What?! Obama takes money from lobbyists just like every other mainstream candidate?! Oh no! I'm meeellltiiinggg...

Who has been saying Obama's shit doesn't stink, and why has Norm been taking that person seriously?

I just think the facts point to Obama being a better choice than Hillary... by a margin. And in turn, Hillary is still a far better choice than the Republican warmongers and theocrats.

However, I don't see Hillary promising, as Obama did: "I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus."[1] I don't see Hillary saying she will protect the Internet from the telecom monopolies.[2] I don't see Hillary saying much about preventing media consolidation. She definitely won't do anything to improve government transparency. And I don't see how Hillary will be any better at dealing with the Iraq War, especially when she takes so much money from the people who are profiting from it.[3]

I also don't see Norm addressing any of these points, and to be frank it's starting to look a tiny bit dishonest to me.

***

[1] my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/tneil/CPPM
[2] www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet
[3] www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

Thoughts on the Obama Tech Policy Platform

Here are some excerpts. I urge everyone to read the entire article.

Obama says: "(Let's make) government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities."

I say: Wow. What was that groaning sound that I just heard come from Redmond? Sun Microsystems, IBM. Google, Red Hat, librarians, academics, etc, etc, have been fighting Microsoft's dominating installed base of their proprietary formats in governments that amounts to a taxpayer funded software tax every time the 800-pound gorilla exacts licensing revenue from governments. The trouble is that governments see the barrier of exiting the Microsoft world too steep and the cycle of the software tax continues. But, Obama hit on something significant (however subtly) when he called for "universally accessible formats" like open document format (ODF) to give citizens access to their government data. This is important because if a proprietary format fades away, you won't be able to access documents on it. Data on ODF will last forever.

Obama says: Barack Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records. He will also phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT and commit the necessary federal resources to make it happen.

I say: Amen. This is a big deal, and just hope that this isn't only mentioned in front of geeky audiences. I hope it plays a major role in big debates on health care. The Bush Administration has said as much. So has many leaders in Congress. But, the political will hasn't extended far enough beyond platitudes to get enough done on an issue that could be saving lives today.

But!...

Obama says: Protect Intellectual Property at Home: Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age. Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.

I say: Hello wishy. Meet washy. For a guy with Larry Lessig's endorsement, I would hope for deeper thought here.

And finally,

Overall, the complete position paper is impressive and is clearly full of thought from people well experienced in tech policy. Hilary Clinton's innovation agenda is well-considered, too. However it reads much like many innovation agendas that have preceded it by smart people on both sides of the aisle. I can't agree with everything in the Obama piece, but have to give credit to the creativity and desire to drive at new ideas.

So, Keith is a "true believer' now because he bought the line about Reich? So, that is what this has come to? Anyone who criticizes Clinton more than Obama or seems to think his solutions might be better is simply dismissed as a "true believer"? Cheap shot. BTW, Reich did say this "But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s." He later said it was "hard to know" whose plan is best. So Obama picks the best quote.

So, Keith is a "true believer' now because he bought the line about Reich?'

Yep, Keith Olbermann is now a member of the "cult"... lol

However, I don't see Hillary promising, as Obama did: "I will close Guantanamo

Shame on you do you ever fact check yourself. Dishonest, yep you qualify.

Senator Clinton Calls for Closure of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

Habeus Corpus

Internet Neutraility

Yep, Keith Olbermann is now a member of the "cult"... lol

Not yet, but there are rumors he's put in an application. :)

Remember back in late '06 when McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner put on their little show about how they were standing against torture and for due process...before voting for the Military Commissions Act? I haven't been able to believe that McCain was that resolutely anti-torture since he voted for the scariest bill since the Patriot Act. And that's saying alot.

Shame on you do you ever fact check yourself.

The pro-Obama crowd is a lot more vocal about how Obama wants to protect civil rights, etc. I admit I didn't look very hard for Hillary's position on those issues, but maybe people considering Hillary would like to hear about that kind of thing, instead of just attempts to discredit Obama. Hint hint.

Dishonest, yep you qualify.

I wasn't deliberately omitting anything. And I only said I felt that attacking Obama and not addressing such issues (something just rectified now) was maybe a tiny bit dishonest. The statement was a prod to get you to respond - a successful one!

***

I am glad to hear Hillary is making gestures to restore habeas corpus and shut down Gitmo, but her stances on executive power are made more clear, and less appealing, on that same Wiki page.

