The Audacity of... Hypocrisy?

by D. Cupples |   Since the Reverend Wright situation recently left splatter marks on Barack Obama, we've heard a lot from Obama's campaign about how Hillary Clinton embellished the danger of her trip to Bosnia back in 1996, among other things. 

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on some of Obama's own embellishments: i.e., his falsely taking credit for other U.S. senators' legislative work.  A few weeks ago, the Obama campaign sent a fund-raising email that 1) said that Hillary is attacking Obama's supporters -- a statement that's as divisive as it is factually questionable; and 2) accused Hillary of being divisive.

Last night, a Time Magazine blog posted a well-sourced Clinton Campaign memo called "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements."

Time's post begins:

"Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. 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. Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left."

Time's post, which includes sources, explains roughly 10 instances in which Obama exaggerated or made outright misleading statements.  A few items on that list are:

- His purported standing up to the nuclear-power industry

- His purported efforts toward "sweeping" ethics reform

- His purported bipartisan effort re: universal health care in Illinois.

There's nothing new about a politician -- especially during a campaign -- exaggerating his or her positives.

But this is Barack Obama. His campaign has marketed him as above "politics as usual": as someone with clean hands who not only doesn't play the same game that all the other Washington politicians play, but also as someone who will (somehow) clean up the game.

It seems that every week, a new piece of evidence suggests that Sen. Obama really is just a good politician, who'll say anything to advance his image and interest -- even if his words clash with history or reality.

Taylor Marsh and No Quarter have linky articles that show further evidence of Obama's embellishments.  Memeorandum has commentary.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Obama Took Credit for Other Senators' Work, Media Ignored it

* Obama Aides Upset that Hillary Discussed Mortage Crisis  

* Obama's Advisers Less Progressive than Advertised?

* Campaign Uses Bush Tactics in Fundraising Email

* A Rebuke to Obama for the McCarthy Slur
.

Comments

[Danny]

I wonder if you might reach out to all the supporters of other candidates out here who have been banned by blogs for dishing back what they dish out. I for one will not take the Hillary hating shit the O supporters are dish out with lie after lie after lie. If they can't take free speech on thier blog a site monitor just bans you, it's great! Banned Bloggers might work. or Hated by the site monitor. Or well someone should reach out to people who have stood up to Crooks and Liars, Americablog and others. The Obama kookaid love in for Obama - while hating Hillary is really too much for this democrat to take.

[Adam]

The "Time" piece you reference is actually just a quote of a Hillary Clinton press release from yesterday. Memeorandum is linking to you under the heading of "Clinton Camp Memo on Obama's “Embellished Words”".
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6752

It's quite plainly damage control in the wake of the Bosnia stuff. The implication is "My inconsistent statements are OK because Obama has made inconsistent statements." In parsing that statement, you can take your pick of fallacies.

Has the Obama campaign actually been pushing the Bosnia story? It's been bloggers and the MSM going crazy over this one. I've seen basically nothing from Obama's people on it. I strongly disagree with the notion that MSM coverage of this story makes Obama's campaign hypocritical.

The only thing I may have seen from the Obama campaign on this issue are:

1) When Hillary and her campaign picked YESTERDAY to launch into a criticism of Obama about rev. Wright, I believe a spokesman have said that it was a fairly transparent effort to move the media glare away from the Bosnia thing. Which it was... but I may just be imagining I read that because it's so obvious.

2) When Hillary finally admitted to "misspeaking" on one occasion, the Obama campaign produced four separate occasions where Hillary used the "dodging sniper fire" story, including a prepared speech.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Sniper_fodder.html

At any rate, that hardly qualifies as "hear[ing] a lot from Obama's campaign" about Bosnia. They have not been pushing this story at all.

[Adam]

To be clear, if I were a Hillary supporter, the Bosnia blowup wouldn't faze me very much. People have brought up the idea that this calls into question more of Hillary's claims about foreign policy experience during the Clinton years. In truth, between this and the NAFTA ambiguities there is some reason to doubt Hillary's unverifiable statements about her role in the administration. That said, there's plenty of verifiable stuff.

To me, the only really damaging aspect of this is that the way they handled this mini-crisis in the campaign shows a certain institutional stubbornness that is troubling. Hillary stated her gross exaggerations, then STOOD BY the story after Sinbad and others questioned it. One slip-up is bad, but standing by a falso story is far worse. Only after incontrovertible video evidence surfaced did Hillary back off. Even then she claimed it was a lone "misstatement" as oppose to a consistent story which she stuck by at several points. The insistence on sticking with a story in face of conflicting facts is awfully reminiscent of the current administration. I thought the way Obama dealt with the Wright crisis was much more positive.

