I crossed the line on Senator Clinton last year.
By mid-Summer, I had decided that she was the wrong choice to be the Democratic Nominee in 2008.
For me, it came down to three key points:
- Her failure to address the culture of corruption in Washington DC, paired with her tight embrace of lobbyists and their cash.
- Her failure to support the 50 State Strategy paired with her tight embrace of Terry McAuliffe and the other fools who almost destroyed the Democratic Party over the last twenty years.
- Her failure to explain and return the $10,000 she received from the sweatshop owning Tan Family of Saipan paired with an additional $16,000 from the head of the Family’s US operations.
Every Republican Presidential candidate embraces, defends and feeds off the Culture of Corruption.
Among Democrats, it is only Senator Clinton who mocks real reform while ignoring corruption and she will take cash from any source (until an embarrassing story surfaces and the cash is returned).
Ending corruption is important and Hillary Clinton is AWOL on the issue.
To the jump...
We all have our "pet" issues. For me, it is ending the Culture of Corruption in Washington DC.
I’ve been following the impact of Washington’s Culture of Corruption for almost a decade. Corruption is why sweatshops, human trafficking, forced prostitution and other crimes committed by the Pirates of Saipan have been protected by the Republican controlled US Congress. But that story of ongoing abuse was just my doorway into researching and writing about the cancerous impact of corruption on our Nation, Government, values and politics.
A just solution to every issue of concerned is blocked by corruption.
You want universal health care, an end to the War, serious action on Climate Change or even a simple expansion of SCHIP—well you have to bust through layers of corruption just to begin the process.
The 2006 election turned on the issue of corruption. It was the tippng point in race after race. We won because our Candidates confronted the Republicans (and some in our own Party) on cleaning up Washington.
And the 2008 election will be decided in favor of the candidates who convince voters that they understand that there is more work to do. Once again, we need Candidates who understand the importance of ending corruption in Washington and in corporate board rooms.
(For example, we need more Candidates like Donna Edwards who is taking on an ethically challenged Albert Winn on February 12th. Now would be a great time to send her a donation).
When Rasmussen polled voters for their top Issues of Concerns last August, Corruption was #1 and Democrats held a +10 advantage over Republicans on the issue. Just a few days ago Rasmussen released their latest numbers on the main concerns of voters. Corruption is still a top concern—even or slightly behind the economy for most voters.
In the 2008 election, perceptions of corruption will impact every race up and down the ticket. Unlike 2006, the main focus will not be control of Congress; it will be control of the White House.
The race to the White House will drive the narrative.
The Democratic advantage on the issue of corruption (and many others) will be shaped by whoever is at the top of the ticket.
At the start of this Campaign season only one Candidate was talking about the issue and ways to fight Corruption. That was Barack Obama.
Ethics Reform and Ending the Culture of Corruption has always been a key part of Obama’s campaign. From day one, fighting corruption was a core part of his message and it was a message that was backed up by action. Obama’s plan (PDF) is comprehensive and rich in details. His Senate Web site lists his ongoing efforts for Ethics and Lobbying Reform as well as Good Government and Responsible Spending. Last year, the 110th Congress passed the most sweeping lobbying and ethics reforms since Watergate and Obama was the leader of that effort.
Last spring, I wrote about where all the candidates stood on the issue. According to the Web sites, speeches, position papers and debates. Obama was the only Democrat who seemed to be serious about ending corruption.
That changed.
By last summer, another Democratic Candidate joined Obama in this important debate.
That was John Edwards.
Like Obama, Edwards has presented a comprehensive plan to fight corruption. It is rich in details and Edwards has made the issue of ending corruption a cornerstone of his campaign. He is challenging everyone to take this issue seriously and to do more. It is a great thing and I would be thrilled if Edwards were to win or if this came down to a competition between him and Obama over the best ideas to move America forward—including the best ways to shut down the Culture of Corruption.
John Edwards and Barack Obama are engaged in an active discussion and a challenging debate about which candidate will do the most to end the Culture of Corruption—they are both serious about the issue. They talk about it. They both have detailed plans posted on their Web sites (Edwards’ plan is here and Obama’s is here).
