Barack Obama and The Audacity of Deception

[Progress And Change]

This catalogues' some of Obama's deceptions.


"Ever wonder why the “progressive” (as he repeatedly describes himself) Obama dances for Wall Street on the (fake) Social Security “crisis” (Krugman 2007a) and sounds like Mitt Romney and Rudy Guliani in decrying the specter of “government mandated” universal health care (Krugman 2007b)? Curious about why the avowed environmentalist thinks that nuclear power should be considered part of the solution to America’s energy crisis and has recently joined Hillary in voting for the extension of the corporate-neoliberal North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru?

Follow the money. Obama’s presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama’s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as “a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry.” Eight of Obama’s top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Meanwhile, Obama’s presidential run has been “assisted” by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c). His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006 (Sweet 2007). "

"It gets worse. Obama has repeatedly voted to spend billions on the illegal invasion since his arrival in the U.S. Senate. He inveighs against the “Tom Hayden wing of the Democratic Party” and has told congressional Democrats they would be “playing chicken with the troops” if they dared to actually (imagine) de-fund the Cheney-Bush “war.” "

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14448

[wyldwolf]

1. the source will be attacked very soon.

[ronnykmarshall]

2. Of course.

Stay tuned.

[maximusveritas]

5. So you agree with his calling Hillary a "right-wing" Democrat?

That's a reasonable man to you?
That's someone who's opinion should be worthy of our consideration?

[wyldwolf]

8. no, but then again he doesn't provide sourced stats to back that

With Obama, he does.

[maximusveritas]

23. You know very well he can play the same game with Hillary

and it would be just as dishonest. What do those "sourced stats" show other than he's raising money from them?

Hillary has received $4,735,730 from securities and investment firms, more than Obama's $4,505,199
She's received $935,658 from commercial banks, more than his $866,000.
She's received $1,695,830 from the health care sector, more than his $1,330,743.

[MNDemNY]

29. Those numbers are as close as their respective positions on most issues.

[Progress And Change]

41. Hillary is not claiming to be an anti-establishment "outsider" like Obama...

[creeksneakers2]

53. Donations don't prove guilt

I've been telling that to the Hillary haters for months now.

[NYCGirl]

26. And read what else he says about Senator Clinton:

It strains credulity for Hillary to say that she was fooled by Cheney-Bush's "bad" (actually cooked) Iraq WMD "intelligence" and then by the hope that Bush would follow through on a diplomatic process she actually voted against requiring. This explanation amounts to admitting that Hillary was one or some mixture of three things, none good, in the fall of 2002:

1. a geeked-up post-9/11 war hawk who (consistent with her especially strong support of Israel) was more than ready to join the bloody assault on the oil-rich Arab world.

2. a political coward who concluded that Cheney-Bush's illegal war was an unstoppable fait accompli that she could oppose only at serious cost to her presidential-electoral viability.

3. unforgivably incompetent in her assessment of relevant information.

Hillary Clinton is not stupid or incompetent, though her failure to read the NIE does not speak well to her effectiveness as an imperial manager. My best guess is that her decision reflected a combination of (1) and (2), with (1) being the heavier part of the equation in the fall of 2002 (I would emphasize # 2 and an over-reliance on centrist political advice in explaining John Edwards' vote for the war authorization).

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13215


She would be certain to support a disastrous and unnecessary Bush administration attack on Iran. She even recently voted in support of the White House’s absurd, provocative, and saber-rattling campaign to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as an “international terrorist organization.”

She is infamously shameless about receiving large contributions from concentrated wealth, including large health and insurance corporations who pay her nicely to stay away from the obvious social democratic solution to the nation’s health care crisis: single-payer Canadian style government health insurance.

She refuses to support elementary increases in the taxation of privileged folks’ exorbitant incomes to bolster the funding of Social Security.

And she’s a pathological, power-mad liar who chronically misrepresents her positions on key issues.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14081

[Forkboy]

27. LOL...what a great source. I'm sure Hillary supporters will agree.

And she’s a pathological, power-mad liar who chronically misrepresents her positions on key issues.

:rofl:

[cuke]

31. That's opinion

He's welcome to it.

But the well-sourced facts in the Obama piece make it clear that Obama is close with lobbyists and his claims otherwise are lies

[Progress And Change]

42. Typical Obama "New Politics" tactic: attack Clinton to divert attention from Obama

[NYCGirl]

47. If you don't like it, take it up with the author. He's the guy the OP

is quoting. So he's wrong about Clinton but right about Obama, eh?

[Progress And Change]

48. what does Clinton have to do with Obama's deceptions?

[NYCGirl]

52. Please try and keep up. We're discussing your source's deceptions here.

[cali]

7. and it damned well should be

zmag and counterpunch are both completely unreliable and they've both been caught in lies.

[Progress And Change]

9. what facts and figures in the article are inaccurate?

Please point them out if that is the case...

[geek tragedy]

12. It falsely claims that companies are donating cash

to his campaign. That would be illegal.

[cuke]

32. No it doesn't

Clinton is accused of taking money from Murdoch, weapons manufacturer's, insurance companies, etc when what is meant is the people who work for those companies

[geek tragedy]

3. This article starts off with a big fat lie.

Follow the money. Obama’s presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama’s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs has not donated a penny to Obama's campaign. Obama's campaign has not received a dime from any bank. No investment firm has donated to Obama's campaign.

Cheesy, dishonest hit piece.

[Progress And Change]

6. you are being misleading

You know full well how corporate interests get around not being allowed to directly fund candidates out of their business' bank account...

[geek tragedy]

11. No, I am not being misleading.

Companies do not donate money to candidates.

Only their employees do.

