* vs. *

Conservatives and corporations

2010-01-18T00:01:00.002-07:00

Conservatives see large corporations as vital to the economy and as employers of many people. Liberals are merely jealous of what CEOs make. The federal government and unions hinder corporations and economic prosperity for all. Just as liberals see a greed motive in corporations, conservatives see greed as the motive for unions and politicians.

Liberals and corporations

2010-01-17T00:01:00.000-07:00

Liberals seem to demonize large corporations. They see a rape and pillage mentality for CEOs to get as much money as possible in the short term without regard for people or the environement. Greed is the driver. Unions and a strong federal government are important checks on the corporations.

Tomorrow: Conservatives and corporations

Motivations of conservative politicians

2010-01-16T00:01:00.000-07:00

I have often wondered whether conservative politicians are altruistic in their motives or whether they see corporations and the richest Americans as a way to finance their political ambitions. Are they truly for less government control or are they merely appeasing the rich to maintain their own power?

Tomorrow: Liberals and corporations

Motivations of liberal politicians

2010-01-15T00:01:00.000-07:00

I have often wondered whether liberal politicians are altruistic in their motives or whether they see a large potential voting base of those on the lower socio-economic levels. Appealing to the middle and lower classes can give them a strong constituent base. Do they want power to truly help people or power for power's sake?

Tomorrow: Motivations of conservative politicians

Liberals and taxes

2010-01-14T00:01:00.000-07:00

Liberals have an attitude that the government has a strong role in providing basic necessities that we are all entitled to have. The government needs tax support to provide those services. Keeping tax rates low is just part of the old "trickle-down" theory of economics that does not help those at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Tax rates need to be at a sufficient level to provide needed services.

Tomorrow: Motivations of liberal politicians

Conservatives and taxes

2010-01-13T00:01:00.000-07:00

Conservatives have an attitude that is something like this: "I earned my money and therefore it is mine." The government should take as little as possible to maintain basic services; for example, national security. Keeping tax rates low allows people to keep and therefore spend more money which, in turn, helps keep up the level of funds needed to maintain a government.

Tomorrow: Liberals and taxes

What I like about politicians

2010-01-12T00:01:00.000-07:00

What I like about politicians and the political process:

term limits

Tomorrow: Conservatives and taxes

What I hate about politicians

2010-01-11T00:01:00.000-07:00

What I strongly dislike about politicians and the political process:

hypocrisy and always pointing to the other party's problems while ignoring their own
elitism and the feeling that they are above the law
voting in party blocks
campaign contributions
pork and constituents who turn a blind eye towards it out of their own self-interests
the majority party being corrupted by the power of the majority
careful use of language to appease various constituents
misleading representations of their opponents
two-party system
humongously long bills

Tomorrow: What I like about politicians

What I hate about socialism

2010-01-10T00:01:00.001-07:00

What do I strongly dislike about socialism? The concentrated power of the state; someone telling me what is best for me and society; and, through a nanny state, the way it can make some people lazy with less emphasis on personal responsibility and initiative.

Tomorrow: What I hate about politicians

What I hate about capitalism

2010-01-09T00:01:00.000-07:00

What do I strongly dislike about capitalism? The emphasis on competition and winners and losers, the prevalence of a buyer-beware attitude that is morally and ethically wrong, the excuse for paying people as little as possible and still be able to get away with it, consumers who just want the lowest prices (while ignoring the previous points), and consumers and CEOs with a focus on the short-term returns on their investments.

Tomorrow: What I hate about socialism

Democrats and the love of others

2010-01-08T00:01:00.001-07:00

Democrats believe in nurturing love with an emphasis on providing support. Too lenient? Is this enabling behavior?

Tomorrow: What I hate about capitalism

Conservatives and love of others

2010-01-07T00:01:00.000-07:00

Conservatives believe in tough love with an emphasis on personal responsibility. Too tough? Really an excuse not to care?

Tomorrow: Democrats and the love of others

conservatives and a hungry person

2010-01-06T00:01:00.000-07:00

Conservatives want to teach the hungry person to fish.

Tomorrow: Conservatives and love of others.

liberals and a hungry person

2010-01-05T00:01:00.001-07:00

Liberals want to give a hungry person a fish.

Tomorrow: Conservatives and fish.

conservatives and human nature

2010-01-04T00:01:00.000-07:00

According to my friend's theory (see the previous post), conservatives believe that people are flawed and often make bad choices. Therefore, if someone is in bad circumstances then it must be their own fault.

Tomorrow: Conservatives and love of others.

liberals and human nature

2010-01-03T00:01:00.001-07:00

A friend of mine has an interesting theory about the fundamental difference in the assumptions made by liberals and conservatives. He says that liberals believe in the goodness of people and their desire for growth and hope. Therefore, if someone is in bad circumstances then it must be society's fault.

Tomorrow: Conservatives and human nature.

liberals and the beggar

2010-01-02T00:01:00.002-07:00

A liberal walks by a beggar and puts some money in the cup. Correct action?

Tomorrow: Assumptions made by liberals on human nature.

conservatives and the beggar

2010-01-01T00:01:00.002-07:00

A conservative walks by a beggar and yells, "Get a job." Correct action?

Tomorrow: What a liberal would do.

Starting off 2010

2009-12-31T08:06:00.003-07:00

Each day for the next couple weeks I am posting a quick political comment highlighting differences between liberal and conservative views.
Have a happy new year!

I know the solution to our economic troubles!!

2009-03-06T18:13:00.002-07:00

I think I know how to at least get the country out of debt and we can do it quickly. Think of the several Obama appointees who had to drop out of contention for not paying their taxes (and the Treasury Secretary had the same problem but he was special I guess and did not have to step down). So, out of that small sample of appointees, there was a surprisingly high percentage with tax issues. That percentage probably applies to society in general. Therefore, we do not have to tax the rich, we need to audit them. Just make the rich pay what they are supposed to pay! Former democratic senator Tom Daschle failed to pay $128,000 in taxes for a 3-year period. That's just one person. Think of all the Daschle's that must be out there.

Dems vs. Reps: Culture of Corruption?

2009-01-31T14:15:00.002-07:00

The democrats railed about the culture of corruption in the Bush administration. Is Obama setting up the same? Hope not but I am disturbed by the following:

Tom Dashle having tax problems and now it is learned that he has recently accepted over $200,000 in speaking fees from the health care industry. Does Obama not see this as a potential conflict of interest in Dashle being nominated to be over helath care for the U.S.?

Pres. Obama has made a rule about not hiring lobbyists but apparently breaks that rule in hiring two former lobbyists, Giethner as Treasury Secretary, and William Lynn as deputy defense secretary.

Tim Geithner as Treasurer who also has tax problems. Can we really trust him to do the right thing?

And, while not the White House:

Senator Dodd getting a sweet deal from Countrywide while being chair of the Senate Banking Committee and refusing to relase information that he said he would. Apparently the Senate Ethics Committee is investigating.

House Ways and Means Committee Chair, Charles Rangel, still has his chairmanship despite serious potential ethics violations and an ethics invesitgation.

I'm sure the Republicans have issues too but I want Obama to walk the talk. If he truly wants an ethical, bipartisan administration then he needs to show some leadership.

McCain vs. Obama: Your wallet

2008-10-26T10:12:00.002-06:00

Click here for a Wall Street Journal article that compares McCain's and Obama's policies that effect your personal finances.

McCain vs. Obama: Why I don't want to vote for either

2008-10-17T18:42:00.003-06:00

Not sure what to do with my vote. I'm inclined to not vote for either major candidate and here's why:

McCain:

What was he thinking in choosing Palin? McCain's best argument over Obama was experience. Palin has less experience on a national level than Obama. That takes McCain's argument away. I wonder about his judgment and her ability to step in as president if needed.
I want an articulate president.
Negative ads - purposely distorting the truth.

Obama:

I was hoping he was the real deal but I think he is looking like a standard politician. Go to the left to get the party's nomination and then switch to the middle for the general election. Lots of earmarks. Shady real estate deal with a convicted felon. Not being truthful about his relationships with others [Once a little controversy comes up about an associate, he distances himself. For example, I believe he knew Rev. Wright for 20 years. I would have respected Obama if he had just said that he didn't agree with the Reverend's extreme positions but that the Reverend and his church do a lot of good. Instead he throws Wright under the bus and claims he didn't know of Wright's views.]
Government is not always the solution. I do not want a stronger federal government but Obama leans that way.
Too simplistic perhaps in suggesting taxes won't go up for most because he will tax the rich and the corporations. A tax on corporations just gets passed on to us.
Negative ads -purposely distorting the truth.

Obama vs. McCain on the issues

2008-10-11T08:59:00.003-06:00

I am pretty tired of all the political fighting. So, let's just get back to the issues. Here is a list of positions each candidate has taken on their official campaign web sites. I have provided the links on each issue:

Issue	Obama	McCain
Roe v. Wade	yes	no
Nuclear power	yes	yes
Drilling for oil	no	yes
Greenhouse cap-and-trade	yes	yes
Stem cell research	yes	yes/no
Same sex marriage	??	no
Iraq	responsible withdrawal	succeed and leave
Affordable health care	yes	yes
Voluntary public service	yes	yes
Gun control	no	no
Patriot Act	yes	yes

McCain vs. Obama: Freddie/Fannie

2008-10-04T08:23:00.003-06:00

Open Secrets is a web site of the Center for Responsive Politics. Their mission statement says it "is the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government." Using data they say is released by the FEC, they listed last month the recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the last 20 years. Top of the list belongs to Senator Dodd at $165,400 (a little conflict of interest here?). Next is Senator Obama at $126,349. McCain is far down the list at $21,550.

