Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

Comments

[mjc]

Obama talks about the future as if he is the only one capable of leading this country in that future, yet his primary weapon against Hillary Clinton is to throw out her vote on the resolution to use force If Iraq failed to allow the inspectors. The vote was in 2003. Think Wilson's point on that issue alone is worth the price of admission to this thread. The judgment Obama claims is merely rhetorical, almost illusional. The talk I like the least from that man is the one about change, and you see it on all his campaign signs as well as in his mouth. A friend of mine from Venezuela, not yet a citizen but hoping to be one, said to me that when people start talking about change I get nervous. He knows what Hugo Chavez has done to his country in the name of change.

[handysandy]

If the Democratic party had half the stratigic sence the Republicans have, the senior party members would have convinced Barack after Super Tuesday to be Hillary's VP. We'd be totally united, and we'd lock up the White House for the Dems for a good 16 years. 8 years as VP would have given him tons of experience and a record of accomplishments to run on. His ambition is a real threat to our party and the harder he pushes to win and the more vicious he becomes toward Hillary, the less I like him. He once said that if he gets the nomination, all of Hillary's supporters will dutifully follow him..... I wouldn't count on that.

[Insightful]

IF WE COULD STOP THIS EMOTIONAL NONSENSE WE WOULD ALL REALIZE THIS TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA. WE ARE IN PERILOUS TIMES AND WE DO NEED A LEADER WHO HAS EXPERIENCE. HE HAS NO RECORD TO OFFER. HIS EGO IS OUTRUNNING HIM. CAN WE AFFORD EVEM ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF BUMBLING WHILE THE KENNEDYS AND OTHERS LIKE THEM RUN THE COUNTRY. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE DUMPING ALL THIS CAMPAIGN MONEY ON OBAMA. WHERE IS IT COMING FROM?? THIS IS NOT A TRAINING SCHOOL. THERE ARE ELEMENTS OUT THERE WHO PROMOTING HIM WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES. STOP AND THINK FOLKS BEFORE YOU FALL FOR IT!!

[Spikethedog]

HAHAHA!
If the Democratic Party had had any strategic sense it would forced the resignation of Bill Clinton during his impeachment, thus assuring the presidency of Al Gore.
But we know they don't have any sense and will scratch their heads when McCain takes the oath next January.
Only the Demorats could screw up a campaign at times like this.
And they will.

[pokester]

If Obama is the candidate the people decide they want in office, I for one am glad his ambition keeps him from the sidelines in such a critical time as this.

[Heen19]

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton Clinton. No sense of entitlement or dynasty in that list of presidents is there. 28 years with two families in the top spot...sounds like a healthy democracy to me.

[kikiva]

Great post. Good solid points against the real emptiness of the Obama record.
I doubt it will change any Obama mind melders out there as they aren't going by reason but by emotion.

But how did you get on Huff Post with an anti-Obama article like that? I guess you must be the token anti-Obama on an otherwise totally anti-Clinton website (which by the way makes it pretty boring to have most columnists all one way).

[Insightful]

RIGHT ON kIKIVA. DROP THE EMOTION AND FACE REALITY. HE CAN WATCH AND LEARN IN ANOTHER POSITION BUT NOT AS OUR PRESIDENT. HE HAS NOTHING TO QUALIFY HIM TO TAKE ON THIS HUGE RESPONSIBILITY. HE IS BEING PUSHED INTO THIS POSITION BY POLITICAL FIGURES WHO INTEND TO CONTROL HIM. HE WILL BE A PUPPET AND WILL BRING US DOWN EVEN WORSE THAN WE ARE NOW.

[robiform]

Dear Insightful,
People might be more inclined to read your comments if you would unlock the caps lock on your keyboard, and STOP FLAMING!

Mr. Wilson makes many valid points about Obama's candidacy. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him (do we really want four more years of Bush policies??). I voted for Clinton in the Florida primary (aka the beauty contest) because despite her vote for the Iraq war, she has had more experience in the public sector and because her health care proposals are more comprehensive than Obama's. I respect Mr. Wilson's opinions because of his expertise on foreign relations.