But if I thought Hillary was better on policy, this would not change my vote. I'm not a romantic looking for a savior. I'm just looking for a president.

[Adam]

As for Obama embellishing his legislative record - nothing new, nothing unusual. I didn't start supporting Obama because of any magical qualities. I supported him because I like his policies. When I hear him talk about a break with the politics of the past, I identify that with campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, bipartisan action, and transparency in government. I don't equate it with the claim that Obama is a squeaky-clean truth-teller.

As an aside, though, if that Hillary memo is really the worst they've got on Obama, that's pretty squeaky-clean by political standards. I can't really work my blood up over some campaign trail exaggerations. It's _below_ par for the course.

[rawdawgbuffalo]

man they all the same from snipers to preachers LOL its funny, still all are off point on the issues...i say shoot the media

[Adam]

I found that Obama campaign comment, so I didn't make it up:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_leaving_wrights_church.php

RDB, I also tend to blame the media. Both Clinton and Obama have, on their webpages, actually released several substantive policy statements over the last few weeks. These receive little to no attention. The MSM (and, to be honest and fair, the vast majority of blog posts as well) focus on the youtube-fueled scandals, or the back-and-forth press releases, or the horserace.

There has been SOME deep analysis in the media of policy; for instance, this article about Obama's foreign policy, seen through the lens of the advisors he's chosen:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

I DON'T think of you as someone who makes things up, believe me.

I found the piece last night via memeorandum at TIME's blog "The Page," by Mike Halperin. It's still there (check the Time link). Do you get the sense that Halperin quoted it wholesale without a citation or just used material from it?

Maybe Obama didn't specifically push the Bosnia story, but he HAS (at least since Hillary's first-lady schedule came out, no, since he lost Ohio) accused Hillary of exaggerating (or embellishing) her record.

I call that "hypocrisy," because HE'S been exaggerating (in some cases, lying) about his record.

We agree that Hillary's going back to Wright was an attempt to move the spotlight. I DON'T like that tactic from her -- any more than I liked that tactic when Obama finally focused on racial issues to get the spotlight off of Wright.

The Bosnia thing does bother me: both the initial misrepresentation and the subsequent handling of it -- the same way that Obama's misleading or dishonest statements bother me. Again, I may not represent ordinary voters' views.

As for judging Obama by ordinary "political standards," he's made that impossible for himself by starting in January to market himself as ABOVE normal politics. HE's the one who set the bar so high, and now it's coming back to haunt him. Karma, I suppose. That's what I've been squawking about in some of our chats.

True enough, the law-prof thing and when his parents conceived are NOT big deals -- just signs that Obama habitually distorts truth to the point that one might say he lies. (Kind of like Hillary and Bosnia)

I think the Time post is pretty damning. Obama's misrepresentation of how he handled the Exelon-related legislation IS a big deal. Instead of saying "I tried to take them on but senior senators messed things up," he misled Iowa voters to believe that he had not rolled over for the nuke industry after he had.

I think that his walking the line re: lobbyists is a big deal but only because HE'd made it a big deal in his campaign. That relates to the bundling issue that ABC noted. The Hill has a more detailed piece on Obama's stealthier relations with lobbyists from last year.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

We both know that true campaign-finance reform might curb corruption, but loophole-filled lobbying reforms won’t.

I’m not familiar with what Obama has actually done (as opposed to talked about while stumping) toward securing true c-f reform.

Apparently, one of his lobbying-reform amendments wasn’t even meant to be effective – which Mike Gravel pointed out during a debate. ABC News stated:

“Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never become law as Obama seemed to suggest.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-exaggerat.html

In addition, Obama does what many other presidential candidates have done: voluntarily names bundlers but only those who bundled above a certain amount.

John Edwards reportedly listed names of bundlers regardless of how little they bundled. Obama, on the other hand, reports only bundlers at the $50,000 level and above, according to the Washington Post. That leaves a lot of un-named bundlers.

Yes, other politicians are doing the same thing (Hillary’s reporting level was $100,000), but that’ NOT the standard, because Obama said from the get-go that he has HIGHER standards than other politicians.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001915.html

According to Sourcewatch, Obama took more than $1 million from PACs before he denounced PAC and Lobbyist money “on the eve of his presidential run.”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

An LA Times piece says that Obama HAS refused to take $ from lobbyists, directly, but has taken a few million from law firms where partners are lobbyists.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

The Hill reported last year that Obama refused to take lobbyists' money but had asked for a lobbyist's wife's money -- and had asked for access to some lobbyists' networks.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

Public Citizen has info on Obama’s bundlers (14 of whom are lobbyists).
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009

I understand that policies are more important than campaign styles.

In Obama’s case, how can you know WHAT policies he truly stands for when his record is so thin and when he has repeatedly made misleading statements about what he stands for and what he has done?