As a side note, Fox News has been running a story on their web site about Barney Frank being guilty of confliuct of interest. His lover/partner, Herb moses, was an assistant director of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998 while Frank was on the House Banking committee. CNN.com has yet to pick up this story. From the FoxNews.com article:

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton [former president] now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

who caused the economic crisis?

2008-10-02T12:50:00.001-06:00

Again FactCheck.org does a nice, balanced approach. It is an easy read and makes a lot of sense. Here's the link: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

Iraq vs. Bailout: Bush Credibility

2008-09-30T11:16:00.003-06:00

What a weird situation with the bailout issue. The Democrats are supporting Bush's bailout (after putting in funds for their causes) while most legislators from the President's party are against the bailout. Here is what is really weird. Remember Bush saying we have to attack Iraq or the sky would fall? Why would we believe him now when he says we must go into debt further by about another trillion dollars or the sky will fall?

Burning down the house: the economic crisis set to music

2008-09-29T19:17:00.003-06:00

Check this out. It is from a Republican point of view but very clever. Anyone doing a democratic version?

democrats vs. republicans: whose fault on the bailout?

2008-09-29T17:39:00.003-06:00

Both CNN.com and FoxNews.com had articles on the blame game. The House vote for a compromise bailout plan failed 228 -205. CNN reports that about 60% of democrats voted for the bill while only about a third of republicans voted for it, even though both party leaders in the House urged their respective parties to approve it. So, what do the articles say about who is blaming whom? Both articles note Nancy Pelosi's partisan remarks. Here is a quote from CNN:

Pelosi also said the cost of the bailout "is a number that is staggering but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies -- policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision and no discipline in the system."

The top republican, John Boehner, said Pelosi's partisan comments alienated some republicans [not very good leadership on Pelosi's part nor did the republicans handle it well]. Barney Frank then blames the republicans for looking for an excuse for not being able to bring in the vote. When in reality I think this was the issue as mentioned briefly in both articles:

Before the vote, many House Republicans expressed opposition to the bill, saying it departed from free-market principles. Republican congressional aides also said calls from constituents were running 10 to 1 against the legislation.

People are angry and they have let their representatives know it.

Money guru Dave Ramsey as an interesting alternative to the bailout; go here.

.

DNC vs. RNC: vice presidential candidates

2008-09-27T08:47:00.002-06:00

Surprisingly, the Democratic National Committee gives very little mention of Sarah Palin on their website even though it would seem there is plenty of ammunition they could use. Using the search function on the web site there is only one reference to Palin.

On the other side, the Republican National Committee site hammers Joe Biden. On the home page there is a link to a Joe Biden Gaffe Timeline. Also, on the homepage is a “Biden His Time Clock” which counts the days/hours/minutes/seconds since Sen. Joe Biden was asked to release his earmarks. The site's search function shows 2760 references to Biden.

I wonder why the DNC has not jumped all over Palin?

McCain vs. Obama: debate falsehoods

2008-09-27T08:18:00.002-06:00

As usual, FactCheck.org does a nice job of comparing claims made by both candidates that were false. Here is a link to the article:http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html.

conservative vs. liberal: bumper stickers

2008-09-24T18:49:00.004-06:00

I've created a slide show in the side bar that alternates conservative and liberal bumper stickers. The liberal ones come from Carry a Big Sticker. The conservative ones are from RightWingStuff at Cafepress.

A reason to vote for McCain?

2008-09-23T08:48:00.002-06:00

Not being super thrilled with either major party candidate, I was thinking about the economy and our out of control spending. When the Republicans recently had both the White House and the Congress, spending took off. Supposedly against big government, the power went to their heads and they spent like crazy. Deservedly, many were ousted. What would our spending look like if the Democrats, believing in a stronger central government role, had both the White House and the Congress?

Biden vs. Palin: Prominence on Campaign Pictures

2008-09-21T17:00:00.005-06:00

For what it is worth, if you check out the joint Obama/Biden campaign pictures on the official campaign web site, you see that Biden is usually in the background a bit (except for one style of campaign button). Always, when their names are in print in any item in their store, Biden's is in a smaller font. [By the way, is Obama getting more grey hair? Or is this photo below - header of the campaign web site - meant to look that way to give him the appearnace of more experience?]

Palin enjoys a little more prominence in campaign buttons and photos. She is usually pictured alongside McCain or at least a similar size photo. For store items, her name is usually in the same font size (with the excpetion of one lapel pin).

McCain vs. Obama: Who's Lying?

2008-09-21T15:36:00.002-06:00

Instead of "lying" I could use words like misrepresenting, stretching the truth, exaggerating, etc. But those are all words used to soften what is, in fact, lying. So, who is lying? According to factcheck.org, both are. Here are just a few recent examples given on factcheck.org:

McCain's lies:

Obama's lies:

I suppose some just dismiss the above as gamesmanship or similarly have the attitude that that is just politics. But, as I see it, this is lying and cheating to try and get an advantage. It's sickening.

CNN vs. Fox: Palin probe

2008-09-16T07:44:00.003-06:00

Is CNN.com trying to make the Palin probe look like more of a scandal? Is Fox downplaying it? Here is a screen shot of CNN's home page where Palin has been prominent since yesterday:

Here is Fox's home page with the Palin probe circled in yellow:

CNN vs. Fox: Rove's comments

2008-09-14T17:50:00.004-06:00

Fox News.com: Here is Fox's headline that has Rove faulting both McCain and Obama.

CNN.com: Here is the headline from CNN just picking on McCain (while acknowledging that Rove faulted Obama as well).

[been awhile since I posted because I have been sick and tired of politics. I think Rove is right, both campaigns are distorting the facts]

fair is fair

2008-04-29T07:15:00.003-06:00

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

2008-04-13T20:31:00.003-06:00

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

2008-04-07T22:12:00.003-06:00

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?

2008-04-04T20:50:00.003-06:00

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 $

2008-03-31T06:38:00.005-06:00

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?

2008-03-30T08:55:00.003-06:00

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

2008-03-28T06:26:00.003-06:00

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.

Clinton vs. Obama: Exaggerations

2008-03-26T08:02:00.002-06:00

Caught in her own exaggeration on Bosnia, Hillary has just put out a press release listing 10 exaggerations by Barack. Her press release says:

They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months.

["Misspeaking" is misspelled by the way] She is saying "see Barack is embellishing too." So, she is admitting that she was embellishing, not simply making a misstatement.

It always comes down to Hillary feeling that she is being personally attacked. She still links to attacktimeline.com from her Fact Hub page. Doesn't she realize that she is attacking as much or more than Obama? She seems to have a persecution complex. Maybe because she leaves herself wide open to attack.

-

Hillary misspeaks about Bosnia

2008-03-25T07:59:00.005-06:00

Hillary Clinton's Fact Check makes this statement:

Hillary recently misspoke about her trip to Bosnia.

She said she was "landing under sniper fire." "Misspoke" is the kindest word that can be used by her campaign. Words the campaign would not use: lied, embellished, exaggerated, overstated, inflated, aggrandized. She was either deliberately misspeaking or her memory is really bad.
Here is a CBS YouTube video that does a good job of showing the exaggeration:

The Fact Check post also makes this point:

Contemporaneous news accounts confirm that Hillary’s trip to Bosnia was a dangerous situation:

I believe that wording is also an exaggeration. The real point would be that she was in a potentially dangerous situation that was well under control at the time. So, it seems that even the campaign is misspeaking in their explanation of Hillary's misspeaking.

-

Obama: Typical white person

2008-03-24T21:47:00.003-06:00

So, what did Barack Obama mean with this statement on a morning radio show [emphasis added]:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know - there's a reaction in her that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. ..."

What a poor choice of words. Here are just a few of the sites that have cited the quote:

Philly.com this also has a response from the Obama campaign:

UPDATE: We gave the Obama campaign a chance to respond to this post. "Barack Obama said specifically that he didn't believe his grandmother harbored any racial animosity, but that her fears were understandable and typical of those often shared by her generation," said Obama's PA spokesman Sean Smith, who added that Grandma is 86-years-old. He might have meant that specifically, but that isn't what he said, especially as he spoke of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, in the present tense. The Clinton campaign has not yet returned our request for comment on Obama's remarks. We aren't holding our breath for a Clinton comment.

BusinessWeek.com
YouTube
FoxNews.com not CNN though (although apparently Larry King talked about it on his show)
United Press International

I'm sure Obama can explain this away but he should be a little more careful when choosing his words.

-

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Easter

2008-03-23T15:32:00.002-06:00

So, what do each of the candidates have to say about Easter? Just looking at official press releases from Hillary Clinton, since January, showed the following releases recognizing various holidays or anniversaries:

Hillary Clinton Recognizes National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day
Senator Clinton Recognizes Black History Month
Senator Clinton Recognizes Frederick Douglass Day
Clinton Campaign Staff and Volunteers Observe the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday
Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton Commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday

For the same time period, these are from Barack Obama:

Obama Statement Commemorating the Persian New Year
Obama Statement Commemorating Purim
Obama Statement on Women's History Month

[Note: Barack has an official statement for Women's History month but not Black History month while Hillary has one for Black History month but not Women's History month.]