[Heen19]

Please. What does Hillary's vast experience entale? Obama has years more legislative experience than she does. Being the wife of the president is not experience. The contrast between the two campaigns is the most telling indicator of how they would be as a leader. Hillary's full of arrogance, disorganization, and infighting. Obama's overcoming the clear advantages she had as a candidate. Anybody remember inevitability? She had name recognition, party status, and a huge machine that has won nationaly and she has been overcome by this proportedly empty and inexperienced nobody. Why should we administor our top spot through entitlement. Obama didn't have to settle for VP. Please. He has the right to run a campaign the same as anybody else. The fact that he is winning and has overcome the huge front runner suggests he shoulden't settle for VP. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton. Get over it and let's move on with our democracy.

[jpshotwheels]

Dear Mr. Wilson,

The title of your article "Obama's Hollow Judgement & Empty Record, is an insult to Barak Obama, and frankly is just not true. This is exactly the kind of article, that sounds more like a Republican attacking a Democrat, not a Democrat attacking Democrat. I could spend the time to address and argue all the points you made in this article, but after reading the posts here, I think that case has already been made by other bloggers on this sight.

I have watched this election from day one, watched all the debates, and most of the interviews of the Candidates. Senator Clinton has run a very negative campaign against Obama. We have heard issues from Slum Lords, to Race, Religon, planting stories and information, pandering to the Super delegates, her outrages to crying, I found my voice, experience, solutions, etc... The list just goes on.. When she is in a debate, she rattles on and on with her answers, when she is caught in a really tough question, she can't look into someones eyes, that is a sign of lying. She has not released her Tax returns for over 2 years and her campaign is run by a man that represents companies such as Blackwater, her campaign is highly funded by special interest groups that will expect favors. Her organization skills of running a campaign have shown extreme weakness and arrogance, as if she wouldn't have to go any further than February 5th. Last but not least, I had the opportunity to see Barak Obama in the summer and really wanted to see Hillary. However after receiving her invitation, the cost was so expensive I couldn't afford to go, yet she is asking for my vote, and running on a ticket for the Middle Class, when a Middle Class person can't afford to go see her. She and her husband seem to have this deep down obsession of getting back in that White House, and I don't think that is what we need in this Country right now, with all the chaos that has been created by the Bush Administration.

I had the utmost respect for the Clintons prior to this election, but as time goes on, the more I learn about Bill, the less I like either one of them. Barak Obama has run one of the most organized, grass roots campaigns, I believe in history. He has been more than honest in his answers, he has tried very hard to keep the negativity out of the campaign, and addresses every single add with an answer, not a reverse attack of a fellow Democrat. Lets be honest here, if it wasn't for Barak Obama running, people wouldn't be gathering in the thousands to get out the vote. Yes, he is young, he may not have the longest experience record, but neither did John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Everything he has achieved in his career has been to help the ordinary people. What better message to send to the World, than the United States electing a Black/White man, that will take the time to make good judgments, with a background of different cultures, and has been very clear that he wants the America people to get involved again, in order to get things accomplished. Especially after the disaster Bush has created over the last 7 years. I happen to believe in hope and change, my son is 14 years old, he is half black and half white, the same as Obama, and what better way, after 200 years, that maybe we can get past this racial divide, and give our children more hope.

I followed your story through the years, the horrible way you and your wife were treated by the Bush Administration. I have been behind you completely, in hopes that some sort of justice will eventually come out of it, despite your comments here, I still hope that for you. One time after seeing one of your interviews, I made a point to sit down and write a letter to you on your website, of support and encouragement. However, after reading your article here against Obama, it seems that you are are practicing some of the same methods against Obama that were used against you. I just don't think right and I don't think it is fair. This Country has become very divided and hate is becoming to much a part of our culture. If Hillary would end up winning the nomination, I will vote for Nader, because sometimes I don't see much difference from Hillary to McCain.

God Bless America and The Audacity of Hope is good thing.

[Camarosc35]

The disclosure that an Obama adviser suggested to a Canadian official that the senator's position on NAFTA as "political posturing" corroborates Ambassador Wilson's claim. I also find it offensive and arrogant that the candidate is already acting like the president-elect, there is this little matter of, first, the democratic primary and, second, the general election that must be held first. Hopefully, when that process is completed, it will be someone with some humility and understanding of the true nature of the democratic process.