Edwards has become a serious anti-corruption warrior and Obama has introduced real reform legislation, including the new Lobbying Reform Law that Senator Clinton and her K Street pals find so funny (I’ll get to that in a moment).
As I’ve mentioned, I have made my choice and I support Barack Obama. I was very tempted by Edwards, but it was Obama’s consistency of message and action on ending corruption that won the Senator from Illinois my support.
Still, I can see how people are passionate about their support of Edwards. He is a great candidate. I think folks should stay with him if that is where their hearts and passions led them to stand. This race may not be decided in a flash. It may be a slow march to accumulate Delegates. I am concerned about ending the Culture of Corruption and so both Obama and Edwards excite me as candidates. I think a Convention where both Edwards and Obama are backed with Delegates will help to ensure that the more corrupt elements of the Democratic Party (paging Mr. McAuliffe, paging Mr. Penn...) are held in check. And with luck, one of them will be our Nominee.
I see a vote for Obama or Edwards as a vote to fight the Culture of Corruption. Sure only one of them can be the Nominee, but there are many, many ways they can work together to clean up Washington and support real change.
The active debate between Edwards and Obama on the best ways to clean up Washington and fight corruption is great. These are both excellent candidates and either of them would make an exceptional President.
This is not the case with Senator Clinton.
When it comes to the Culture of Corruption and fighting to end it, the Junior Senator from New York is AWOL. She is not in the game.
I wish I could say that all three front-runners were just as strong on the critical issue of ending corruption, but it isn’t true.
Unlike Obama and Edwards, Senator Clinton has only offered vague rhetoric and a risible Government Reform proposal that will do little to reform, change or end the system of corruption that is destroying our Republic. In place of a "plan" she offers a list of nice sounding talking points. Her fundraising has been questionable (not a surprise with Terry McAuliffe on board) and then there is the problem of that sweatshop tainted cash that her lawyers have been "reviewing" since the summer of 2006 (somehow they can’t seem to come to a decision and return the tainted cash). For the life of me, I do not know why any Democrats would ever take a dime from these long-time sweatshop owners and patrons of Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and George W. Bush—and yet, that is what Senator Clinton has done.
And then there was the appearance last Sunday on MTP.
Senator Clinton is not only AWOL on confronting corruption, she is now mocking real corruption reforms and showing contempt for those of us who are concerned with the endless ways corruption is destroying our Democracy and our planet.
I am not amused.
Her appearance on MTP Sunday was an eye opener for me—especially this exchange where she mocked the most meaningful corruption reform laws passed since the 1970s (emphasis added):
MR. RUSSERT: But is Barack Obama ready to be president?
SEN. CLINTON: That is up for voters to decide, Tim. You know, you can ask that question of him, voters can ask that question, but that's what I want. I thought the campaign really started at the debate in New Hampshire. For the first time we really had a debate that compared and contrasted our records. When Senator Obama was asked, what is your major accomplishment in the Senate, he said it was passing ethics reform and getting legislators to be prohibited from having lunch with lobbyists. And then, you know, Charlie Gibson said, "Well, wait a minute. You can have lunch if you're standing up, not if you're sitting down." So if that's his main claim for legislative accomplishment, people deserve to know that.
So, to hear Senator Clinton tell the story, the most comprehensive lobbying reform in more than thirty years—and one of the major accomplishments of the Democrats controlling Congress—was a joke.
It was a Penn-tested punched line to underscore yet another fact-challenged attacked on her fellow Democrats.
To hear Senator Clinton spin the tale, the law was a meaningless effort because lobbyists can still serve cheese platters and mini-weenies on a toothpick at a stand-up gathering, when just a few months ago they could feed targeted elected officials and their staffs at the finest restaurants in DC and elsewhere. This is an argument against corruption reform straight out of GOP backrooms and the gilded offices of K Street.
And not surprisingly, Senator Clinton also misrepresented the exchange from the debate as well as the Lobbying Reform Law.
Like me, you can go back to the transcript of the ABC News/Facebook/WMUR Democratic Debate.
The first thing Senator Clinton did was to erase John Edwards from the Democratic Primary. After all, it was Edwards—and not Obama—who had been asked the "major accomplishment" question. In his answer Edwards mentioned lobbying reform and then Obama jumped in (emphasis added):
SPRADLING: Can you give New Hampshire voters a guide of something significant that you accomplished in your six years as a U.S. senator...