For the same time period John McCain had these releases:

Statement By John McCain On Fifth Anniversary Of Iraq Invasion
Statement By John McCain On Third Anniversary Of The Cedar Revolution

However, McCain did clearly recognize Easter on his home page which is where the picture above comes from.

-

Bill Clinton's comments in Charlotte

2008-03-22T11:23:00.003-06:00

Hillary's campaign is trying to soften what Bill Clinton said in a speech in Charlotte. The campaign statement, on Hillary's Fact Hub, says the following. I've added a few comments in red.

Fact Check: What Bill Clinton Said In Charlotte

3/21/2008 7:58:36 PM

Some are suggesting that the following remark by President Clinton was intended as a personal attack:

I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country [What does "if" mean here? People are reading between the lines and thinking that the "if" means Clinton vs. McCain but not Obama vs. McCain. Since Bill likes to define words carefully (remember his comment about "is" during his scandal?), his use of "if" would imply that he means "if" and that people are right in assuming he is questioning Obama's patriotism, while speaking to a group of veterans.] and were devoted to the interest of this country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics

Actually, as is indicated by the quote itself, President Clinton was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism [If his point is to have people focus on the issues, then he could have addressed that a lot more directly than he did.].

He was lamenting that these kind of distractions "always seems to intrude" [I doubt he was lamenting. I believe he was purposely bringing up the issue to slam Obama and then carefully choosing his words to try and make it look like he was just addressing distractions.] on political campaigns. This is consistent with his criticism of the "politics of personal destruction," which dates back 16 years.

Hillary vs. the polls

2008-03-19T07:08:00.002-06:00

Hillary Clinton has made this statement in a press release on March 18th:

A new USA Today/Gallup poll has Hillary leading McCain nationally by 5 points (51-46). The same poll shows Sen. Obama would be in a much tighter race, leading McCain by only 2 points.

I always like to go to the source but I cannot find the results that she mentions. At the Gallup web site this statement can be found, dated March 18th:

There has been no change in the relative positioning of the two Democratic candidates when pitted against John McCain in hypothetical trial heats for the fall election. McCain has a very slight 2-point advantage over Obama. McCain is tied with Clinton, as he has been the last four days.

So, what poll is she referring to? I cannot find it on the USA Today web site either.
If I were Hillary I would not draw too much attention to the polls. Gallup shows that people see her as the most dishonest candidate, by far.

Hillary Clinton is rated as "honest and trustworthy" by 44% of Americans, far fewer than say this about John McCain (67%) and Barack Obama (63%).

Other bad news for Hillary from this poll:

Also, Obama (62%) and McCain (61%) finish well ahead of Clinton in terms of being able to "work well with both parties in Washington to get things done."

One final dimension underscores another potential vulnerability for Clinton -- 47% of Americans say she is someone they would be proud to have as president (51% say they would not be proud to have Clinton). Obama (57%) and McCain (55%) both score above the majority level on this measure, which highlights that both tend to fare better on basic likability measures than Clinton.

Clinton vs. Obama: Earmarks

2008-03-16T15:57:00.003-06:00

Hillary is trying to fight back against Obama's request that she reveal her latest tax returns and her earmarks. I have a couple of problems with regard to some information on her "Fact Hub" on the campaign website.

In referring to an AP article, she states this which appears to be true from the article:

Sen. Bradley also claimed that Sen. Obama has "revealed all of his earmarks - all the earmarks that he sponsored." That's also false. Sen. Obama refuses to release the vast majority of earmarks he requested as a state senator.

However, in that same article she skips over this:

Since entering the U.S. Senate and launching his presidential campaign, Obama has made a political issue of openness.
He voluntarily discloses the "earmarks" he adds to the federal budget; Clinton does not. He initially released only one year's worth of earmark information, but on Thursday he released his requests for the 2005 and 2006 federal budget years, too.

At the end of her Fact Hub post she makes this assertion with links to the same AP article. However, while the statement below may be true, this information cannot be found in the linked article.

The list of U.S. Senate earmarks requests Sen. Obama recently released also does not appear to include a number of requests he made jointly with Sen. Durbin.

Do the Iraqis want us to leave?

2008-03-16T15:03:00.002-06:00

In a comment to my previous post on the candidates' statements on Iraq, it says [I have added comments in red]:

What is often left out of this debate is what the Iraqis themselves want. We know very little about what it's like to live in Iraq under occupation by a foreign military, yet we assume that if we pull out, things will only get worse. If the US government is serious about "promoting democracy" shouldn't we be listening to what Iraqis want? According to a Washington Post article [click here for the article] from Dec. 19, 2007, "The Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of 'occupying forces' as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military [The good news is that at least the military is trying to get this information.] last month." [While I do not doubt that this is the case, I always prefer to see the original report rather than rely on a reporter's interpretation of the report. However, I cannot find it anywhere. If anyone knows where I can find the source document, I would appreciate it.] According to a poll conducted for the BBC and ABC News in 2007 [click here for the poll results], 78% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. [see Q21 below]

Here are some questions from the poll with some results:

Q7 Not personally, but in terms of Iraq, what in your opinion is the single biggest problem facing Iraq as a whole? The highest was lack of security/safety (general) 23%. Next was terrorist attacks at 13%. U.S. occupation/presence was only at 8%.

Q19 Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq? A total of 79% oppose the presence of Coalition forces. Of the 79%, 26% are only somewhat opposed while 53% are strongly opposed. I would expect that any people would not want a foreign military presence so these results are not too surprising. The question is when should they leave. See the next question.

Q21 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave? 47% say leave now. For the majority who say that they should not leave now 34% say they should remain until security is restored, 10% said remain until the government is stronger, 7% said to remain until security forces can operate independently, and 2% said remain longer but leave eventually. Incidentally, the way this question is asked makes it look like the largest percentage want the forces to leave now. But when you add up the others, 53% want them to stick around awhile longer.

Q22 Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation? 72% say worse.

Q27 Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country? They rate the U.S at 19% (down from 31% the previous Feb) and Pres. Bush at 8%. Al Qaeda/foreign jihads were rated higher at 21% and Iran at 11%.

-

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Troops in Iraq

2008-03-12T07:38:00.002-06:00

Here is a comparison of what the leading candidates say about education on their "issues" pages of their campaign web sites. These are just excerpts but I have provided the links if you want to read all of what they say. I assume that these issue statements were carefully decided upon and carefully crafted to appeal and communicate to a national audience (as opposed to a speech directed to a particular special interest audience). I have added some comments in red.

Clinton: As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

Obama: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. [Seems naïve to give specific numbers of troops with a specific time frame. Hillary's approach of directing the military to make a plan seems more realistic.]

McCain: A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country. [As unpopular as the war is, and given seemingly widespread agreement that going into Iraq was a mistake, does McCain have a point here? Given the current situation, regardless of whether or not we should be in this situation in the first place, is he right? Do we let opposition to the war hold us back from being totally committed and thereby drag the war on further?]

-

Hillary Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience

2008-03-11T08:10:00.002-06:00

I noticed that in Hillary Clinton's Fact Hub she has a post entitled: "The Facts: Hillary and Kosovo." She was being defensive on this I thought I would check out why. The Associated Press put out a report questioning some of Hillary Clinton's claims to foreign policy experience. Here is a quote from the article you can find at MSNBC.com, ABCNews.com and Fox News.com (emphasis added):

There is little doubt that Clinton was an exceptionally activist first lady. She was the first to set up shop in a West Wing office alongside other White House policymakers, and immediately was in the thick of domestic policy deliberations, most notably her long and unsuccessful fight for health care reform.

Clinton also took a keen interest in foreign policy, traveling to more than 80 countries, with her husband and alone, to promote U.S. policy and the cause of women and children.

But Clinton is taking credit for accomplishing more than some of those who were active in foreign policy during the Clinton years recall.

CNN.com ran their own article. They were a little kinder. Here is a quote:

In some cases, CNN found a lack of clarity on her real involvement in foreign policy affairs. But in other cases, her claims do seem to check out fairly well.

Basically, if former foreign policy experts are now Clinton supporters, they say she had a big impact. However, if they are now Obama supporters, they question her role and her claims.

-

My thoughts on Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida

2008-03-09T19:44:00.002-06:00

Both states look like they may be moving to a reasonable conclusion regarding getting the DNC to seat delegates from their respective states. The bottom line for me is this:

(1) Michigan and Florida understood that they were breaking party rules by holding their primaries early. They also understood the consequences. So, if they do not get to seat their delegates at the Democratic National Convention, then they get what they deserve.

(2) That said, it would be a shame not to have their input in this very important and close Democratic candidate race.

(3) There has to be a do-over because the "primaries" they held already were clearly not fair.

(4) The sticking point is who pays for a do-over. I say that the Democratic parties in Florida and Michigan should pay. The DNC should not bail them out. Ideally there should be no general impact on taxpayers.

-

out of town for a couple days

2008-03-07T07:33:00.000-07:00

Going to Idaho for a few days. Next post on Sunday.

Hillary Clinton and her tax returns

2008-03-05T17:39:00.003-07:00

There is a CNN article entitled "Obama camp; What's Clinton hiding?" It reports on a call from the Obama campaign for Hillary to be transparent about her financial situation. Here is the official response from Hillary's campaign web site (with my comments in red):

Statement from Howard Wolfson, Communications Director

3/5/2008 1:16:32 PM

Faced with many legitimate questions about Senator Obama's long-time relationship with indicted political fixer Tony Rezko, the Obama campaign has chosen to lash out [wah! wah! Barack is just picking on me] at Senator Clinton.

Here are the facts:

Over 20 years of the Clintons' tax returns are in the public domain [that is not the issue; what about the most recent returns?].

Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15. [she has returns that must already be done so why the 15th of April? Why not now? Makes you wonder if there is something to hide.]

This information will be in addition to 15 years of uninterrupted public financial disclosure reports. [again, the issue is not what has previously been disclosed, the issue is what about now? the reason for the delay would be what?]

Instead of making false attacks [what is false about a question that Obama is asking?], we urge Senator Obama to release all relevant financial and other information related to indicted political fixer Tony Rezko [this is an issue for Obama to be sure but this is just Hillary's attempt at deflecting criticism of her].

Rush Limbaugh for Hillary Clinton

2008-03-03T19:16:00.004-07:00

Interesting development. I noticed that CNN has an article on Rush Limbaugh urging his listeners to vote for Hillary in the primaries so that the Democrats can self-destruct. Here is a screen shot of Rush's home page as of 9:00 pm EST tonight.

-

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Russia

2008-03-03T18:53:00.003-07:00

Hillary, Barack, and John issued statements on the election of Dmitriy Medvedev to be Putin's successor as Russian president. All three see the election as a farce, which of course it was. Here is a comparison of what they say about the issues the U.S. will have to deal with concerning Russia, as opposed to concerns about what is happening inside Russia. I have provided links to each of the statements. Huckabee made no statement. [my comments are added in red]

Hillary Clinton: ... "we are witnessing renewed disputes between Russia and many of its neighbors." [specifically she notes: Estonia, Georgia, the Balkans] ... [she then makes some comments about how she would do much better than Pres. Bush has done] ... "I will be ready to work with Russia where our interests intersect – fighting terrorism and nuclear proliferation are just two examples ..."

Barack Obama: ... "The United States, however, will need to work with President Medvedev on a range of issues of common concern, such as preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions, reducing our nuclear arsenals, and securing stable supplies of oil and gas from Russia. ..." [His statement is far shorter than Hillary's but is a little more specific in some sample issues.]

John McCain: [McCain's was the shortest and only dealt with the tragedy of the election.]

-

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Voting Records (PART II)

2008-03-03T08:01:00.002-07:00

Here are a few more rankings from interest groups. I have not found many significant differences between Hillary and Barack. By the way, I found a web site that seems to have fairly comprehensive lists of rankings and ratings of Senators and their voting records: Congressional Report Cards.org.

Education for the 110^th first session (National Education Association)

Hillary Clinton (A)
Barack Obama (A)
John McCain (F)

International Issues (energy, climate, Darfur, U.N., torture, health, etc.) for 2007 (Citizens for Global Solutions)

Hillary Clinton (A+)
Barack Obama (A+)
John McCain (B-)

Right to Life for 109^th session (National Right to Life Committee)

Hillary Clinton (0%)
Barack Obama (0%)
John McCain (75%)

out of town for a couple days

2008-02-25T22:24:00.002-07:00

going to Boston for a conference ... next post expected on Sunday

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Voting Records

2008-02-24T15:38:00.005-07:00

Here's a random list of rankings and ratings comparing the senators on their voting records, with regard to specific special interest organizations. I've provided a link to each report. I may add more scorecard information in future posts.

Liberal Ranking for 2007 (National Journal)

Hillary Clinton (82.8, 16^th place)

Barack Obama (95.5, 1^st place)

Civil Rights Report Card for 2006 (NAACP):

Hillary Clinton (96%, A)

Barack Obama (100%, A)

John McCain (7%, F)

[Note: all three received an Incomplete for 2007, probably due to campaigning.]

Civil Liberties for 110^th Congress (ACLU):

Hillary Clinton (67%, 35^th)

Barack Obama (88%, 20^th)

John McCain (17%, 82^nd)

Environment for 109^th Congress (League of Conservation Voters)

Hillary Clinton (89%, tied for 17^th)

Barack Obama (96%, tied for 3^rd)

John McCain (41%, tied for 44^th)

Family for 109^th Congress (2^nd session) (Family Research Council and Focus on the Family)

Hillary Clinton (0%, tied for last)

Barack Obama (0%, tied for last)

John McCain (62%, tied for 36^th)

Darfur for 2006/2007 (Genocide Intervention Network)

Hillary Clinton (A+/A)

Barack Obama (A+/A)

John McCain (B/C)

High Tech for 110^th session (Computer and Communications Industry Association)

Hillary Clinton (79%)

Barack Obama (86%)

John McCain (64%)

[scores reflect the votes they missed while on the campaign trail]

Abortion for 109^th session (National Right to Life Committee)

Hillary Clinton (0%)

Barack Obama (0%)

John McCain (75%)

GLBT Equality for 109^th session (Human Rights Campaign)

Hillary Clinton (89%)

Barack Obama (89%)

John McCain (33%)

Latino Civil Rights for 108^th session (National Council of La Raza)

Hillary Clinton (100%)

Barack Obama (prior to his election to the Senate)

John McCain (67%)

Secularism for 109^th session (Secular Coalition for America)

Hillary Clinton (100%)

Barack Obama (90%)

John McCain (20%)

Animal Protection for the 109^th session (Humane Society Legislative Fund)

Hillary Clinton (100+%)

Barack Obama (60%)

John McCain (40%)

Clinton vs. Obama: Flyers Accuracy

2008-02-24T09:35:00.003-07:00

Hillary was very upset about two flyers that the Obama campaign has mailed out. Is she justified? The answer would seem to be yes and no, according to FactCheck.org. They have a seemingly well-balanced analysis.

-

Hillary Clinton vs. Herself: "Whatever Happens"

2008-02-23T09:15:00.002-07:00

Much is being made of Hillary’s statement at the debate when she said: “whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” The phrase sounds like she is admitting she will lose the candidacy. On her “Fact Hub” she has what I consider a very strange argument to try and show that that was not her intent. She uses quite a mix of quotes from various people who have used the same phrase in an attempt to say that it is just common usage. Her Fact Hub posting is bizarre in my opinion. There are twelve quotes; 9 are from sports figures (relevancy?), one is Laura Bush in 2000 (I’m not kidding), one is Lindsay Lohan (I’m still not kidding), and one is from an interim police chief. Why would you quote a Notre Dame football player from last year? Notre Dame went on to a 3-9 record, had the most losses in a single year, 2 of the 10 worst losses ever, and the first 6-game losing streak for home games. Seems to me Hillary is saying she is going to lose and be just fine, just like Notre Dame football.

Clinton vs. Obama: Cuba (Hillary is fudging a bit)

2008-02-22T00:01:00.000-07:00

Hillary's staff wasted no time in getting a couple of digs in on Barack immediately after the debate in Texas. One of her fact checks is not totally legitimate. In her "Fact Hub," Hillary accuses Barack of flip-flopping on Cuba during the debate. She quotes from the debate and includes this comment from the moderator, Campbell Brown:

OBAMA: …but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Senator Clinton is talking about.
BROWN: But that's different from your position, back in 2003, you called us policy towards Cuba a miserable failure and you supported normalizing relations. So you backtracked now. [As I read this my first thought was: what did Obama say in response? Somehow Hillary failed to give that information.]

At this point, Hillary pulls a fast one by not showing Barack's response to Brown's question. Instead she quotes from an Obama statement in 2004. Here is what Obama said, according to the CNN transcript:

OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.
So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that's going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.
And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of.

Now, whether or not you think this is double-speak on Obama's part or not, it is a bit of an underhanded move to not include Obama's response.

-

CNN vs. Fox: McCain and the Lobbyist

2008-02-21T09:30:00.004-07:00

CNN.com and FoxnNews.com are both running stories about the New York Times article on John McCain and his relationship with a lobbyist. The tone of McCain’s reaction is portrayed very differently between CNN and Fox. Look at the difference in the headlines where Fox uses the phrase “lashes out” and CNN just has a short statement form McCain.

CNN: McCain on claim of coziness with lobbyist: 'It's not true'

FOX: McCain Lashes
Out Against New York Times Over Story on Relationship With

Lobbyist

In opening sentences, CNN’s article has McCain simply denying the assertions. Fox uses much stronger wording:

CNN: Sen. John McCain on Thursday denied assertions published in The New York Times that he once had a close relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients had business before his Senate committee.

Fox: Joined by wife Cindy, John McCain lashed out Thursday at a new report in The New York Times that revisits the Republican presidential candidate’s relationship with a female lobbyist, and rebuked the paper for spreading false rumors. … McCain called a press conference in Toledo, Ohio, to slam the paper for embellishing his committee activities on Iseman’s behalf.

The pictures also show different tones of McCain’s reaction with Fox showing him to be more forceful in his denial.

CNN (CNN photo)

FOX (AP photo)

Is Hillary getting squeezed out?

2008-02-20T20:26:00.002-07:00

In looking at the official campaign web sites tonight I notice that

(1) John McCain has two releases related to Obama:

ICYMI: The USA Today On Obama's Waffling On Public Financing
ICYMI: John McCain On Barack Obama

(2) Barack Obama has a fact check related to McCain:

John McCain Derides Obama As Offering ''Confused Leadership'' Because He Would Take Out High-Level Terrorists Like Bin Laden

Both front-runners are attacking each other but neither addresses any Hillary Clinton issues, at least not today. If the trend continues, Hillary will know what Kucinich, Edwards, et al. felt like trying to get some attention once the front-runners are established.

(3) Hillary Clinton's recent fact checks are anti-Obama which is natural because she has to take him on and win in Ohio and Texas. Maybe Obama can afford to start worrying more about McCain rather than Hillary.