[mjc]

And here we have it again from Obamans: if we don't get our nominee, we will flee the Party and vote for ........................................ OR ...................................! Obama and his followers are not supporting the well-being of the Democratic Party and Obama could have run on almost any name.., party..., platform because stances on issues or national concerns have no interest for him or them. He just wants to be president..., anyway he can. That should scare the life out of most of us...., it does me!

[LongBeachDave]

From Alex Koppleman at the War Room, www.salon.com:

Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama

Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama's supporters would do the same.

[Chitown46]

Dear Mr. Wilson, Dear. (Dear Obama voters)

The title of your article "Obama's Hollow Judgement & Empty Record, is an insult (because I don’t like facts) to Barak Obama, and frankly is just not true. (Sorry but everything in this article is true and has been proven)
This is exactly the kind of article, that sounds more like a Republican attacking a Democrat, not a Democrat attacking Democrat. (This is a statement of fact not an attack)
I could spend the time to address and argue all the points you made in this article, (but as an Obama supporter fact mean nothing too me)
after reading the posts here, I think that case has already been made by other bloggers (kool-aid drinkers) on this sight.

I have watched this election from day one, watched all the debates (Clinton won every time), and most of the interviews of the Candidates.
Senator Clinton has run a very negative campaign against Obama. ( Every expert on elections has commented that this has been a very tame election so this must be the first one you have ever paid attention too)
We have heard issues from Slum Lords ( in response to an attack by Barrak against her years of working for Walmart. Why is she not allowed to defend attacks against her) , to Race, Religon, planting stories and information, pandering to the Super delegates ( Obama has done his share of pandering to Super delegates as well) ,

her outrages to crying, I found my voice, experience, solutions, etc... The list just goes on..( Nothing on that list is a bad thing including her crying.)

When she is in a debate, she rattles on and on with her answers, (I am sorry that facts bore you so much I know she doesn’t use pretty words but she speaks to truth again something that seems to go over the heads of a typical Obama supporter)

when she is caught in a really tough question, she can't look into someone’s eyes, ( nice rightwing attack. Tell me do you just make this stuff up) that is a sign of lying.


She has not released her Tax returns for over 2 years and her campaign is run by a man that represents companies such as Blackwater, her campaign is highly funded by special interest groups that will expect favors. Her organization skills of running a campaign have shown extreme weakness and arrogance, as if she wouldn't have to go any further than February 5th. Last but not least, I had the opportunity to see Barak Obama in the summer and really wanted to see Hillary. However after receiving her invitation, the cost was so expensive I couldn't afford to go, ( when Obama was here in Chicago tickets where 250 dollar so you tell me what’s affordable)
yet she is asking for my vote, and running on a ticket for the Middle Class, when a Middle Class person can't afford to go see her. She and her husband seem to have this deep down obsession of getting back in that White House, and I don't think that is what we need in this Country right now, with all the chaos that has been created by the Bush Administration. (Exactly with all the chaos Bush is leaving behind Hillary is just what this country needs to get back on track)

I had the utmost respect for the Clintons prior to this election, (until I became brain washed and started believing in the rightwing taking points of the 90’s)

but as time goes on, the more I learn about Bill, the less I like either one of them. Barak Obama has run one of the most organized, grass roots campaigns, I believe in history.
(He has run one of the most organized campaigns I have seen in my lifetime I will give you that)

He has been more than honest in his answers, he has tried very hard to keep the negativity out of the campaign, and addresses every single add with an answer, not a reverse attack of a fellow Democrat. (no he leaves that to his supporters Your doing a great job at it)
Lets be honest here, ( go ahead and try) if it wasn't for Barak Obama running, people wouldn't be gathering in the thousands to get out the vote. (The war would bring people out in record numbers but I will give you the point about the youth vote)
Yes, he is young, he may not have the longest experience record, but neither did John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Everything he has achieved in his career has been to help the ordinary people.( Same background as Clinton) What better message to send to the World, than the United States electing a Black/White man, (how about a women that sends a message as well)
that will take the time to make good judgments, with a background of different cultures, and has been very clear that he wants the America people to get involved again, in order to get things accomplished. Especially after the disaster Bush has created over the last 7 years. I happen to believe in hope and change, my son is 14 years old, he is half black and half white, the same as Obama, and what better way, after 200 years, that maybe we can get past this racial divide, and give our children more hope. ( I hope you don’t have a daughter and if you do I hope she “believes” in making 70 cents to every dollar I make)

