fair is fair

It's been a while since I posted. Quite frankly I am a little bored with the presidential campaign right now. The constant bickering is annoying. Obama and Clinton are each claiming the other is attacking them unfairly; they do this while they proceed to attack each other unfairly. I think we have some issues out there that would be great to talk about.

Clinton vs. Obama at religious forum

On CNN's home page, this picture is being used to go with the developing story of the religious forum. I wonder what they both are thinking while they are "smiling" at each other? Given the recent harsh words between the two, I cannot imagine that those are genuine smiles.

-

Clinton speech income

On Hillary Clinton's Fact Hub, the campaign has a post complaining that "A number of people have suggested that the sources of President Clinton’s speech income has not been disclosed:" Then three documented cases are listed. Later the posting says:

This is entirely false. President Clinton's income from paid speaking engagements, including the source, date, and amount of income for every single speech, is fully disclosed on Senator Clinton's public financial disclosure forms and has been for every year that she has been a Senator. These forms are released annually, are available on the internet, and have been widely written about by news organizations such as the Washington Post and New York Times.

First of all, I find it interesting that, while normally her sources are well documented (often with links), she offers no specific link or web site -- just that the information is "available on the internet." I could not find them but I did try and look for articles by the Washington Post.

Here is one from February of 2007. The article has some very positive points about Bill Clinton's charity work. I was a little bothered by this statement though as it gets into the whole money and influence issue:

Many of Bill Clinton's six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton's top backers in her Senate campaigns. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 -- putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.

I was also a little bothered by this (emphasis added):

Beyond the millions he has earned personally, the former president has given dozens more speeches that result in payments to the William J. Clinton Foundation, his nonprofit charity in New York. His associates say those have yielded millions to help cover the $60 million annual budget the foundation spends to fund his charitable work on AIDS and world hunger.

The Clintons declined to disclose the size and sources of the payments for speeches he delivered on behalf of the charity. Campaign law and Senate ethics rules require Hillary Clinton to disclose only the fees her husband has taken as personal income, not those he routed to charity.

So, the Clintons are doing just what they have to; not necessarily what they could do for greater transparency. I'm guessing they do not want greater transparency.

-

Which candidate is the most dishonorable?

My undergraduate experience was at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. The cadet honor code was "A cadet neither lies, cheats, steals, nor attempts to deceive." You can say something that is technically not a lie but choose your wording in a way that is tries to deceive. That is just as bad as a lie in my book.
Using factcheck.org's postings I compared all three candidates for the last six months. There are obviously more postings directed at Clinton and Obama because they are in a heated contest. The winner of most dishonorable is a virtual tie between Hillary and Barack. Click here to see a table that lists all of the lies, deceits, and exaggerations.

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Lobbyists $

Hillary has a post on her Fact Hub page that blasts Obama for saying he does not accept money from lobbyists. She cites several situations in which he does, including the quote below. That is not to say that she is clean but I guess the point is that she doesn't claim to be. I've added some comments in red:

Obama has taken $405,747 from the Pharmaceutical industry. [opensecrets.org] Obama was #1 but Hillary is #3 at $404,646. McCain is #11 at $121, 750.

Obama has received $1,185,937 from the Commercial Banking industry. [opensecrets.org] That put Obama at #2. But guess who is #1: Hillary at $1,223,724. McCain is #5 at $748,405.

Obama has received over six million dollars from the Securities & Investment industry. [opensecrets.org] Obama is #2 again and Hillary is #1 again with about $250,000 more than Obama. McCain is #6 at $2, 605,486.

Obama has taken $608,822 from the Insurance industry. [opensecrets.org] Barack was #5 but Hillary beat her out at #4 with $809, 261. McCain is #6 at $395,682.

Obama has taken $168,584 from the Mortgage Banking industry. [opensecrets.org] Hillary is #1 ($199, 315) with Barack #2. McCain is #6 at $58,825. By the way, Fox News is running a story about Hillary's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, who was on the board of one of the once one-time top sub-prime lenders.

Obama's presidential campaign has received $2,812,336 from firms that employ registered federal lobbyists. [fec.gov] I cannot find a reference to this amount at the link provided.

-

Clinton vs. Obama: Buying Superdelegates?

It seems that both Hillary and Barack have been using money to influence superdelegates to vote for them, at least according to CapitalEye.org. This seems very despicable to me. Here are a few quotes:

And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. ...

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. ...

The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.

An update two weeks later said:

Two weeks ago, Capital Eye reported a connection that superdelegates have to the candidates that voters and pledged delegates don't—nearly $1 million in campaign contributions. As the uncommitted superdelegates have been deciding which candidate to support at this summer's nominating convention, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has identified an additional $42,800 that flowed in the last three years from Clinton or Obama's coffers into the hands of superdelegates with campaign accounts, bringing the total to $947,000.

Clinton's updated total to superdelegates, who include Democratic members of Congress, Democratic National Committee members, former party leaders and state governors, is $236,100 for 2005-2008, compared to Obama's $710,900. Looking back before the 2006 election cycle, though, the two are on more even ground. ...

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time.

A correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. Candidates may help other friends out when their campaigns need money so it would be likely that the friends would support each other when it comes to pledging. However, my gut tells me that this situation is just not right.

-

Clinton vs. Obama: Michigan and Florida

Here's a look back at the press releases that each candidate made regarding the pledge to not campaign in Michigan or Florida. Hillary's statement was short and said the following in its entirety:

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

Barack's statement was a little longer but also included this urging to Michigan and Florida:

... Obama campaign officials also urged states in danger of violating DNC rules to adjust their plans to comply with the DNC's calendar, so that every state contributes delegates to the nominating process. "To become the Democratic nominee for president, a candidate must secure a majority of delegates to the national convention," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. "Because states that violate DNC rules will not be allowed to contribute to the delegate tally, we urge all states to ensure their compliance with DNC rules so they can participate in our Democratic nominating process. ...

In a recent press release, Hillary's campaign said this: "Sen. Obama’s has previously emphasized the importance of counting all votes. So why won’t he make sure the voters of Michigan and Florida have their votes count?" At least she cannot say that he didn't warn them.

-