that Obama (or any candidate) should not be proposing principled
advances unless he (or she) either has always exceeded or is currently exceeding those proposed
advances in his (or her) own "house" -- is prima facie absurd."

Sorry, how is it absurd?  If Obama refuses the same transparency that he is demanding of others, then what authority does he have to stand on?

Fact is, we don't know if Clinton's record is worse than Obama b/c we don't have Obama's full record to compare with.


by FilbertSF on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton o (none / 0)

He did.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Context: IOKIYAO (2.00 / 1)

It's OK if you are Obama.

If a single one-sided article gets you so worked up, good luck in the general. Clinton deals with these every day, and she's still winning. One difference though, she doesn't attack her opponents on bullsh*t grounds, Obama might want to learn that lesson.


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:51:15 PM EST

Re: Context: IOKIYAO (none / 0)

In linking to Sweet's article, Clinton is attacking Obama not just
on bullsh*t grounds, but on f*cking bullsh*t grounds.


by horizonr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Context: IOKIYAO (none / 0)

Oh, and I assume you mean whining.


by horizonr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Context: IOKIYAO (2.00 / 1)

Ah, so now Clinton is not entitled to defend herself from Obama's attacks?


by souvarine on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Context: IOKIYAO (none / 0)

Look, pundits just like to cause trouble.


"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama
by General Sherman on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Context: IOKIYAO (2.00 / 1)

Clinton has never even attacked Obama.  Obama is attacking on Clinton.

This article is not written by Clinton, but by Lynn Sweet.

If you don't know Sweet, check her posts on Huff Post.  She's written numerous blogs skewering Clinton.

Sweets' article isn't even about Hillary.  It's about Obama's hypocrisy.


by FilbertSF on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

clinton has never attacked obama??? (none / 0)

have we forgotten her attack on obama for tolerating david geffen already???


"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama
by bored now on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

You mean Obama is not "perfect"?  Holy shit.


Glad he is being exposed!

The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:38:37 PM EST

Hmm... (2.00 / 1)

Hillary's campaign ridicules 'hope' but they are junkies for audacity.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:44:21 PM EST

Re:Earmarks. (2.00 / 1)

I really don't understand where the supposed hypocrisy is in Obama releasing his earmark requests.  He tried to include that in the bill he wrote and got passed which now makes it law that any earmarks, and their sponsors, be revealed once a bill is enacted.  Where's the hypocrisy in doing voluntarily what he tried to make law?


by Piuma on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:06:30 PM EST

Sweet and her paper have treated Obama well (none / 0)

The piece wasn't even all that hard hitting.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:09:11 PM EST

oh great - now you are quotin that horror (none / 0)

Mo dean...

Obama has made a vile deal with the media to do their dirty work and you obviously have joined on.

Larry klayman of judical watch and linda tripps palp michael issikoff were the first to ask that the clintons release the presidential papers - why/  sO THEY CAN HURT AND EMBARASS DEMOCRATS!@

Annd what - its surprising thata Russert and Matthews joined in?

whats shocking is that obama and his truly foolish followers have joined in..

What/  You learned nOTHING about the media from their behaviour in the ninties and during the 2000 camopaign?  have you ever even heard of their 'war on Gore'?

idiotic.  Obama is gonna lose - but he has justified the media in t6heir demands for these papers....but why didnt and dont they ask the same from republicans -

you people are s....lets just say...naive and irresponsible...

get ye to the dailyhowler.com and read uyp and learn about your new pals Dowd, matthews, russert  and if you dont know who Klayman and Isikoff are and what they did to put Bush in the WH -

you shouldnt even be votingt...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:27:06 PM EST

Re: oh great - now you are quotin that horror (none / 0)

I'm sure the folks at MyDD will sell you space to advertise your howlingmonkey website or whatever it is called.  It's pretty clear  what you're up to - too bad your candidate is not so transparent.


by Piuma on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i dont work for the dailyhowler (none / 0)

you fool...and Bob doesnt take money or care about ads.  It is the most important political site on the net, bar none,  and guess what, he is a edwards supporter...but he's my friend and he explains how the political media work better than anyone else...and he pulls no punches.

