Just found this very important comparison

[Indenturedebtor]

The site says in its' own banner that it's supporting Obama and has a bias. However, the information conforms with what I've read elsewhere. Makes a case for Obama's claim for being the change candidate. And a strong one at that! Please please please at least glance at this.

Heres a link that I HIGHLY recomment clicking on.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/barack-obama-vs-hillary-clinton-records-on-transparency-lobbyists-and-ethics/



Any Clinton supporters care to argue?

[Emit]

1. Thanks for the link

Checking it out now

[ginnyinWI]

2. One of the main differences in Obama is he wants to fix

our broken government and part of that is transparency.

If you're not a crook, you will have nothing to hide.

[Tarc]

3. Care to argue against what?

A carefully crafted laundry list predetermined to give Obama a perceived edge? Curious that there's no comparisons on health care, economic issues, or environmental ocncerns.

I couldn't care less about the lobbyist donations, which seem to take up the first quarter of the list. Then we have Marshmallow Fluff entires like "promises to post presidential meetings online" ? :eyes:

I do like the "Passed ethics legislation at state level" comparison though, as Hillary Clinton has never been a member of the state legislation. What will Obama do next, challenge a one-armed man to a juggling contest?

[Indenturedebtor]

4. Care to craft or find your own list?

Or just dismiss the whole thing? He is more committed to transparency and ethics reform.

And this wasn't put up by Obama or his campaign. As I said it has a decidedly Obama slant.

Slant away but do it with facts please.

Convince me and the undecideds who will read this.

[Tarc]

5. Nice strawman.

I'm not here to make lists, son, I'm just here to deconstruct yours. This list is long on touchy-feely agenda items that make policy wonks happy, but woefully short on the issues that matter to ordinary Americans.

[Indenturedebtor]

6. Ah very nice

Allow me to summarize your most recent reply:

"Avoidance, insult, aggressive assertion. Downplaying, sidelong insult, general statement"

:applause:

You get that out of some kinda handbook or do you just do that off the cuff when faced with a challenge to your original poopooing statement? Most impressive.

[Tarc]

7. The Obama bulbs are dim tonight

You posted a pretty list purporting to tout Obama's strengths, when it in fact shows no substance and in some places is outright deceptive. You got owned, easily, simple as that.

But hey, if it gives you the warm fuzzies to vote for a guy who promises to post meeting minutes on a webpage, then you go right ahead. I'll vote for the woman whose health care plan just might result in the United States joining the rest of the Western world.

[Indenturedebtor]

8. Another insult very nice

And yet still you oversimplify the list and try to shift the argument to healthcare (which I think he has a better approach to anyways but that's another thread). This thread is about transparency, and how in that area Obama has been and promises to continue to be vastly more progressive than Clinton.

For example, because it would seem that you didn't read it before projectile pooping from your mouth here are a couple of points:

---------------

Takes campaign money from federal Washington Lobbyists: Obama - no, Clinton - yes
Takes federal PAC money: Obama - no, Clinton - yes
Took subsidized corporate jets after January 2006: Obama - no, Clinton - yes
Released complete record of correspondences from previous political position before primaries: Obama - yes, Clinton - no
Disclosed 2006 earmarks: Obama - yes, Clinton - no
Released names of any fundraising bundlers: Obama - yes in fact the first candidate to do so, Clinton -yes the LAST candidate to do so
Cosponsored campaign finance reform legislation: Obama - yes, Clinton - no


Furthermore after passing ethics at the state level Obama -

Passed a bill that created a searchable database that allows Americans to track how the government is spending their tax money! You can look at all federal government contracts. (www.usaspending.gov)

Pushed new Senate ethics bill to require candidates to disclose their bundlers

Pushed to create a Congressional Ethics Commission

Pushed a law banning subsidized corporate flights for candidates

-----------------------------

End quote.

Now do you think that a few juvenile insults mixed with a little condescension and the word "owned" make for a very good argument?

Oh and just a tip: You shouldn't use Charmin... the lint flecks get stuck in your beard.

[Tarc]

9. Still no health care, economic, or environmental comparisons?

Yep, you still got owned.

Have fun with your meeting minutes boy, my work here is done. :hi:

[Uncle Sinister]

10. I'll argue. One word. Rezko. (and hosted wordpress blogs have zero credibility, anyway)

The Tony Rezko scandal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4451008

[Indenturedebtor]

11. Meh

Lots of questions about Rezko remain unresolved... such as "Did Obama do anything wrong here?"

Furthermore HRC's past is full of such scandals seemingly with a bit more meat.

But here we go with a RW style attack rather than address the fact that he's done more for ethics and transparency BY FAR than Clinton. On this issue he reigns supreme. We can discuss the other ones in other threads.