-

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Education

2008-02-20T00:01:00.001-07:00

Clinton: Early Childhood Education. Hillary knows that parents are our children's first teachers, and the early years have a tremendous impact on their lives. That is why she will invest heavily in proven strategies to get all children ready for school, including: Nurse home visitation programs to help new parents develop parenting skills … Pre-kindergarten for all four-year olds.
K-12. Hillary also knows that we have to improve our K-12 system in order to ensure that every child is prepared to compete in an increasingly global economy. As president, she will: End the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind; Meet the funding promises of IDEA to ensure that children with special needs get the attention and support they deserve; Recruit and retain thousands more outstanding teachers and principals, especially in urban and rural areas; Cut the minority dropout rate in half. …
College Access. … In the 21st century, a college education is more important than ever. Hillary believes it's time for a new bargain with the American people -- a bargain that gives all Americans willing to work hard the tools they need to get ahead. Her plan will make college more affordable and accessible so that every American who has earned it and wants to go has the chance to get a college degree. …

Obama: Early Childhood Education. Zero to Five Plan: Obama's comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. … Affordable, High-Quality Child Care: Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.
K-12. Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. … Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them. Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: … Address the Dropout Crisis: … Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: … Support English Language Learners: … Recruit, Prepare, Retain, and Reward America's Teachers … Higher Education. Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: … Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: …

McCain: This topic did not rise to the level of being included in his official issue statements.

Other recent comparison posts of mine: abortion, stem cell research, immigration, energy/environment

Also, see side bar for links to comparisons of other issues

-

What is so bad about flip-flopping?

2008-02-19T00:01:00.002-07:00

It seems that after John Kerry was beat up and labeled as a flip-flopper and eventually shot down, that to be called a flip-flopper became one of the dirtiest names you can call a candidate. I do not believe that that is the way it should be. If a candidate changes a position on an issue for the sake of getting votes, then call that person what they really are: a liar or a hypocrite or a phony.

But, if a candidate changes a position after learning more information or after careful consideration, isn't that a good thing? Would we rather elect someone who is stubborn and unwilling to change?

Clinton vs. Obama: NAFTA tiff

2008-02-18T08:49:00.003-07:00

There’s a little tiff going on between Hillary and Barack on whether or not Obama said he supported NAFTA in the past. Hillary’s “Fact Hub” claims that a transcript excerpt on Obama’s site does not match what was said in a 2004 speech given by Obama to the Illinois Farm Bureau. She offers audio links of Obama’s speech (Part I and Part II). However, it is impossible to check Hillary’s side of the argument. In Part I, Obama makes no mention of NAFTA and when I click on Part II, I get: “File has expired. The file you are trying to download has expired and is no longer available.”

Obama’s side of the argument cannot be checked either. On his “Know the Facts” site, he has a link to “the full transcript of the question Obama was asked in 2004.” That statement is a little misleading in that “full transcript” sounds like the entire speech but it apparently means just the answer to the question. So, it is not possible to check the entire speech. By the way, when you click on full transcript it takes you to another posting where it says “Click below for the full transcript of Obama's response referenced in the 2004 story.” There is no place to click below. There is however a paragraph that appears to be the transcript portion in question.

I could not find a transcript from other sources so this one will have to be a draw.

Clinton: Superdelegates and Blatant Disregard for the Popular Vote

2008-02-17T00:01:00.002-07:00

This statement was made in a Clinton press release, Saturday February 16th:

If You Listen to One Thing Today: At 11:30 a.m. EST, Hillary advisor Harold Ickes holds a conference call with press to discuss the delegate process.

I could not find a transcript but I read some incredible quotes by Ickes. It just seems like such blatant disregard for the people that vote in the Democratic (and I use that word loosely) primaries. Here are some reported comments made by Ickes (highlights in red added):

FoxNews.com: A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision. ...

Ickes predicted Clinton and Obama would run “neck and neck” in the remaining states and that there would be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates.
But he said superdelegates — who “have a sense of what it takes to get elected” — would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton.

Ickes said superdelegates must “exercise their best judgment” about who can win the White House.

In essence, he argued the party’s 795 superdelegates ... were in a better position to assess electability and suitability for the presidency than party regulars who will attend the national convention in late August as pledged delegates.

ABC News: After the last Democratic primary contest in Puerto Rico in June, Ickes said Clinton and Obama will be "neck and neck."
"Shortly after that she will wrap it up," he predicted.
That presumes that Clinton will be able to convince Democratic superdelegates -- party leaders and elected officials -- to support Clinton even if the people they represent have voted for Obama.
Ickes said those superdelegates, which the Clinton campaign prefers to call "automatic delegates," will be key.

CNN: One of Hillary Clinton’s senior advisers said Saturday on a conference call with reporters that the New York senator would have the nomination “nail(ed) down” after primary season voting ends in June, when Puerto Rico weighs in.
“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination. She’s going to have a majority of the delegates,” Harold Ickes said, thanks to a combination of pledged delegates awarded through primary and caucus votes, and superdelegates – Democratic elected officials and party leaders who are free to choose any candidate they wish. Ickes is himself a superdelegate.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe immediately responded to Ickes, saying in a statement the Clinton campaign was “attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters, or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Federal Spending

2008-02-16T06:13:00.002-07:00

Here is a comparison of what the leading candidates say about federal spending and the budget deficit on their "issues" pages of their campaign web sites. These are just excerpts but I have provided the links if you want to read all of what they say. I assume that these issue statements were carefully decided upon and carefully crafted to appeal and communicate to a national audience (as opposed to a speech directed to a particular special interest audience). I have added some comments in red.

Clinton: This topic did not rise to the level of being included in her official issue statements.

Obama:

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue. Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. ... [both Obama and McCain emphasize this.]
Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

McCain:

Enforcing Fiscal Discipline ... ensure that money spent by Congress, ... , is used wisely and prudently on legitimate national priorities, not squandered on wasteful pet projects and special interest earmarks. ... The practice of excessive borrowing and deficit spending in Washington must stop.
Ending Pork Barrel Spending
Increasing Transparency ... Americans deserve to know how their elected representatives are spending their money. Members of Congress who request earmarks in legislation should be identified and their request should be fully described. ...
Making Tough Choices ... Without comprehensive bipartisan reform to America's entitlement programs, the nation will be unable to meet the challenges of providing vital medical and social security assistance to future generations.
Path to Lower Taxes ... But, tax cuts work best when accompanied by lower spending. Higher taxes and greater spending discourage entrepreneurship, foster wasteful tax-planning and slow long-term growth. Intelligently-formulated tax cuts and sensible tax reform will deliver much higher growth when they are accompanied by lower spending.
Opening Markets & Opportunity

Other recent comparison posts of mine: abortion, stem cell research, immigration, energy/environment

Hillary Seems to Like the Superdelegate Conundrum

2008-02-15T18:41:00.004-07:00

On Hillary Clinton's campaign web site you can find a press release entitled, "Must Read: Rep. Clyburn Speaks Out on Superdelegates." Can you believe these statements (in red):

Clyburn said superdelegates are not in place simply to mirror the popular vote.

So, let me get this straight. In this democracy, in the party named for democracy, there is no democracy? Why is there even a popular vote?

"We're supposed to be playing the role of being there as a safety valve, if something were to go wrong," Clyburn said. "They are there to make whatever midcourse correction needs to be made, and that's the role that we're supposed to play."

So, let me get this straight. Regardless of the popular vote, a group of "special" people can decide that a correction needs to be made?

I think this is an unbelievable situation that the Democrats are in. And Hillary is highlighting this as a good thing? I guess if you are behind in the popular vote you can see the possible need for a correction.

-

Wild-eyed Hillary Photo

2008-02-15T06:57:00.006-07:00

CNN is running an AP photo of Hillary with kind of a weird look on her face. I couldn't help but think of the photo of the wild-eyed, screaming Howard Dean from a few years back (2004).

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Earmarks

2008-02-14T09:57:00.003-07:00

There is an interesting story today from the Washington Post that can be found on the CBS News web site. It concerns earmarks -- the way some of our elected officials sneak money to their home states. I say "sneak" because earmarks have not been very transparent in the past. Thankfully there is some movement to do something about this. The article though mentions the three front-running candidates and the earmarks they were able to get. Here are the highlights:

Hillary Clinton: "... $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group." [The group is Taxpayers for Common Sense.]

Barack Obama: "... $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed."

John McCain: "one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending."

Way to go McCain!!

The article also noted:

"As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities. McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year."

See also this post on federal spending.
-

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. Huckabee: Energy/Environment

2008-02-14T00:01:00.001-07:00

Here is a comparison of what the leading candidates say about energy and the environment on their "issues" pages of their campaign web sites. These are just excerpts but I have provided the links if you want to read all of what they say. I tried to condense each to about the same length. I assume that these issue statements were carefully decided upon and carefully crafted to appeal and communicate to a national audience (as opposed to a speech directed to a particular special interest audience). I have added some comments in red.

Clinton: Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America's energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs. Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions [reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050], stronger energy and auto efficiency standards [increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030] and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis.

Obama: Barack Obama's Plan: Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent [same goal as Hillary] by 2050 [Cap & Trade, Confront deforestation]; Invest in a Clean Energy Future; Support Next Generation Biofuels; Set America on Path to Oil Independence [double fuel economy standards within 18 years]; Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030; Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change. [both democrats have more specific actions and goals than the republicans]

McCain: John McCain believes that we are vested with a sacred duty to be proper stewards of the resources upon which the quality of American life depends [this idea of stewardship is similar to the spirit of the democrats positions but with a conservative bent -- more market forces as opposed to government control]. Ensuring clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace - and the faithful care and management of our natural treasures, including our proud National Park System - is a patriotic responsibility. … He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.