That you dont know who he is just shows you dont know much at all...

I suggest you google him.

Al gore himseld told me last fall that Bob somerby, the author and his former college roommate, was the smartest man he's ever known.

He's ever smarter than me...and Im obviously smarter than you...so i suggest you start reading it immidiately...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

So, here we have the desperation tactics nicely on display:

In one diary respected progressive blogger Taylor Marsh is vilified and slandered.   Here it is Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet's turn.  Why?  Because they dare to not be in the "We all hate Clinton" mode, but actually raise tough questions on the other candidates, Edwards and Obama.  They point out hypocrisy when they see it, and we just can't have that.  It just HAS to be 24/7 Clinton-hate, nothing else will do.    I find these tactics despicable.  This bashing of those who disagree with the Hillary-haters and Hillary-detractors.   We have also seen great Democrats bashed as sellouts and worse because they dared to endorse Clinton, from McGovern to Mondale, from Lewis to Ferraro.    This shabby treatment of good Democrats for the simple reason that they support Hillary Clinton has to stop.   This shabby treatment of writers who dare to point out consistencies and holier-than-thou postures by Edwards and Obama has to stop.  


by georgep on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:29:26 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 0)

Okay, George, let's break it down and see if we can have a discussion.  Let's clear out a point I found without any merit in the Sweet piece - earmarks.  Obama writes a bill where he tries to make all earmark requests public knowledge. It gets watered down but still accomplishes a major change - after a bill is passed the earmark and it's sponsors are made public.  After the bill was passed, Obama, Rahm Emmanuel and some others voluntarily released their earmark requests for this year.  

How is that inconsistent or holier-than-thou.  It is accomplishing what all of us as Democrats should want, and it is Obama saying I believe in this and so I will do this voluntarily.  Why should this be a matter of criticism?


by Piuma on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Guess everybody's a victim in the Clinton camp these days -- including everybody who says
or writes things that are helpful to She Who Is Inevitable (to use Andrew Sullivan's moniker),
then are called out by those who are less friendly to said She.

Tell me, George, is this the way "strong women" play it now?


by horizonr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Uh, you are bashing Lynn Sweet's column.  Why?  Partisan reasons.

It seems as if Obama is the exhalted one, he "who walks on water."   Well, we are seeing that he is not what he portrayed himself as early on, he is actually a politician's politician.   I don't have a problem with him using corporate jets until the VERY WEEK he was going into the ethics issue, it is what true politicians do.  They all practice hypocrisy.  It is just when they claim they are better than others when people look at these types of things closer and go "Whoa, what makes him so much better?  He is just like all the others" and we see how the built theme is all wrong.  

So, we end up seeing Obama lose a ton of support from May to today for the very reasons we are discussing here.  That despite a media campaign on his behalf that I personally have never seen in my life, in over 3 decades of following politics.  It isn't working, and is not about to.  Now, if Obama were truly pure, you would have something here.   But he isn't, so you don't.  


by georgep on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 0)

Why are you so reluctant to engage in dialogue, point by point, without hysterical rhetoric?  I asked you above, where is the fault in the earmarks release.  I'd love to hear the answer.


by Piuma on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he just makes shit up... (none / 0)

i'd surmise that no one actually ever said that obama walks on water, he just made up another strawman argument in order to justify his pre-conceived notions...


"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama
by bored now on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

You're a lot better at bullshitting than you were a few months ago.
Congratulations. You obviously have a good teacher.

Oh, and "exalted" doesn't have an "h."


by horizonr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:59:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama > Clinton on Transparency (none / 0)

We can talk all that we want about Obama's blatant hypocrisy, but it doesn't matter. It will never be picked up by the mass media which seems to be uniformly enthralled by Barack Obama. But Obama is a hypocrite on this issue.


by arkansasdemocrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:10:36 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: