Obama Hits Clinton On Secrecy, But Where Are His State Senate Records?

Lynn Sweet:

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.

Obama is accusing chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) of being secretive and slowing down the release of her official first lady papers in the Clinton Library, documents that could help buttress -- or erode -- her claim of presidential experience.

Since last Tuesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Obama has been stepping up his criticism of Clinton on the matter of transparency, which makes it timely to look at his own record.

Read the whole story: Lynn Sweet

Comments

[joselopez]

Kathleen Willey suspects Clintons murdered husband.

TRUE OR NOT, DO WE WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF HEADLINES LIKE THAT.

WE COULD DO BETTER.

[RuthieM]

Oh, I forgot to add, Clinton's on her way down, fizzling like the wicked witch of Oz -- "Oh I'm melting, I'm melting...". It's the media and her campaign who spins poll numbers from the dust who refuse to recognize they are dropping nicely as Obama's goes up.

[RuthieM]

But then where's ALL the other candidates', including the republicans, and including Senator Clinton's State Senate records as well as her former first lady records?

[DallasNE]

This kind of carping is really irritating. It has nothing to do with the policy statements of the candidates. It is just a variation of gotcha politics and I have already seen enough of that.

With 76% of Americans thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction I want to hear about what they are going to do to get the country again headed in the right direction. This crap turns voters off so knock it off. Now.

[itsnotmyfault]

Now that obama has taken " the gloves off" what the hell distinguishes this mope from your run of the mill Republican presidential candidate. I swear he's beginning to sound a lot like Giuliani spewing his anti Hillary bile. What the hell happened to the politics of HOPE? Frankly I am sick of hearing how he voted against the Iraq authorization, you know 10/11/2002, or as I will refer to it from now on 10/11. Its got a nice ring to it ...maybe a campaign commercial or a fundraiser. Unfortunately its got about as much meaning as Giuliani linked to 9/11 has. Where has his leadership been since 10/11/2002?

So as he forgoes his politics of hope, while further increasing the likelyhood of a Republican taking the whitehouse in 2008..... remember Obama-10/11 and then just scratch your head in wonderment.

[kj593]

His State Senate Record is public. I'm not aware of an Illinois equivalent to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, if there is one, it would govern the release of any private papers he generated during his state Senate tenure.

Just subterfuge pushed by HRC's campaign. President Clinton CAN release these records NOW. He's elected to take the maximum time permitted under the statute (12 years--44 USC 2204(a)).

Much ado about nothing.

[dcazal01]

We need to be reasonable, Obama should stop playing a card of total transparency which is unattainable and against common sense. There is a need for some secrecy at all levels in life; the fact that we dont trust the Bush administration and that the levels of secrecy and loyalty are far beyond the need for a proper government does not mean that we are going to do ALL government business in the open. We need more transparency not total transparency. Keep a balance that is the secret of government.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Apparently, the critique of candidates only applies to Hillary...ask a question about anyone else and their supporters are in an uproar!

[Boadicea]

Sweet is a gossip through and through. Check out her other blogs, they're all gossipy personal jabs that have nothing to do with policy.

In this blog, she's grasping at straws, looking for ways to criticize Obama. If you read the blog, it's absolutely ridiculous. She says outright that he's gone further than anyone else in ethics reform, transparency, etc, but she's ticked that someone in the Obama campaign wouldn't direct her to the exact location of those bits that the state of Illinois doesn't consider part of the public record - ie, his birthday cards from his wife and kids.

Ridiculous.

But given the lies Edwards is passing around now about Hillary, I can see why, as one of Edwards' supporters, Sweet is trying to make Obama look equally dishonest. Not going to work, Lynn!

Obama may be wrong, and he may be unconventional, and he may even be boring, but he's the most forthright presidential candidate we've had in this country in a generation.

[Issak]

Oh no! I'm starting to think Obama is a hypocrite- Oh wait! no, no, I DO think he's a hypocrite, one more empty suit on the stump...a grand delusion.

A gullible bunch most of his followers- dogmatic and intolerant as well- boo hoo! the audacity of the same under the thin membrane of the not really different.

[Ginzaman]

He still needs to distance himself more to stand a chance of beating Hillary. I just can't see him being VP on anybody's ticket.

[StephenDedalus82]

People are forgetting that Clinton's answer at the debate regarding these records were 100% truthful. The Clinton letter, written in like 1994, actually asked for the records to be released faster than normal. A non-issue fanned by a non-newsman named Tim Russert.

Even if the Clintons were working to keep their records hidden, I don't blame them. The last thing any candidate needs is millions of pages of fodder for Fox News's spin machine dumped right before the primaries. The only thing is, they're doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

[VSamuels]

The biggest difference between Sweet asking about Obama's records and Obama asking about Clinton's records is context. Hillary is implicitly stating that her experience as a 'First Lady' makes her wholly qualified to be the POTUS. Obama has never made such a claim as to his time in the IL legislature, thereby the comparsion of Obama records is misleading.

Although, I concur that it would be wise for Obama to release all relevant records, it is interesting how Sweet has dodged the central issue, which is: Can Hillary continue to say she is qualified because of her Whitehouse experience, if she does not allow it to be examined?

Obama on the other hand, at least does have a legislative record which is far more transparent than Hillary whose mysterious experience did not come as an elected official during the time she is claiming it was gained.

This story is so superficial, as it detracts away from the 'frontrunner' who is the only one actually making outlandish claims. Those like Sweet have basically ignored Obama's state level experience up to this point, and by questioning it now, only appears to be a petty attempt to avoid discussing Hillary's experience, which appears to be gift wrapped in the media's 'wink, wink & nod, nod' to the Clintons.

[SeanGardner]

This is a very curious article by Ms. Sweet.

Ok, no one. Absolutely no one is above criticism. Not even Obama. But on the face of it, he has a better record of transparency than any of the other candidates. This is not supposoition or conjecture. It's fact.

Obama’s record as a state senator is out in the open, in terms of the votes he casted and the legislation he proposed. This is an article that came out in January of this year, before he officially announced: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml?source=search_story

The fact is, Obama has been the most transparent in terms of disclosure than Clinton, Biden, Dood, Kucinich, and other Senators and congressional representatives running for president. In fact, if I'm correct, Obama is the only one of any members of congress running for president who has released the information on the earmarks he requested.

So I think this is really nothing.

Go Obama! I'll be at your inauguration.

[Lisette]

Lynn Sweet never writes anything worth reading.....