I followed your story through the years, the horrible way you and your wife were treated by the Bush Administration. I have been behind you completely, in hopes that some sort of justice will eventually come out of it, despite your comments here, I still hope that for you. One time after seeing one of your interviews, I made a point to sit down and write a letter to you on your website, of support and encouragement. However, after reading your article here against Obama, (I no longer “believe” what you say because it is not what I want too hear. You where in the senate and heard what Mrs. Clinton said and it is different then what Obama supporters and the Republicans want me too “believe”)
it seems that you are practicing some of the same methods against Obama that were used against you. (No he is telling you the truth like he did about Bush just because you don’t want to “believe” it doesn’t mean it not true)
I just don't think right and I don't think it is fair. This Country has become very divided and hate is becoming to much a part of our culture. If Hillary would end up winning the nomination, I will vote for Nader, because sometimes I don't see much difference from Hillary to McCain. (Because Obama supporters do not “believe” in the Democratic party Any true Democrat will vote for Hillary or Obama over what ever the Republicans put up)

The emperor is NOT wearing new clothes

God Bless America and The Audacity of Hope is good thing.

[Heen19]

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton?

[PJay]

Senator Bob Graham (D) Florida:

""Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands."

Senator Bob Graham, Chariman of the Senate Intelligence Committe READ the NIE and voted NO to Bush's war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-iraq-war-vote-was-69_b_50742.html

[erfavc]

Joe Biden and Jay Rockefeller Read the report and voted yes :)

[c0mm0ntater]

Thanks, PJay, for the informative link. If the story is correct, the senate authorized the war in Iraq because they preferred using Bush's version of Cliff Notes,instead of reading the entire book. Now I understand why our government failed us. They don't know how to do their homework.

[wmholt]

She didn't read the NIE before voting. 'Nuff said.

[erfavc]

John Kerry even said last night that reading the NIE wasn't that important and he supports Obama :)

[maria21]

Sadly, most of the bills that are voted on are not read. I can guarantee you that Obama did not read most of the bills he voted on. They get the party rundown memo and then vote from that. They simply do not have the time to read all the bills. This is why we have majority and minority leaders. Their staff has the task of going through the bills and rallies the troops to vote one way or the other.

[Johnniedog]

Joe,
I am very surprised that you would take a position on someone you don't even know. The examples you show in your article make a good case for Obama and his honesty, he is very honest in his assesment of his earilier speeches and points out how he did not have all of the intelligence that those in the Congress had. You of all people should have an appreciation of truth. You of all people should also stop supporting someone that lies constantly and will do anything to become President. BTW, Hillary had all of the intellience at her disposal but did not bother to read it!!! Then she voted!!!

[Orikinla]

Johnniedog,
Joe does not know Senator Barack Obama?
What a joke!
Obama is very honest?
You must be ignorant of the truth.

You must be as shallow as Obama is hollow.

[Meteor]

"Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution?"

Certainly, Joe, you should know that any "intelligence" offered to Congress by the Bush Administration would be the LAST place to look for any true picture of what was really going on in Iraq. Anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of the pre-war reality in Iraq should have known that Iraq was incapable of
mounting any real meaningful military threat. Going to war has been a catastrophic blunder enabled by the ignorance and fear of the Congress. American "intelligence" continues to totally misread the reality
of Iraq.

[HernQuin2008YouTube]

Obama's Gameplan: When it suits him he is an agent of change. When he gets stuck, he parrots whatever Hillary or McCain says. Your health plan is the same as her's and also different??? Hillary voted like most Dems to invade and you did not, because you weren't there or privy to false intel. You will meet Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but don’t have time for related committee meetings in the Senate. You will opt out of NAFTA, wink, wink Canada. You helped Rezco, but Rezco didn't help you. McCain would bomb Iran, you would bomb Pakistan, like Pres. Bush did. You can't answer the phone at 3am because you're busy praying to Jesus. Barack screams Peter Principle. Look it up, Obamaheads.