EDWARDS: Absolutely.
SPRADLING: ... that would give us some guide as to what kind of president you're going to be?
EDWARDS: Absolutely. I could tell you exactly one -- I'll give you one very specific example, a big example.
When the Democrats finally took over the United States Senate, the first issue that was brought to the table was the so-called patient's bill of rights, so that patients and families could make their own health care decisions. [snip]
And it is personal for me. When I see these lobbyists roaming around Washington, D.C., taking all the politicians to cocktail parties, I mean, the picture I get in my head is my father and my grandmother going in that mill every day so that I could have the chances I've had.
Where is their voice in this democracy? When are they going to get heard? They need a president who will stand up for them, and so does every American who's listening to this debate.
OBAMA: I just want to add, I agree with John, which is why I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress...
EDWARDS: Good idea.
OBAMA: ... because -- and some of them complained. They said...
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: They said, "Where am I going to eat?"
GIBSON: They can now buy food for members of Congress if the members of Congress are standing up. That's my understanding of what the rules have changed. You can't sit down and eat, but you can stand up and eat. Tell me why that's change.
OBAMA: Here's what we did. They can't buy meals. They can't provide gifts. They can no longer lend corporate...
GIBSON: They can have huge parties for you as long as you're standing up.
EDWARDS: They can't eat as much if they're standing up, Charlie.
OBAMA: That's true.
Look, we are now disclosing if they're bundling money for members of Congress. They've got to disclose who they're bundling money from and who they're giving it to.
And there is much more in that debate about ethics and reform, about the corrosive impact of corruption on our Nation and our politics, but it is all between Edwards and Obama.
As usual, Senator Clinton (D-K St.) was AWOL whenever ethics or ending corruption was the subject.
And as usual Senator Clinton and her campaign are rewriting history to put words and meaning into the mouth of Obama and wipe Edwards from the historic record of this Democratic Primary Race.
If a Republican did this we might call it "lying".
In an effort to score cheap political points, Senator Clinton is willing to float the taking points of K Street and the Republican Party—talking points that are designed to weaken the impact of reform and the hope that anything can ever change in Washington. Talking points that belittle real reform as meaningless in an effort to stave off the next round of reform.
So, it is not a surprise as she told us at Yearly Kos that "lobbyist are people too", after all she has raked in more lobbyist cash than anybody, Republican or Democrat. And that doesn’t even include bundling from lobbyists, their clients and family members.
I’m not surprise that she mocks reform and is AWOL on the ending the Culture of Corruption debate. These are easy things to do when you’re your focus is on taking in cash from anybody with a checkbook or charge card, regardless of their connections to the cancerous impact of corruption on our Nation, Government, values and politics.
Now, as her defenders will be quick to point out, Senator Clinton does mention the issue of reform on her campaign Web site. It is true, there is an issue name check on the site.
Let’s take a moment and compare Senator Clinton to Edwards and Obama on this issue.
Senator Clinton only speaks about ending corruption in generalities. She lobs pretty words and Penn-tested sound bites at the edges of the problem while avoiding the heart of the issue. On her Web site, she presents a hollow Government Reform proposal:
Hillary has proposed a comprehensive, 10-point plan to restore Americans' confidence in their government by increasing transparency and cutting waste and corruption. Her plan includes:
- Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
- Strengthening whistleblower protections.
- Creating a public service academy.
- Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
- Cutting 500,000 government contractors
- Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
- Publishing budgets for every government agency.
- Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
- Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
- Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.
First, it is a nice list of items and they are worthy of action. In fact, these would all be good things for our Government to do. I support them as talking points, but only details would convert this feel good list into a real plan of action that could be discussed and compared to the more serious proposals of Obama and Edwards.
That said, none of these items on Clinton’s list will have a serious impact on ending corruption in Washington. Hell, they will not even get close to the problem.
To call this list a "Comprehensive Government Reform" proposal is risible.
It is not "comprehensive" and it will do little to reform, change or end the system of corruption destroying our Republic.
Missing from Senator Clinton’s plan is any serious effort to confront lobbyists; or earmarks; or Leadership PACS or any mention of the corrupting impact of money—the piles of loose cash—moving around the Halls of power in our Nation’s Capital. You can not seriously talk about "Comprehensive Government Reform" if you can not, or will not talk about the money flooding the zone.