Huckabee: The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. [Huckabee's environmental issues are narrower and seem to be strictly related to the economy.] I'll use the bully pulpit to inform you about the plan and ask for your support. I'll use the bully conference table to meet with members of Congress until I have the votes. The plan will get underway during my first term, and we will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term. … We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass. … Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences.

Other recent comparison posts of mine: abortion, stem cell research, marriage, federal spending
-

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. Huckabee: Marriage

2008-02-13T17:48:00.004-07:00

Here is a comparison of what the leading candidates say about marriage on their "issues" pages of their campaign web sites. These are just excerpts but I have provided the links if you want to read all of what they say. I assume that these issue statements were carefully decided upon and carefully crafted to appeal and communicate to a national audience (as opposed to a speech directed to a particular special interest audience). I have added some comments in red.

Clinton: This topic did not rise to the level of being included in her official issue statements.

Obama: This topic did not rise to the level of being included in his official issue statements.

McCain: The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

Huckabee: [As usual, Huckabee is direct, succinct, and specific about where he stands on this issue.] I support and have consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Other recent comparison posts of mine: abortion, stem cell research, immigration, energy/environment, federal spending

-

Is Hillary paranoid?

2008-02-12T19:25:00.000-07:00

Hearkening back to the days of the “right-wing conspiracy” Hillary Clinton and her staff seem a little paranoid as they emphasize attacks against her.

Here are some examples from her campaign web site [my comments are added in red; my emphasis in bold added]. Let me explain that a candidate should point out and clear up any misleading and/or false information said about the candidate. So, Hillary should definitely do this. My point is the emphasis she places on being “attacked.”

If you go to Hillary’s “Fact Hub” page you will see a link to the “Attack Timeline” web site which is subtitled, “Obama on the Attack.”

A press release from her chief strategist, Mark Penn, uses these words:

As soon as the Democratic nominee is selected, the entire force of the GOP attack machine will bear down on that nominee. This attack machine has been built and honed over decades; it is formidable, and employs all forms of media, from talk radio to major newspaper columns to television, email, blogs, websites, direct mail, and extensive ground networks. [Side note: This is used as a curious argument: Hillary has already withstood these attacks and when Obama is subjected to them he may be disliked more than Hillary; so, therefore Hillary is the better candidate. “Sen. Obama's Negatives Will Rise; Hillary's Are Already Factored In.”]

On her “Fact Hub” she has these recent posts in February, this far:

Sen. Obama Speech in Seattle, WA, Contains Misleading Attacks on Hillary
Sen. Obama’s Speech In Omaha, NE Contains Three Misleading Attacks On Hillary
Sen. Obama’s Speech In Wilmington, DE Contains Four Misleading Attacks On Hillary
False Smear Against Clinton Campaign
The Obama Campaign’s Negative Mail: Harry and Louise Redux

From a press release on February 2, 2008 entitled “Yesterday in the States:”

Colorado: “U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette held a conference call to address Sen. Obama’s new mailer, which falsely attacks Hillary’s health care plan.” [There are similar references for Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and North Dakota.]

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. Huckabee: Immigration

2008-02-12T00:01:00.004-07:00

Here is a comparison of what the leading candidates say about immigration on their "issues" pages of their campaign web sites. These are just excerpts but I have provided the links if you want to read all of what they say. I tried to condense each to about the same length. I assume that these issue statements were carefully decided upon and carefully crafted to appeal and communicate to a national audience (as opposed to a speech directed to a particular special interest audience). I have added some comments in red.

Clinton: Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.

Obama: Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. … Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.

McCain: I have always believed that our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure. …But a secure border will contribute to addressing our immigration problem most effectively if we also: Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America … Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies … so American businesses can hire and pay the best. Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. … Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population, which includes learning English, … and respecting the values of a democratic society. Recognize that

America

will always be that "shining city upon a hill," …

Huckabee: [Whether you agree or not you have to appreciate that at least Huckabee is direct, succinct, and specific about where he stands on issues.] Securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency. … I oppose and will never allow amnesty. … I oppose and will not tolerate employers who hire illegals. … I oppose the economic integration of North America … No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.

Other recent comparison posts of mine: abortion, stem cell research, marriage, energy/environment, federal spending

-

Update Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. Huckabee: Stem cell research

2008-02-11T00:01:00.004-07:00

Here is a comparison of what the leading candidates say about stem cell research on their "issues" pages of their campaign web sites. These are just excerpts but I have provided the links if you want to read all of what they say. I assume that these issue statements were carefully decided upon and carefully crafted to appeal and communicate to a national audience.

Clinton: Hillary supports stem cell research but the topic does not rise to the level of including it in her official issue statements. **UPDATE** Sorry I did not notice this before. The following is included under "Comprehensive Government Reform": Rescind the ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research.

Obama: Ditto for Obama although he does talk about funding biomedical research.

McCain: Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles. For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. … As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Huckabee: I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.

Other recent comparison posts of mine: abortion, immigration, marriage, energy/environment, federal spending
-

Superdelegate Problem

2008-02-10T18:00:00.000-07:00

Seven out of 82 blogs for Sunday on the Democratic National Committee web site expressed some concerns about the superdelegate issue. This may continue to develop into a damaging controversy if Hillary and Obama remain close in delegate count. With Mitt Romney dropping out, the Republicans may be able to get a head start on the Democrats (assuming that McCain can rally conservatives to his side soon). Here are some excerpts from DNC Community Blogs:

I dont want some super delegate to not vote following the popular vote - it makes us democrats look like we have behind door hand shakes and that process of what has been going on is making america weak. http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/sstahl/Cv8f

This is becoming an accident waiting to happen. What I hope Howard Dean is doing is coming up with a solution and fast. Personally, I feel that the super delegates should side with the majority vote from their jurisdiction.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deborahwilliams/Cv8t

I think the DNC would be wise to put out the Party's viewpoint on the controversy before it heats up further.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/judyhotchkiss/Cv85

Today on ABC with George Stephanopoulos, Donna Brazille stated that if the super delegates elect Hillary she will quit the democratic party!
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/RetiredArmyFamily/Cvkc

According to ABC news: Hillary Clinton leads in popular vote; Barack Obama leads in voter delegates; Hillary Clinton leads in pledged super delegates; Either way unfortunately this is gonna be messy. How do you decide in the argument of popular vote verses voter delegates?
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Canadian%20for%20Hillary%20Clinton/Cvkh

This blog raises a simple set of questions:
1. What would happen should one Democratic candidate win the most super delegates even as the other candidate accrued a majority of the overall delegates, states, and voters?
2. Would the popular vote be respected?
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/davidmora/CvkN

As a party we cannot allow what I'm afraid is going to happen actually happen. I am afraid we are going to have a split decision going to the convention, at which time the superdelegates will have to cast their votes. If these people cast their votes for anybody other than the person the American people chose to their candidate we will have a divided party.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/tommycaudill/CvkM

Hillary and Barack on the Feb 9th Primaries

2008-02-10T07:55:00.000-07:00

Here is what Hillary has to say on her official campaign web site about Obama's sweep of Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands: nothing. As of 10:00 am (EST) on Sunday the 10th, there is nothing. Usually her web site is very active and updated frequently. Maybe her staff is taking the weekend off.

Barack, of course is crowing about his win. He is using numbers to his advantage. On his home page, he has a "state of the race" tally saying 19 of 30 wins. Never mind it is the delegates that count, not the number of states.

In a blog, his campaign manager, David Plouffe, touts Obama's lead in "pledged" delegates, never mind that "super" delegates are important too. CNN estimates that Hillary still has a lead when you consider super delegates (Clinton has 1,100 delegates and Obama has 1,039, according to CNN calculations). Here is what Plouffe says:

"Based on estimates of returns, Obama more than doubled his current pledged delegate lead. Entering tonight, the lead was 27 pledged delegates, it is now estimated to be a lead of 72. In the four contests today, we estimate we won 103 delegates to Clinton’s 58 delegates for a net gain of 45 delegates. This net gain of 45 delegates represent more than the 42 delegate net gain Senator Clinton earned in the states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Arizona – combined. The pledged delegate total through February 9 now stands at 1,012 for Obama and 940 for Clinton." - Plouffe

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. Huckabee: Abortion

2008-02-09T00:01:00.003-07:00

Here is a comparison of what the leading candidates say about abortion on their "issues" pages of their campaign web sites. These are just excerpts but I have provided the links if you want to read all of what they say. [side note: I find in interesting that Hillary, Barack, and John all speak of their issues in the third person. Only Mike Huckabee uses first person.]

Clinton: Hillary has stood firm as an advocate for a woman's right to choose. … She spoke out forcefully against the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision that -- for the first time in decades -- failed to recognize the importance of women's health. [side note: is she afraid to say "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" for the way in which that describes the nature of this type of abortion?]... Hillary has fought the relentless and insidious efforts by far-right Republicans to limit the protections of Roe v Wade, while also working hard to expand access to family planning services. …

Obama: I can find nothing in the "issues" section of his web site regarding the issue.

McCain: John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat. … Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.

