Obama Hit On Records Transparency

Lynn Sweet is one of the more aggressive reporters covering Obama out there, and the campaign isn't generally a huge fan of her work. Here's her lead today:

White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is making government transparency a centerpiece of the latest phase of his campaign, does not always practice what he preaches when it comes to his own business.

More:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, in a memo sent last week after the debate, said Obama is "setting a new standard of openness in campaign fund-raising." That's because the bar is very low.

• • Obama's campaign has refused to identify the biggest bundlers, people who are raising at least $200,000 for him and are given membership in his National Finance Council. Obama, as all major candidates, declines most of the time to disclose details about most fund-raising events.

• • During a town hall meeting last month in Dover, N.H., Obama pledged that he would post all meetings he would hold as president on the Internet. As a senator, Obama has never done that.

• • Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) routinely releases a detailed schedule of his Washington, D.C., meetings -- with international leaders, Illinois state and local officials, constituents and lobbyists.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds:

"Obama has a record of fighting for openness in government and, as president, he will make dealings in Washington more transparent than they have ever been. During the presidential campaign he has gone further than any other candidate when it comes to transparency in making public his tax returns and his bundlers."

Comments

Obama is all talk, no walk. In other words a hypocrite.

Posted by Puccinella | November 5, 2007 11:35 AM

Even though Obama is much better than Hillary on this issue, I think he should realease all of his stuff. He might get some heat on the specifics, but he'll get more credit for doing what Hillary will not do. It will be like the drivers license question where he made a direct, but unpopular answer and has gotten more praise for taking a stand than criticsim for supporting Spitzer. I think he should release the documents because HIllary branding him a hypocrite will be far more damaging then the records of some state lobbyist meetings.

Posted by RKA | November 5, 2007 11:42 AM

On her website, she acknowledges that his Illinois senate record is publicly available. What does this have to do with HRC running on her policy-mkaing record within the Clinton White House and refusing to release those records?

His Senate record (bills passed, etc.) are available.

Posted by Keith | November 5, 2007 2:11 PM

Sweet's blog should be taken with a grain of salt--she writes it at 5 am when she is still groggy and cranky. For example, apparently her chief complaint is that obama lists the names but not the phone numbers of his bundlers. I am sure she will go into cardiac arrest if he gets elected or at the very least she will have to buy a very big alarm clock.

Posted by JC | November 5, 2007 3:01 PM

I've always thought she was a Clinton supporter, from day one.

Posted by Phoebe | November 5, 2007 3:32 PM

Yeah - there's no bigger Hillary supporter out there. These stats she writes about - they're from a Hillary backgrounder email.

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | November 5, 2007 5:13 PM

Phoebe,
Who cares who Sweet supports? Comment on the article. Why won't he at least conduct his affairs on the same level as Durbin? That's a fair question isn't it? And those big donors; who are they? Does this not bother Obama supporters at all?

Posted by Pragmatic Liberal | November 5, 2007 5:42 PM

Isn't the proper question: why don't they all disclose? What does the state of the bundler's residence contribute to disclosure? There is no point to Obama publishing his personal schedule because his daughter's soccer games are not relevant to the presidential election. Are the addresses of bundlers any more relevant? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, but I would not immediately assume that they are either, i.e. Sweet might just be baiting Obama here, to give her more ammunition. I would like someone knowledgeable to make an argument for and against the request Sweet is making--it would make a good blog post. In all fairness to Sweet, Obama left himself wide open when he questioned Clinton on the archive--though that was a legitimate critique: if you are going to run on experience, why keep your experience under lock and key? They did respond mostly on the state records point she made, a point she grudgingly admits, but if they were smart he would take the opportunity to bury her in documents. But in all fairness to Obama, no candidate that I know of has done more to promote greater transparency in government, Hillary had 4 years and Edwards 6 to propose something laws to promote transparency and limit earmarks. Given the professional calibre of Hillary's campaign I am surprised that they did not have all the documents ready to go on the day of her announcement, unles of course they didn't want them out there in the public domain for some reason. I am guessing that Obama can see Sweet and raise her here if he feels like it, take a camera and an intern over to her office and deliver a copy of his complete schedule to her. It would keep her busy, they could take whatever hits on the implied misdoings from his calendar and at the same time earn the gratitude of people who like Obama as much as they like a more accountable limited government. I wouldn't expect any of the other candidates to follow suit.

Posted by JC | November 5, 2007 6:15 PM

I think these are fair questions to ask of Obama; though it does seem that Sweet strained just a bit to pick out as many examples as she could that demonstrate Obama is not perfect on this issue (or at least not as perfect as say, Sen. Durbin is).

And I don't think any (or most) of Obama's supporters claim that he is perfect- on this issue or others.

But does that mean he does not have a relatively good record on issues of transparency?
And that perhaps other Senators have relatively poor records on this issue?

Sweet reports on these findings without any context- i.e. without noting how Obama's overall record in this regard compares to other Senators- and in particular, to Sen. Clinton.

Therefore, the points she's raising, while certainly legitimate, don't mean all that much.
It would have made more sense, or been more informative for readers/voters to show a comparison of Obama's record on this issue with the other Democratic candidates, and Sen. Clinton in particular (since Obama is being called out essentially for being a hypocrite for criticizing her on this front).

One blogger, with an admitted Obama slant, has made a comparison between Sens. Obama and Clinton on these issues.

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

Admittedly, he has a bias, but at least he is making a comparison, which is more useful that simply stating Obama has not done this or that, without noting how his record compares with his those of his colleagues and fellow candidates.

Posted by Aaron M | November 5, 2007 6:19 PM

Pragmatic Liberal,
You make a good point. But I was not pretending to comment on the article. As far as this goes, I'm waiting for more info. I was just airing a suspicion I've long had about Sweet, which was kind of a change of subject, admittedly.

Posted by Phoebe | November 5, 2007 7:43 PM

More could become public in the course of the federal trial for Antoin Rezko.

Posted by Matt | November 5, 2007 10:14 PM