Especially useless in her list is her revolving door proposal. Every time I read it, I’m inclined to do a spit take.
It seems that Senator Clinton’s understanding of the Culture of Corruption problem in Washington is that it is a simple problem. A problem that only impacts a handful of nominated and approved Cabinet Officers. Missing from her understanding of the issue is the massive revolving door that spins freely for everybody else in the government. You know, the thousands of people working at all levels of the Government and then moving seamlessly through a series of revolving doors between lobbyists, the media, think tanks, PR Firms, consultants and then back to the Legislative and Executive Branches. I hate to break it to Senator Clinton, but restricting a few dozen folks at the very top of the heap from quickly moving through the revolving door will not change this system.
Her plan is not reform. And it is just silly to suggest that it is.
When it come to Senator Clinton’s "Comprehensive Government Reform" I am reminded of a question Fritz Mondale once asked: "Where’s the beef?
Since the beginning of this campaign Senator Clinton has refused to be serious about ending the Culture of Corruption. She will not engage either John Edwards or Barack Obama on the issue. She will not engage the voters.
Our Primary season is now active and moving. Ending corruption is an important issue for voters: Democrats, Independents and Republicans. Our nominee must be somebody who can beat the Republicans over the head for their addiction to corruption. Hillary Clinton can not do that.
If we nominate a candidate who lets the GOP and the media push the "Everybody does it meme" we will loose our advantage on the corruption issue and possibly the election.
I think we need to avoid giving away one of our strongest issues and the best way to do that is to avoid Senator Clinton as our nominee.
She may think fighting corruption is something to mock and that you can never have enough cash from lobbyists in your coffers, but she is wrong.
She may think that embracing Terry McAuliffe and his "anything goes" fundraising ethic is a just fine, but she is wrong.
She may think that money from sweatshop owners will never be noticed, but she is wrong.
We have better choices.
I support Barack Obama, but John Edwards is a close second for me.
Either running as our Nominee will make you proud to be a Democrat.
But Senator Clinton is an open question and she is the front-runner. She has the status quo behind her. These are powerful forces and they will stop at nothing to hang onto power.
And yet, when the dust of the primary season settles, Hillary Clinton may be the Democratic Nominee for President.
If she is, I will support her, even with my very serious concerns. I am a Democrat and even with her very real flaws, Senator Clinton is far, far better than any Republican or any third party candidate likely to run.
The stakes are way too high and we must UNITE behind whoever wins the Democratic Nomination.
Now of course, Senator Clinton could surprise me.
She could stop mocking real efforts at reform and instead support them. She could engage Senator Edwards and Senator Obama in a real debate about who has the best plan to end the culture of corruption.
Who knows, she might even present a better anti-corruption plan than either of them (all things are possible).
Who knows, she could back up her talk with action—actions like returning the money from the Tan Family and donating funds to the workers on the Marianas Islands. Actions like finally seeing the long abused workers in the CNMI as visible people who deserve rights and respect.
She could impress me. I do not expect it, but I still hope she will prove me wrong and one day demonstrate that she is serious about fighting the Culture of Corruption.
Corruption is a tipping point indicator. Whatever your pet issue is—the War in Iraq, immigration, health care, abortion, security, etc.—corruption can be seen as the cause when things fail. After years of Republican Rule, in 2006 the voters decided to give Democrats a chance.
In 2008 corruption will influence if we take back the White House and increase our majorities in Congress.
Our Nominee for President needs to be able to lead the Party and the Country to fight the Culture of Corruption in Washington.
This issue is important.
We need to questions our candidates about the corruption issue, NOW—while this race is still undecided.
Obama and Edwards are debating the corruption issue. They are actively engaged in word and in deed.
So far, Senator Clinton is AWOL.
And ignoring the Culture of Corruption, IMHO, makes Senator Clinton is a step backwards. Worst, her core team includes Penn, McAuliffe and a cadre of DLC old guard players who will almost certainly guarantee a more corrupt Democratic Party and yet another cycle of corruption in Washington. Only this time it will be followed with a "(D)".
I think we need to fight against that outcome.
Cheers