[qwr]

I can't believe, after all this time, the political discourse can't get any better. This is exhibit A for a pessimistic view of American politics.

[Project4NuBostonTeaParty]

Obama supporters, here is some additional reality:

Campaign contributions (Clinton and Obama only)
2008 election cycle; presidential candidates
FEC data as of Feb. 20, 2008

source: opensecrets.org


SECTORS (Individual contributions >$200)
The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. ...


Agribusiness
3. Clinton $663,533
4. Obama $456,874

Communications/Electronics
1. Clinton $6,161,973
2. Obama $6,057,316

Construction
3. Clinton $1,938,511
4. Obama $1,227,515

Defense
1. Clinton $217,559
4. Obama $137,471

Energy/Natural Resources
3. Clinton $792,588
4. Obama $727,801

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
1. Clinton $16,939,471
4. Obama $13,401,148

Health
1. Clinton $3,949,534
2. Obama $3,210,449

Lawyers and Lobbyists
1. Clinton $14,067,757
2. Obama $11,345,836

Transportation
4. Clinton $546,155
5. Obama $381,959

Misc Business
1. Clinton $12,043,442
2. Obama $11,078,190

Labor
1. Clinton $161,123
3. Obama $48,300

Ideology/ Single Issue
2. Clinton $894,842
3. Obama $407,442

Other
1. Obama $13,638,950
2. Clinton $11,092,066

Sectors Totals
Clinton $69,468,554
Obama $62,119,251



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDUSTRY (Individual contributions >$200)
The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. ...


Casinos/Gambling
4. Clinton $91,125
6. Obama $31,000

Commercial Banks
1. Clinton $1,211,924
2. Obama $1,175,885

Computers/Internet
1. Obama $1,686,155
2. Clinton $1,464,825

Education
1. Obama $3,880,197
2. Clinton $2,478,279

Health Professionals
1. Clinton $2,493,162
2. Obama $1,947,527

Health Services/ HMOs
1. Clinton $370,482
2. Obama $241,507

Hedge Funds & Private Equity
1. Clinton $1,378,700
3. Obama $1,211,282

Hospitals/Nursing Homes
1. Clinton $530,994
2. Obama $513,124

Insurance
4. Clinton $781,361
5. Obama $594,760

Lawyers/Law Firms
1. Clinton $13,284,467
2. Obama $11,246,596

Lobbyists
1. Clinton $783,290
9. Obama $99,240

Misc. Health
1. Clinton $146,500
2. Obama $112,368

Oil & Gas
4. Clinton $276,150
7. Obama $157,390

Pharmaceuticals/ Health Products
1. Clinton $408,396
3. Obama $395,923

Real Estate
1. Clinton $5,366,432
4. Obama $3,038,325

Retired
1. Obama $6,988,363
2. Clinton $5,901,052

Securities & Investment
1. Clinton $6,295,407
2. Obama $6,026,529

Telephone Utilities
2. Clinton $165,150
3. Obama $118,844

Tobacco
3. Clinton $45,800
6. Obama $16,187

TV/Movies/Music
1. Clinton $2,802,349
2. Obama $2,688,889

Industry Totals
Clinton $46,275,845
Obama $42,170,091

Obama supporters: NOT MUCH SEPARATION HERE, IS THERE? Looks like they're just about equal in taking special interest money. So, tell me again what Mr. Obama says about not taking PAC money or lobbyist money? Oh, that's right -- he doesn't take 'REGISTERED FEDERAL LOBBYIST' money. So I guess what's listed here is the non-registered federal lobbyist money. And Obama must have a creative definition for 'PAC.'

PS: Thanks, Joe, for the reality check that started this thread.

[Ward1964]

I do so dearly love those people who have the time and impetus to research, and publish for widest distribution,all relevant facts concerning different positions and aspects of the UNBELIEVEABLE ascendecy of a man whose only claim to national fame or recognition only four short years ago was a rousing speech at the Democrat Convention.
My only fear this morning is that the worship of the apparent winner is interferring with the media's doing it's job of researching and publishing for widest distrubition,enough imformation to give me an idea of what the Swift-boater-esque opposition will put forth as FACTS,once we have chosen the wrong candidate and there's no going back.