To address Hillary's statements on Net Neutrality, I am not convinced. She says less about it than what Obama says, using language designed not to offend her corporate sponsors: I recall reading that Hillary was receiving huge contributions from the telco monopolies, after all.

I still haven't seen anything on Hillary's stance on media consolidation either.

Also, she seems very willing to legislate in terms of censorship instead of using other methods (Obama focuses on encouraging and educating parents to protect their children from adult-oriented media). Obama balances the need to police traditional and digital media with a recognition of the First Amendment and the right to Free Speech on the Internet.

On that tangent, that also means in some cases Obama won't do as much damage trying to solve the Intellectual Property problem, because you can't enforce a draconian corporate copyright panopticon if you care about a free and open Internet and participatory culture.

Lastly, I love how Obama is given a blanket label of being vague when "I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus" is about as non-vague as you can get.

The pro-Obama crowd is a lot more vocal about how Obama wants to protect civil rights, etc. I admit I didn't look very hard for Hillary's position on those issues, but maybe people considering Hillary would like to hear about that kind of thing, instead of just attempts to discredit Obama. Hint hint.

Ditto! These kinds of arguments mean a lot more to me than the Wildebeest/Pied Piper crap.

Not yet, but there are rumors he's put in an application. :)

LOl! :)

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No."

(Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Republican Ron Paul, for their part, came to the same conclusion in our survey.)

In '08 presidential race, who's the most tech-friendly?

But this chart provides a useful glimpse of a politician's core beliefs, including what the role of the federal government should be, and those are important beyond what we write about here at News.com.

Anyway, the first thing you probably noticed in the chart is that even candidates who answered some questions ducked others, which is deeply disappointing. Any would-be president should be able to answer without equivocation. Only Barack Obama and Ron Paul gave us forthright replies, and they deserve credit for their directness.

Even with the missing answers, these positions seem to reflect the candidates' broader philosophies. Obama appears more liberal than Clinton, flatly opposing the Real ID Act while she's less forceful, saying it needs to be reviewed. Both engage in a careful lapse in memory: unlike Paul, Clinton and Obama voted for Real ID as part of a broader "Global War on Terror" spending bill three years ago before turning around and criticizing it.

Norm: The link on Obama and "lobbying" was helpful, and has given me something to think about.

Some first impressions. It seems to me that its definition of "lobbying" is unusually broad:

His stump speeches imply that he is not taking money from people who want things from the government and push for them. The reality is that he has.

Presumably, just about everyone, including individual donors, who gives money to a political campaign 'wants something from the government'. As PAC money and "lobbying" was a big issue in the Edwards campaign as well, I must confess that I am beginning to lose my sense of what constitutes objectionable and questionable contributions. The article is correct that very little money in Presidential campaigns comes from PACs. (1% of Clinton's finances--close to 1 million--and 0% of Obama's), and these are much more typical sources of funds for congressional campaigns (although note, for both candidates, this does not seem to exclude PAC money that has been bundled under an "industry" label).

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

However, what is supposed to be objectionable, so far as I can see, about certain kinds of contributions is that they can be construed as the purchase of influence, not only motivating an elected official to vote in certain ways, but buying a place at the bargaining table for donors on which issues get raised, and how. (Lessig has a great hour-long lecture on corruption that discusses some of these issues) http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/10/corruptionlecturealpha_versi.html

It seems to me that by dubbing industry funding so-called "in-house lobbying", there is potentially a serious conflation being made. Surely, e.g., if you belong to a labor union, and you see that a candidate already has a lot of pro-union and labor policies, giving to his campaign is not "buying influence" but ensuring that policies you support get a voice by helping a candidate who takes them seriously get elected.

This is, however, just a first impression: Does anyone have good information on this issue, and a better discussion of "industry" contributions versus "lobbying" contributions?

Let me also correct one of my earlier assertions, which turns out to have been misleading, unbeknownst to me at the time (the NYT's article on HRC and the health care lobby): Clinton and Obama both lead the pack of presidential candidates in funding from the health services industry: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H03

I have never claimed Obama is perfect. But given this fact, how I distinguish between the two candidates on this issue is Obama's commitment to transparency. Of course doctors and nurses (an "industry") may have a motivation to support a candidate because their immediate interests will be affected by any particular policy. The question is whether this buys influence. If the process is transparent and publicly broadcast, it is at the very least harder (but certainly not impossible) for that to happen.

I am curious whether, if Obama wins the nomination, he will accept McCain's challenge to do the whole election-contest on public funding: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16campaign.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1203197173-v3DgmtP/o6lo/nLf4ZoI1A

Ditto! These kinds of arguments mean a lot more to me than the Wildebeest/Pied Piper crap.