Huckabee: I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned. … I applaud the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart forbidding the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion.[note the opposite sentiment expressed by Hillary]

Other recent comparison posts of mine: stem cell research, immigration, marriage, energy/environment, federal spending

-

UPDATE Clinton vs. Obama: Donations from Lobbyists?

2008-02-08T00:01:00.000-07:00

On Feb. 6th, Hillary's web site "Fact Check" says Barack was attacking her and was being perhaps a little hypocritical (my word not her's) regarding taking money from lobbyists. She quotes Obama as saying:

"It's a choice between a candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than either Republican in this race and a campaign that has not taken a dime of their money." -Obama

I find it interesting that she does not refute his claim about the money she has taken from lobbyists. However, she makes the following case that while Obama may be technically correct in his assertion, some of his money can be tied to lobbyists:

"Sen. Obama's comments come on the same week Public Citizen released a report detailing ten bundlers for Sen. Obama who have registered as federal lobbyists. Sen. Obama has also taken money from former lobbyists, partners of lobbyists, people who hire lobbyists, lobbyists' spouses, and state lobbyists. Until he started running for president, Sen. Obama took money from federal lobbyists and, as a state senator, directly from corporations." -Clinton

**UPDATE**
On Feb 8th, Obama has a rebuttal on his web site. Was Hillary intentionally misrepresenting the truth or did she not do her homework? Or, is association with former lobbyists just as bad?

Public Citizen recently claimed that Barack Obama has 10 bundlers who are federal lobbyists. But none of the individuals they cite are currently registered to lobby. As an Obama spokesperson has said, the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists is not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

Read Public Citizen's List Here

Check Lobbyist Registrations Here

Frank Clark, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2000; Scott Harris, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007; Allan J. Katz, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007; Robert S. Litt, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2002; Thomas J. Perrelli, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2005; Thomas A. Reed, TERMINATION ONLINE; Paul N. Roth, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007; Alan Solomont, NOT REGISTERED IN 2007;Tom E. Wheeler, NOT REGISTERED SINCE 2003

Clinton vs. Obama: Donations

2008-02-07T00:01:00.000-07:00

In my previous post I noted CNN and Fox News coverage of Hillary having to donate $5 million to her campaign. On Obama's web site there is an interesting reaction to this. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, has put up a challenge to Obama supporters to match that donation. Barack is using Hillary's donation as incentive to raise more money. The graphic in my post is from Plouffe's post as of 12:30 am EST. Here is the opening statement from Plouffe's post on Wednesday February 6th, in the "Community Blog" section of the campaign web site:

"I was writing a note to you about the state of the race after Super Tuesday when we got some startling news. The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago. This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgment that our campaign has the momentum. …" -Plouffe

CNN vs. Fox: Hillary lends money to her campaign

2008-02-06T19:18:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million. CNN.com covered this as a brief article in their “political ticker” feature. FoxNews.com had a longer article. It is interesting to note the different tone in each of the articles with CNN being much more favorable to Hillary, in my opinion. Both mention that Hillary's loan was necessary to keep up with Obama’s phenomenal fundraising in recent weeks. Fox offers the following information that is not found in CNN’s article:

“The Clinton camp had deflected questions about any self-funding from the senator until after Super Tuesday.” [Apparently she did not want to admit this before the vote.]

“Obama has not donated any personal money to his campaign and, unlike Clinton, has not accepted donations from corporate special interest political funds.”

“The need to lend the campaign money exposes Clinton’s inability to raise money from new donors as fast or in increments as large as Obama’s.”

“Obama has raised more money from small donations than Clinton. An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from “maxed out” donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.”

-

Super Tuesday: The Day After

2008-02-06T08:24:00.000-07:00

Well, at about 10:30 am (EST), I checked each web site to see what the candidates are saying about the results yesterday.

Barack Obama: He declares himself the winner, getting more states and more delegates.

Hillary Clinton: Not much mention of Super Tuesday as a whole (maybe because Obama won) but she does have a scrolling list of states she won on her home page.

John McCain: Like Obama, he "won" Super Tuesday" for his party. He was not shy about his victories.

Mitt Romney: The results had to be a little disappointing for Mitt. He makes mention of going on with the campaign. He has a press release with his thoughts about the results. His campaign manager has a press release complaining about John McCain's "backroom deal" which gave West Virginia to Huckabee.

Mike Huckabee: He was probably proud to win what he did and shows a map of the winning states.

-

McCain vs. Romney: TV ads

2008-02-04T21:55:00.000-07:00

Well, it is the eve of Super Tuesday. It will be interesting to see how things shake out in both parties. For this post I have looked through both Mitt Romney's and John McCain's press releases for February 4th, as listed on their web sites. Both announce new TV ads so I thought I would compare them.

Mitt’s TV ad has the title “Very Close.” McCain’s is “Trust.” Romney’s ad has nothing about his positions. The same is true of McCain’s. Both are using attack ads on the other. Frankly, I am sick of that. I wish they would talk about their issues and stop the infighting. If one of them were to change their strategy and make a point of being civil I think that fact alone would earn some respect and maybe a few undecided votes.

Mitt’s ad talks about how McCain’s positions on issues are close to Hillary Clinton’s. Mitt is trying to continue his push that he is the only “full spectrum” conservative and that McCain is actually quite liberal. Conservative talk show hosts seem to be pushing this angle as well because McCain is seen as practically a democrat. Rush Limbaugh makes this statement on his web site: “I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that's Romney. … There's actually no choice in the matter. It certainly isn't Senator McCain.”

Best line in the ad: Bill Clinton saying “She and John McCain are very close.” Click here to read the text of Mitt’s ad. A link to the video is below.

McCain’s new TV ad is all about how Mitt Romney was anti-Reagan, using quotes from Romney himself.

Best line in the ad: “Mitt Romney was against Ronald Reagan before he was for him.” Click here to read the text of McCain’s ad. A link to the video is below.

Clinton vs. Obama: Mandated Health Care Insurance

2008-02-03T14:29:00.000-07:00

Today, on Barack Obama's "Know the Facts" web page, he claims that Hillary Clinton refuses to answer how she will enforce a mandated health insurance system. One reference is to her appearance today on ABC's This Week. ABC has posted a transcript of the interview by George Stephanopoulos so I decided to check for myself. My conclusion is that she does in fact answer the question by saying she would force everyone, even through wage garnishing if necessary. However, she squirms and wriggles around the question and tries not to say that too directly. She apparently does not want to admit that she is planning mandatory enforcement. Forcing people will not be well received by many so she clearly tries to emphasize her more positive message about affordable health care.

Here are some excerpts that relate exactly to the question of how the mandates will happen. [I have added some comments in red.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... You didn't get the chance to answer that question in the debate.What is the answer to those two questions? Will you have fines for people who don't buy health care, don't apply -- don't go by the mandate? Will you garnish their wages? [Note: Very specific questions.]

CLINTON: George, let's put this in context, because this is a big difference between us. I think universal health care is a core Democratic value and a moral principle, and I'm absolutely going to do everything I can to achieve that. You know, if you look at my plan, it's a misstatement to say that people won't be able to afford it, because I have a very detailed approach about giving people health care tax credits, limiting -- I'm the only person who does -- limiting the percentage of what you would have to pay for a premium to a low percent of your income. ... [She goes on for another 247 words but the only answer I am seeing so far is just that people should be able to afford it, but nothing about enforcement.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me interrupt you there, because the other night at the debate, you said that you and Senator Edwards bit the bullet on this question...

CLINTON: That's right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... of mandates, and Senator Edwards was quite clear in his plan. He said if people still didn't buy the insurance, their wages would be garnished. And I still haven't heard, if people can afford it and they don't buy the insurance, will their wages be garnished under your plan? Will they have to pay fines? [Now she is being asked the same specific questions again.]

CLINTON: Well, they don't have to pay fines, George. We want them to have insurance. We want it to be affordable. [Same answer about affordability but not answering the enforcement question.] And what I have said is that there are a number of ways of doing that. Now, there's not just one way of getting to that. [She goes on for another 223 words but no answer to the question. She talks of the importance of universal health care and accuses Obama of being misleading.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, yet, Senator Clinton, we actually have that mailing and let me show our viewers quickly what you were talking about, because you referred to it. It says that Hillary's plan will -- excuse me, let me read this again -- "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. You pay a penalty if you don't." And I want to bear down on this question one more time, because they're claiming this issue of the penalty. And a lot of independent health care experts, many who worked with you in 1994, say that without these enforcement mechanisms, you simply can't get to universal coverage, you can't claim to have universal coverage, so there's no difference between your plan and Senator Obama's. And, I mean, you talked about automatic enrollment. Will you garnish wages of people who don't comply, don't buy the insurance? [Here is the question a third time!]

CLINTON: George, we will have an enforcement mechanism. [Here is the first inkling of an answer.] Whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments. [But, she does not want to commit to answering specifically.] But you're missing, I believe, the key point. If you don't start with universal health care, ... And the reason why I think there are a number of mechanisms, going after people's wages, [she answers here to some extent] automatic enrollment, when you are at the place of employment, you will be automatically enrolled, whatever the mechanism is [but not willing to commit fully to what that mechanism will be] is not as important as, number one, the fundamental commitment to universal health care, the appreciation that, with health care tax credits and with a premium cap, it will be affordable for everyone. [back to the affordability point] ... There will be mechanisms to enable everyone to afford it. ... [again she is using the positive affordability angle while deemphasizing the negative enforcement issues like garnishing wages.]

McCain vs. Romney: Looking for the Conservative Vote

2008-02-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

There is a battle going on concerning the degree to which either candidate is conservative. John McCain has a new TV ad entitled "True Conservative."

