A new report from Taxpayers for Common Sense places Hillary Clinton in the top 10% in the Senate in pork, while Barack Obama places in the bottom 25%.
In terms of securing earmarks, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ranks among the top ten in the Senate ($340 million) while Barack Obama (D-IL) ranks in the bottom 25% of the Senate ($91 million). John McCain (R-AZ) has rejected earmarks entirely. Since becoming the majority party, Democrats are responsible for 57% of the $18.3 billion spent on earmarks. (Washington Post)
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...
It's unclear what impact this will have, if any is detectable, on the presidential race. On the one hand, it confirms Hillary's claim to be the kind of Washington insider that can work the levers of power. On the other hand, it confirms the counter-claim that we need to change the game not play it better if we want a sustained progressive movement. Obama, who has built his career around passing legislation to limit the influence of lobbyists while making government more open, accountable and democratic has been pushing that counterargument very effectively. The ranking as a top pork producing Senator certainly will not help Hillary make up her deficit against John McCain, who rightly or wrongly has a good reputation on these kinds of issues, if she somehow makes it to the general election.
The report comes out as ties between Hillary's top adviser Mark Penn and lobbying for Exelon have been revealed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The revelation undermines a recent line of attack from the Clinton campaign. Exelon has been under scrutiny in Illinois for failing to report radioactive leaks. Obama sponsored legislation requiring reporting of such leaks but the legislation was watered down by Republicans. Hillary, who voted for the watered down legislation, has attacked Obama, pretending that he favored the watered down version all along because he received some contributions from Exelon for his Senate campaign. She fails to note that Obama actually favored the stronger version he originally sponsored and that she herself voted for the watered down version, presumably for the same reason Obama did: that something is better than nothing.
Clinton's close relationship with Mark Penn raises a number of questions. Penn's lobbying firm has worked to bust unions, to burnish the image of Blackwater, and representing sovereign wealth funds.
Penn's firm helped Blackwater coordinate its PR efforts to downplay criticism of the murder of innocent civilians by its employees.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Advertising its union-busting services, Penn's website declares: "Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating ... That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation."
http://www.prospect.org/...
While Clinton publicly criticized lack of disclosure of the activities of sovereign wealth funds, she did not disclose Mark Penn's, who has been described as "Hillary's brain" and "Hillary's Rove", lobbying on behalf of those very entities.
http://www.jedreport.com/...
Penn is one of several corporate Democrats that wielded more influence in Bill Clinton's administration than progressives like former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich:
Upon securing labor's blessing, Clinton accused President George H.W. Bush of "sucker-punching" American workers and pledged a "common commitment" to the "forgotten middle class." Those words soon rang hollow, as Clinton's presidency confirmed labor's worst suspicions. Clinton scrapped an economic stimulus package in favor of balancing the budget, appointed Wall Street bankers like Robert Rubin and Roger Altman to top positions in the Cabinet and ferociously twisted arms to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and subsequent trade pacts. Bill and Hillary Clinton rejected single-payer healthcare reform in favor of a complicated "managed care" plan meant to appease the private sector and only tepidly supported a strikers' bill of rights, which failed to pass Congress. He named a good progressive, Robert Reich, as Labor Secretary but gave decision-making power affecting labor and the economy to Rubin and Altman and, later, political strategists Dick Morris and Mark Penn. By 1996 Reich had resigned, accusing Clinton of selling out.
http://www.thenation.com/...
Hillary has tried to distance herself from Clinton era policies like NAFTA claiming that she opposed it quietly at the time but could not as First Lady speak out against her husband's free trade agenda. That may or may not be true. Hillary's close association with Penn suggests that it is not.
Democratic voters face a choice. Will it be more of the same pork-barrel, lobbyist dominated politics or will we take a shot at change? Cynics note that change is a common election theme and that there is a chance Obama will be no different than others that have run on hope and change. Maybe. However, Obama does seem to have a track record of working for legislation that gives us our government back and we can see from articles dating back to 1995 that the ideals Obama gained from his time as a community organizer run deep.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
So, how about a donation for change:
https://donate.barackobama.com/...