[kikiva]

The media hasn't done its job this whole primary season. Or for that matter, any primary season. Remember how they let Dean fall just because he raised his voice (and hyped it like he was nuts).
They love that sort of thing.

Now they love the idea of Obama being the first African-American nominee/president and that is their only criteria for a story. After all, what media 'reporter' wouldn't want to be a part of that history? How about Chris Matthew's misfiring neurons in his leg?

They should report the facts and keep their personal biases out of it, but they haven't done that for a long time - a good story is better for them than the facts. All of the media belong in the same category as People magazine - there are very few mainstream or other media I have any respect for.

[kikiva]

Hey thanks for doing that research. You would think it would show Obama supporters that Senator Obama is of course a politician above all.

But Obama supporters don't go by reason or facts unfortunately, they seem to go by emotions and chanting. Scary way to pick a president.

[LawDem]

Enough with the hyperbole and sweeping generalizations, ok? Do you not recognize the irony inherent in criticizing Obama supporters for "go[ing] by emotions" and then making pejorative ad hominem attacks on those supporters? I think the arguments advanced by the Obama people have been heavily reliant on fact and reason, as have many of those proffered by the Hillary camp. I think you stand on pretty weak ground when you make erroneous generalizations about an entire block of voters based on a few politically convenient observations.

[PNG]

Nice 'Project'!

Thank you for that breakdown. Now about those glossed-over candidate supporters who'll never read this...

[sonderweg]

Thank you Mr. Wilson for being a voice that cries out into the night the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign.

I am perilously close to terminating my reading of Huffpost with the clear pro-obama-at-any-cost attitude that most of the bloggers here have. You'd think he was Jesus the way people here blog about him.

[steve12]

The Hillary machine speaks again. I used to respect you Mr. Wilson. I now know that your primary interest is for yourself and not our nation. Very disappointing sir. Very disappointing.

[flasher3838]

i cant respect anyone that doesnt want the messiah to be king of the world.

[sarainitaly]

It cracks me up how people like you say you had so much respect for Joe, but because he speaks the truth about Obama, you no longer respect him. Pathetic.

Perhaps you were right to repsect him, and he still deserves your respect. Just because he speaks the truth about your beloved Obama doesn't make him wrong.

What is disappointing are comments like yours. He is the same person who you claim to have respected before. All that is changed is you have become a worshipper at the feet of Obama.

[splashy]

That is interesting, Joe. Thanks for the insight. The fact that Hillary found the time to actually WORK while campaigning tells us a lot.

[westview]

Right to the point Mr. Wilson. Exactly right. Obama is weak, worried mainly about how he looks and looks mainly towards running for the next job. I can only imagine foreign leaders drooling at the chance to roll him the same way leaders of both parties are planning right now. He is putting out lists of future cabinet members, promising jobs to anyone who will back him, no matter the consequences, and leaving a lot of debts as he spends money like crazy to buy the election. It really shows how strong Sen. Clinton is that despite virtually no positive press coverage, no full coverage of her speeches, and half the money or less spent, she is still tied with Obama in every contest.

[thatvisionthing]

Hey Joe! What about Hillary's foreign policy experience peddling influence via photos of herself with foreign bigwigs? See former US diplomat (resigned in protest before Iraq war! More honor and sense than Colin Powell!) John Brady Kiesling's post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brady-kiesling/reining-in-the-ethnic-lob_b_77661.html.

The thrust is that US policy and diplomacy are overcast when politicos like Hillary and Bill let photographs of themselves with foreign bigwigs/thugs be used as cred. Mr. or Mrs. US Big pose with Mr. Thug => foreign policy. Some tit, some tat. Kinda a perversion of what foreign affairs should be, doncha think? Gee I wish you'd wake up.

Also, you know what? I like you and your wife, I think you're good people who genuinely want to serve your country, and that you were wronged and we were wronged. But I don't like depending on the CIA for foreign information. Has Valerie thought how she might achieve good results for the US via respectful dialog instead of spying? There's just way too little respect and openness. I'd like to think we could grow better instead of tougher and meaner. Regards.