Yes, I definitely agree with this. A lot of speculation and incendiary remarks about "mob-mentality" is worth a lot less than actual facts that provide a basis for criticizing Obama. I appreciate the latter; the former are pretty much just a waste of time, so far as I can see.

On charges of "dishonesty" going both ways: granted no one wants to be called a liar, is it consistent with being "To the point--on rational discussion?"

Obama is Dreamy!

Clinton says she cares about getting health benefits for all, but I think she wants to help boost the business's coffers—with the help of tax payers. Maybe that's why she's gotten more money from that sector than Obama.

Syngas: There are few things in life that are funny merely in virtue of sheer repetition. But that was hilarious. Thanks for the clip.

Norm, that was a rotten piece of Marxist writing you linked to in The Times by Jeanette Winterson. It is offensively inaccurate, shallow and pernicious.

Clinton has also been Vague.

35 years of experience

Americans feeling "invisible".

Turning up the heat.

A record of fighting the republican machine and winning.

Those are all pretty empty rhetoric.

R7: Let me add another: "Pretty speeches won't put food on the table, or pay the gas bill."

And neither will resentful ones.

However, I don't see Hillary promising, as Obama did: "I will close Guantanamo

Shame on you do you ever fact check yourself. Dishonest, yep you qualify.

Come now Norm, he was speaking to what he had heard from Clinton and you disprove him with an obscure senate page.

Arguement is about hard policy stances in stumb speeches.

Bland emotionless speeches only inspire naps.

Norm said:

Obama is now reasonably detailed on the issues, it was not always the case. It is good to get back to a discussion based on issues and not so much on the nice sounding but empty hope and change rhetoric. Not that there is anything wrong with hope and change, but I want to hear what changes and how he intends to implement them. Then we can make judgments about if they are both good and realistic. A great plan with no chance of being implemented is not plan at all. It's probably a bias of mine, but when i hear hope it sounds a bit like faith to me, and you know how I feel about that. And let me repeat for the record that both Hillary and Obama are so much better than McCain that it is not even close and I'll be supporting whoever becomes the nominee.

I don't think that "hope" = "faith", but other than that, I agree with you 100%

I hope that nothing horrible will happen to me in the near future. However, 'faith' has nothing whatsoever to do with what will happen to me, other than 'hoping' might inspire me to do something about those unfortunate occurrences... And yet, such things as universal health care would allow my "hope" to be more attainable. And in this regard, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama give me much more "hope"

Do I have "faith" that "God" will help me? Well, no more than "God" has helped anyone else. But I "hope" that people will join together in a way that helps all of us to have more hope.

Anyway, the idealist in me can't help but think of this song

Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller He got hair down to his knee Got to be a joker he just do what he please

He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola He say "I know you, you know me" One thing I can tell you is you got to be free Come together right now over me

He bag production he got walrus gumboot He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker He got feet down below his knee Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease Come together right now over me

He roller-coaster he got early warning He got muddy water he one mojo filter He say "One and one and one is three" Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see Come together right now over me

I hope that we all come together and support either Clinton or Obama over continued war and warrentless wiretapping and fear mongering and torturing.

I don't think that "hope" = "faith", but other than that, I agree with you 100%

I actually do think Obama is asking voters for some "faith" although I would call it trust.

The predominant strategy for getting a politician that has any progressive ideas elected president, is to have them vote into the middle. DLC and others have been pushing every candidate to throw their ideals out the window and vote as moderately as possible. Look at Kerry's record, in about 1995 he gave a speech about ending teacher tenure and then voted fairly conservatively until his run.

Obama has a different strategy. Run before he Casts more votes then he can defend and with a wink and a nod to let the left know he is with them, keep his message vague and uplifting.

(Vague message, not vague policy. Clinton's message is only less vague because it points at the policy of her husband)

I see as this primary as a clear choice between, the clintons, whom have an established record of running to the middle,and promise to use that "experience" to win the whitehouse and make some progress on a few issues, while giving corporations some handouts at the same time.(I.E. We get family medical leave, you get NAFTA) And Obama, whom has no record of being a middle of the road politician and whom asks us to trust him that he will be a progressive and unite the country around the ideas that benefit everyone.

Why should we anybody trust obama? Simple, all politicians will work for the constituencies to which they will be dependent on for re-election. For Obama, that will be a grassroots fundraising base, young people, educated progressives, and the African American community.