About policies: what are some of the bigger policies of Obama’s that you prefer to Hillarys and why (i.e., comparing their policies, why are his better for you)?

[Adam]

The Time piece is a word-for-word, exact copy. Check my link. He does title it "Clinton Camp Memo on Obama's Embellished Words", so he's giving credit. I'm quite sure the Clinton staff doesn't mind the mirroring of their comments.

I don't think it's fair to say that Obama's speech on race counts as changing the subject or distracting from Jeremiah Wright's comments. The Wright controversy was ALREADY about race - if you think otherwise then note the non-scandals about McCain's crazy preacher friends. Obama put Wright's comments front and center, but made them part of a broader, deeper, more meaningful and less scandalous discussion. Politically clever, perhaps, but not a distraction tactic.

I don't think either of us represent "normal" supporter views, whatever those are. But speaking for myself, I never considered Obama to be "above normal politics". I thought of him, and still think of him, as someone who places a high priority on campaign finance reform, controlling 527s, limiting lobbyist influence and making their contributions more transparent, limiting earmarks and making all pet projects more public, and working across the aisle when possible. To me, that does count as "a break with the politics of the past". That's how I've always interpreted that statement.

I've never thought of him as a unerringly honest and pure politician who runs a perfectly clean campaign. He is a politian who is trying to win and whose team, headed by Axelrod, has crafted a compelling and popular campaign theme. He's been marketed as a transcendent political figure who is a break with the past. There is an element of truth there, just as there is an element of truth to Hillary's statements that only she has the experience to be ready on day one. In both cases, it's only half of the truth. (Incidentally, if Hillary does win this, she's going to be VERY busy filling all those "day one" promises. No rest after the galas for her!)

The Exelon bit appears to be the worst of the exagerations listed there, I agree. He was forced to weaken his legislation considerably, although he probably passed all that he could. Knowing Barack, my guess is that he avoided saying anything outright untruthful, and stuck to the mildly misleading. I don't see the critical passage of this speech available anywhere so it's hard to know.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

You're right: I copied the subtitle (or whatever journalists call it: "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements." It was around midnight when I found the piece.

Ok, so he copied the memo. It does have sources listed, which seem to be credible.

I DO think it's fair to say that Obama's timing re: the race speech had something to do with wanting to shift the spotlight off of Wright. Admittedly, my mind-reading skills are still vacationing in The Keys.

Again, how can one think of Obama as truly supporting better campaign-finance laws and lobbying restrictions, given the amendment he sponsored that I mentioned in my last comment? Given his (if The Hill article was accurate) stealthy attempts to gain access to lobbying networks and even to take a lobbyist's wife's money?

That looks more like an attempt to not appear to be in bed with lobbyists when he actually seeks to be in that beneficial bed.

Such examples go to his genuineness regarding the POLICIES that he claims to stand for.

I know that you don't think he's a superhero, but a lot of ordinary voters seem to -- precisely because of the way he (not so accurately) marketed himself.

He wouldn't be facing this scrutiny now if he had remained silent on matters of his history, qualifications and record that weren't, on their face, impressive.

Instead, he exaggerated, embellished, and even lied (like Hillary and Bosnia).

[D. Cupples]

RawDawg,

You're right: the media has made some horrible errors, and the issues are escaping most voters.

[Adam]

I don't think there's any impropriety at all in the Times copy. There is credit given. I'm sure the Hillary camp has absolutely no problem with someone disseminating the piece. I was just letting you know the original source, not trying to expose any wrongdoing.

I hadn't read your 3:50 post when I posted. But of those links, none seems particularly damning to me. As an Obama spokesman says in one of those links, "the senator knows that it is impossible to completely escape the influence of Washington’s establishment, but that rejecting lobbyists’ money is an important gesture." I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that Obama has talked to many lobbyists and gotten access to their contacts. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that he's lacked the political muscle to get a lot passed on these issues during his time in the senate.

He's doing some things Hillary is not (refusing money from PACs and lobbyists during his presidential run, disclosing lower bundlers) but he's still part of the system. To some degree, Obama has to play the game to change the game. It's really not so surprising. Given his record of legislation (successful or otherwise), I take his policy statements on this issue at face value. I believe that these issues will get pushed by an Obama administration in year one.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

Obama didn't stop taking lobbyist/PAC money until AFTER he raised more than $1 million from them.

That and he reportedly sought money from a lobbyist's wife: if the wife had given it, Obama would've known whom to thank -- and any lobbyist would know this.

That stealthy maneuvering is the opposite of what he's telling voters he stands for.

I don't fault Obama for failing to get legislation passed: the Republicans have been so powerful in the senate since 2005.