Many on the political right do not consider John McCain to be conservative on a number of issues. He has the "maverick" label. Mitt Romney in his new ad conveys himself as a true conservative. He refers to himself as a "full-spectrum conservative."

Which candidate is more likely to do anything to win?

2008-02-01T19:39:00.000-07:00

I was looking at the latest FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll published February 1^st. The results are interesting but I found two questions to be particularly strange and I could not help but think that maybe they were designed with Hillary Clinton in mind, perhaps as a way to make some points about perceptions of her character.

The first strange question, #15, is “Which presidential candidate do you think is more likely to do anything -- including something unethical -- to win the election?” The choices were the two leading candidates from each party; Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney; plus “don’t know.”

Clinton topped the list with 44%, then Romney 11%, McCain 9%, Obama 8%, Don’t know 28%. Hillary was the top choice by democrats, republicans, and independents.

The 2^nd question that seemed a little weird to me, #18, is “Regardless of how you plan to vote, which presidential candidate do you think is the most likely to do something that would embarrass the country?" The choices were the same.

Clinton topped the list again with 37%, then Romney 14%, McCain 12%, Obama 11%, Don’t know 26%. Hillary was the top choice by republicans and independents. Democrats chose Romney by a slim margin over Hillary, 22% to 19% respectively.

Regardless of what is actually true there does seem to be a perception that Hillary is the most untrustworthy. But, I still find it odd that these questions were even asked this way in the first place. Whoever designed the questions may have expected these results.

Hillary vs. Barack: Hillary is quick to fight back

2008-02-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

Well, although the debate in California between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was reported as being more cordial than in the past, Hillary's staff was very quick to put up anti-Obama information on "The Fact Hub" page of her official web site. At this time, just a few hours after the debate finished, there are several postings refuting Obama's comments:

Sen. Obama On Iraq War Vote, 2006 1/31/2008 9:44:46 PM

Now v. Then: Sen. Obama On Managing The Bureaucracy 1/31/2008 9:32:30 PM

Flashback: Obama on Drivers Licenses, Nov. 15 Debate 1/31/2008 9:35:48 PM

Factcheck: Sen. Obama's health care plan 1/31/2008 9:00:11 PM

Fact Check: Health Care Subsidies 1/31/2008 8:41:53 PM

Obama has two postings dated today but the times are not indicated so I cannot tell if they were after or before the debate. Clearly the Clinton staff was primed and ready.

McCain vs. Romney: Immigration

2008-01-31T00:01:00.000-07:00

Romney and McCain have clashed at the California debate. I’ve looked at each site to compare what they officially say about illegal immigration and border security. Both have this covered in their respective “issues” web pages. Romney is much more specific and focused on stopping illegal immigration. McCain is more vague about what he will actually do but also focuses on the larger immigration issues. Romney’s position is more about us living in a big gated community. McCain’s big picture view implies more of a let’s all work together philosophy. The specifics are below:

Mitt Romney has a six-part plan to “stop illegal immigration.” The main points are:

· Secure The Border.

· Implement An Enforceable Employer Verification System.

· Reject Amnesty.

· Punish Sanctuary Cities.

· Improve Interior Enforcement.

· Encourage Legal Immigration.

John McCain says he will secure the border but offers no specifics as Romney does. He has some bullet points but they pertain rather to things that we should also do to improve the immigration situation. Here are his five bullets (these are excerpts):

· Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America …

· Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies -- … -- so American businesses can hire and pay the best.

· Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market …

· Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population …

· Recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity …

Clinton vs. Obama: Florida Statements

2008-01-30T00:01:00.000-07:00

With Florida being punished by the Democratic National Committee for moving its primary date up, its hard to know what to make of the voting results since no delegates were at stake. Both candidates made the best of the news however. Here are statements from campaign officials:

Hillary Clinton chief strategist, Mark Penn, said: "Hillary Clinton won a significant victory today in the Florida primary with biggest turnout in Florida Democratic primary history. ... The vote turned out to be far more than symbolic. Well over 1.5 million Democrats cast their ballots, more than twice the number of voters who came out to vote in the 2004 primary. ..."

Mark Penn later adds this dig on Obama: "This result comes after Senator Obama ran TV commercials that reached Florida homes and after the enormous publicity he received for South Carolina and for the Ted Kennedy endorsement. The exit polls show widespread recognition of the endorsement -- but even so among those who decided on Election Day, a plurality of those chose Hillary."

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said: "...Now that Senator Clinton has lost badly in South Carolina, she’s trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and tonight, Florida awarded zero. ..." Below the statement is a delegate count.

Current pledged delegates:
Obama – 63 pledged delegates

Clinton – 48 pledged delegates

Edwards – 26 pledged delegates

McCain ("Reagan conservative") vs. Romney: Florida press releases

2008-01-29T20:52:00.000-07:00

Very shortly after it was determined that John McCain was the victor over Mitt Romney in the Florida republican primary, both candidates put out press releases. It is interesting to note that since the results were so close, McCain seems to be reaching out to the conservatives in the republican party. Accused by Romney as being too liberal, McCain used these words in his press release:

"I stand for the principles and policies that first attracted me to the Republican Party when I heard, in whispered conversations and tap codes, about the then Governor of California, who stood by me and my comrades, and who was making quite a reputation for standing by his convictions no matter the changing winds of political thought and popular culture. ... And I am as proud to be a Reagan conservative today, as I was then. ... Our party has always been successful when we have, like Ronald Reagan, stood fast by our convictions."

Perhaps he was feeling the heat of being endorsed by the New York Times, which some conservatives saw as a negative endorsement.

Romney's press release contained his usual rhetoric but very well balanced in terms of the economy, the war on terror, etc. It is also very anti-Washington, undoubtedly a dig against McCain although he does not mention him.

CNN vs. Fox: State of the Union Address 2008

2008-01-29T19:32:00.000-07:00

Although this blog is now primarily about the election campaigns, I thought I would do this post in the spirit of what was the initial purpose for this blog. That is, I would look at how CNN.com and FoxNews.com would cover various stories. With the State of the Union address recently completed, I decided to look at how they are reporting the story. The headlines (as of 11:30 pm EST) are very telling of their respective biases.

CNN's headline points out the negative "period of uncertainty":

[Note: CNN's article quickly points out some negative information about President Bush in the second sentence: "With his approval ratings in the low 30s, an opposition-led Congress and his presidency overshadowed by the race for his successor, Bush offered little new."]

Fox's headline touts the conservative mantra:

Analogy: Democrats vs. Republicans

2008-01-28T11:50:00.000-07:00

Previously, I made an analogy of democrats and republicans as parents. Here's another. Let's say a democrat is walking downtown and passes a homeless person on the sidewalk who asks for some spare change. My impression , in general of the democrats' approach, is that the democrat would give the person some money. A republican in the same situation would say "Get a job!" and walk on by. Neither approach is necessarily the right one. The issue is complex. Are the poor to blame for being poor? Your answer to that question probably has a lot to do with where you are politically.

Fox News: Associating Obama with Confederate anthem

2008-01-27T09:02:00.000-07:00

I wonder if the people at Fox News realize what they have done. To note Barack Obama's South Carolina Victory they have used the headline "Obama is Whistling Dixie."

The National Public Radio site has an article on the song which opens with these words about the song Dixie (emphasis added):

Nov. 11, 2002 -- "Dixie" -- a song strongly identified with the South -- stirs emotion and exposes timeworn rifts across American society.

It has been that way almost since "Dixie" was born in the days just before the Civil War. Adopted as a Confederate anthem, it was offered up by President Abraham Lincoln as a gesture of reconciliation after the war. It's accepted with affection by many whites and scorned by many blacks. ...

Wikipedia has an informative entry on "Dixie." Here is a quote (emphasis added):

The song became the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. This and the tune's minstrel-show origins have created a strong association of "Dixie" with the Old South. As a result, some today view the song as offensive and racist while others see it as a legitimate part of Southern heritage.

Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama: Can they both be winning?

2008-01-27T08:41:00.000-07:00

It takes delegates to win the nomination but both Hillary and Obama are claiming a lead after Obama's victory in South Carolina. A press release on Hillary's campaign site entitled "Campaign Memo: South Carolina, Florida and February 5" says (emphasis added):

This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

Yet, in Barack Obama's South Carolina victory speech (text as prepared for delivery) he says (emphasis added):

After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

Hillary Clinton photo: Too good to be true?

2008-01-25T07:34:00.000-07:00

I do not want to be too mean here but I was looking at the official photo of Senator Hillary Clinton as posted on her campaign web site. Under the "Newsroom" tab there is a link to "Official Headshot" where you will find the black and white photo that I show below. On that page there are instructions for how to download it, presumably so media sources can use it. Now, I do not fault anyone for wanting their official photo to look their best. However, when I looked at the official photo it just looked to good to be true. It is a great picture of her but it doesn't seem to look very realistic.

So, I looked at the photos listed under "Newsroom/Photos" and saw lots of candid shots of Hillary campaigning recently. Now, I know there are differences between candid shots and those that are posed but still it seems that the official picture must be from 10 years ago or it was significantly doctored. You can make your own judgment. Below you will find candid shots of Hillary (from her web site) that show a similar profile compared with her official photo.

By the way, I checked all of the other candidates web pages. While many have a "photos" tab or link, only John Edwards (besides Hillary) has an "official photo." His picture looks like an accurate picture of what he looks like now.