[Progress And Change]

14. yeah, and that is the end around via which they buy candidates

[geek tragedy]

17. That would also be a crime.

Ask Norman Hsu.

[hfojvt]

25. How likely is it

that there are really dozens or scores of Norman Hsus who have not been caught? I recently got a speeding ticket, but I am sure others are still speeding without getting tickets. Alternatively, if my brother's boss sends him emails about how great Obama is and encourages him to donate, is that illegal? How will he get caught? Is my brother gonna report him? Why? He'll be fired long before his boss ever goes to trial. Much simpler just to kick in a couple hundred bucks and be thankful he still has a $110,000 a year job. Of course, my brother probably does not make that much money, and has never told me about anything like this. I am just imagining the possibilities.

[geek tragedy]

28. Most fundraising is done through networking.

I'm not sure, but I would imagine that the great majority of companies have rules about bosses making such suggestions. Certainly the big, rich ones have such rules. However, if your boss is throwing a huge fundraiser for a candidate, of course you'll know about it.

But, the point remains that an author really had better stick to the truth before they throw the word "deception" in their title.

[hfojvt]

19. Does that buy access?

Is there some insurance CEO who shakes down his highly paid employees for contributions and then provides a fat envelope to the candidate? Or does it just happen that 10,000 insurance employees donate an average of $450? How does this process work? I know Obama, at least, has telemarketers calling previous donors, because I have gotten a couple of calls. Is that where the $4.5 million comes from? Is one side naive or is the other paranoid?

[geek tragedy]

21. Candidates tend to raise money from people

with a lots of disposable cash.

Where do you find people who can afford $2300 donations? Law firms, investment banks, investment firms, big banks, big corporations.

The real question of access comes in looking at the bundlers.

[hfojvt]

13. according to Open Secrets

Obama has gotten 4.5 million from securities and investment and almost a million from banks. They are individual rather than corporate contributions

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

The article matches the information from Open Secrets.

[Progress And Change]

16. thanks for refuting Obama myths with facts

[geek tragedy]

18. No, individual contributions are not the same

as corporate contributions, no matter how much you stomp your foot, hold your breath, and scream otherwise.

[BootinUp]

35. Another Obama apologist who can't acknowledge facts

I'm truly getting sick to my stomach reading stuff here.

[geek tragedy]

37. I'm right and you're wrong (in addition to being melodramatic). n/t

[BootinUp]

38. Here's some facts for you

1. Corporations cannot directly contribute to any Presidential, Senatorial, or Congressional campaign

2. Whenever you read about Hillary getting money from corporations, they are talking about individual contributions from people that are executives or other high level managers in said corporations.

3. Obama isn't getting all his money from the little guy. He is getting loads of it from the same kind of contributors that Hillary is.

Learn to deal with it.

[Progress And Change]

43. *crickets*

[geek tragedy]

45. So?

Did I ever state that Hillary gets money from corporations?

Go along and play with your Wes Clark action figure.

[Progress And Change]

46. what a condescending attitude toward Jim, who seems to be a good poster

One thing I have noticed is Obama supporters have a very condescending attitude toward those who dissent on Obama. This is especially odd for people who claim they want a new politics...

[geek tragedy]

51. Okay DMC. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

54. Then why is Hillary attacked so often for accepting them? n/t

[hfojvt]

4. for whatever it is worth

I am not sure how keen I am on Government mandated health insurance either. I think that State mandated auto insurance is kind of a rip-off too. Having spent $1200 or more for it over my life and gotten nothing in return, it seems like a bad deal to me. I especially loved it when I moved from a state where it was not required to a state where it was required and every insurance company I talked to insisted on charging me more because I had no previous insurance.

Although Krugman wants to bash him, Obama is not wrong that there is some problem with social security (not a crisis, but not a non-issue either). Obama's position seems more accurate and more honest than Hillary's "trillion dollar tax increase" on the "middle class" (people making more than $105,000 a year!!) Krugman, perhaps because he wants a job in a future Clinton administration, does not see fit to say anything about Clinton's errors/dishonesty.

[oasis]

10. "The Great Pretender"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. I don't even know why I wander into GD:P any more.

Can you people even hear each other?

[cuke]

30. Did you read the OP?

It was actually very informative and well-sourced

[BootinUp]

36. why are we wasting our time cuke?

people don't seem to be interested in facts if they help Clinton.

[cuke]

39. I like to point out the hypocrisy

of complaining about petty stuff in a thread with an informative and substantive OP.

The only reason for the pettiness is because Obama supporters cant defend him in a substantive manner

[Maven]

20. Say it isn't so!

How do you spell Obama?

P-H-O-N-Y

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Breaking

Obama, Clinton, Edwards ,et all are politicians and will pursue a strategy they think will get them elected...

[geek tragedy]

24. Also breaking: you need money to run a campaign. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

55. Edwards is by far the worst though.

Hillary backed the Peru trade deal. That either wasn't a political calculation or it was a really stupid one. Hillary often takes unpopular stands.

[Capn Sunshine]

33. Breaking Breaking

Hillary's campaign shills will get more audacious as things slip away.

The forecast calls for partly cloudy, with occasional sock storms.

[jefferson_dem]

34. This reads like a low-level entry in a high school essay contest.

At least you could manufacture an almost-believable attack.

[cuke]

40. Another Obama supporter who can't defend Obama

Attacking the messenger is so neoconish

[Jim Sagle]

50. So whaddya want, the impossible?

;)

[Progress And Change]

44. So Obama is not heavily financed by the insurance industry, corporations, banks, and lobbyists?

[Lord Helmet]

49. I'm wondering if you have climbed all the way up his butt and laid eggs.

dude, you are really a hater