Given that Obama campaigns on lobbying reform, I DO fault him for sponsoring a lobbying-reform amendment that actually favored non-disclosure. That, too, is the opposite of what he claims to be about.

He didn't HAVE to sponsor that amendment: he could have sat on the sidelines.

The same is true of the Exelon-related bill. He didn't HAVE to re-write it to the nuke industry's specifications. But he did.

And then he claimed that he successfully stood strong against that industry.

Given that what Obama says likely doesn't reflect what he's done and where he stands on policies, the only thing we can do is find the legislation he sponsored or wrote and see what it really says.

Which legislation are you impressed with that Obama truly tried to pass (as opposed to the stuff that he questionably claimed credit for)?

[Adam]

In the spirit of the political season, I reject the premise of the question. Did Obama not "truly try to pass" the original nuclear bill, or the ethics reform package in the Senate? Did he merely "[claim] credit for" the videotaping law in Illinois, or did he actually try to pass it?

And now it's the Obama camp's turn to churn out a littany. Tit for tat, I suppose.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-exaggerations-in-her-domestic-record/
Obama hasn't put the memo up yet, although it is available in the Obama blogs (with better HTML formatting) at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBhcB

Gah, this is such a waste of time. I admit there is value in fact-checking the candidate's statements and figuring out what they've truly done. I just reject the efforts to make a scandal out of it.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

It's not a scandal: it's a reflection on various aspects of a candidate's policy stances and truthfulness.

Obama did try to pass good nukes legislation. But the story didn't end there. It ended when he wrote legislation that totally supported the industry (self-regulation -- which was part of the original problem).

As I've already said, I don't begrudge him that. I begrudge his having given voters the false impression that he really tackled the industry.

About lobbying reforms: my WHOLE point in going into detail was that the amendment he sponsored (or wrote) was the exact OPPOSITE of what he claims to stand for: greater disclosure and transparency.

There's no argument against that.

Technically, he was involved in getting the video-taping law passed. However, other people did most of the heavy lifting that he's claiming credit for (e.g., having the initial idea and bringing people from different parties together). This is more of an exaggeration than a lie.

Still, it throws into question precisely what Obama stands for and has actually done.

For those reasons, I don't think that the premise of my question was false.

I can't wait to see the Obama campaign's memo. Thanks for the link.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

I just read the memo. The bosnia thing we already talked about, and you know I don't like that.

About SCHIP: she probably did embellish her role. Note, though: I read over the last few days that Sen. Kennedy had different comments about Hillary's role before this election heated up. I'll dig up the link later.

Waxman's comment doesn't say that she wasn't involved.

About FMLA: the memo's statements are weak ("no evidence" rather than evidence to the contrary). She might have exaggerated that, too. Then again, her husband might have been poised to NOT sign it, and she might have convinced him. Who knows?

About experience: the 2d sentence of the memo's penultimate paragraph says this:

"On closer inspection, the claims Senator Clinton makes turn out to be little more than stories. "

It doesn't specify WHICH stories (Bosnia was covered earlier in the memo). I doubt it's the Irish thing, given that the Irish PM involved and someone else said that she did play a healthy role.

Do you know which "stories" the memo is referring to?

[Adam]

I don't know offhand and I lack the inclination to figure it out.

It's a huge stretch to say the ammendment was the opposite of what he claimed. It left one aspect of disclosure out, among many aspects of disclosure that WERE included. Noncomprehensive, sure, but by no means the opposite of what he claimed. I would call it a good start.

[Adam]

UChicago dismisses the "senior lecturer" distinction as a nonissue:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

Yeah, I know about the prof thing. I saw it at Talk Left today.

Anyway, I thought that in one of my comments to you I said that the prof thing wasn't a big deal. do I mis-remember?

Note that -- however UC treats it -- in the legal-academic world, there really is a dif between a tenured prof and a non-tenured prof. The latter is considered a second class citizen -- (though, Obama would NOT be considered second class, because he's an elected official. Academe is weird.

[Adam]

Yeah, you agreed it was not a big deal. Just thought I'd pass it on.

There is certainly a big distinction between tenured and non-tenured professors, but they are both professors. According to the statement Obama turned down tenure-track positions more than once.

This is apropos of nothing, but by Obama not being second class, what do you mean? I doubt he had a vote in department meetings, which makes him second-class in some sense.

I swear, I've gotten a lot done at work today.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

You and I do like to converse.

Normal people who teach at law schools but aren't tenure track ARE regarded as lesser within that realm unless they have prominence in some other realm.

As a Senator, Obama has major prominence, so his fellow faculty likely don't regard him as lesser. That and he was Harvard law review, which would make him eligible to teach at any law school in the nation.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

One more thing: notice that when I quoted the memo from Time, I left out the professor thing.