by Nomi Prins
– USA –
Depending on the measure of ‘liberalness’ used to evaluate past voting records, there is next to no difference between Clinton and Obama. In fact, with all her emphasis on ‘experience’ and his on ‘change,’ their voting patterns are almost identical. Both follow the party line, 97.1% of the time for Clinton, 96.5% for Obama – which doesn’t particularly highlight unique experience nor change.
One of the things Clinton had going against her from the moment she decided to run for President (back in 2000 or at Wellesley, depending how you look at it) was the view that she was too much of a political machine. That’s still true; winning one of the two main parties’ nominations is not for the faint of heart or shallow of wallet. But, we sell Obama’s talents short by not recognizing his own political acumen.
So, does the mere rhetoric of change trump the reality of past behavior? And is unity amongst political views – ‘no red states or blue states, just the United States’ – really a philosophy that will provide the majority of Americans (not the middle class, but the non-wealthy class) a more secure domestic future? Will that philosophy be able to drive more legislation and assure that funds are spent on equalizing citizens? What is needed is to lower the cost and expand the availability of necessities like health care, education, gas and energy, a home that the banking system isn’t stealing, and financial stability from birth through retirement.
Yes, I am inspired by the fact that Clinton is a woman and Obama is black, and that stereotypically, their campaigns sets a new historical precedent. Maybe that’s what’s bugging me. Contrary to all the outward appearances of their being different, it is my belief that neither candidate will effect massive changes in the government-corporate alliance and its effect on the growing wealth and opportunity gap in America. Not with experience or hope.
Drilling down into the economy tab on Obama’s website reveals a troubling quote that seems to run counter to not just his past voting record, but the idea that he can or would, if elected President, wrestle away corporate domination over issues like tax breaks, unionization, environmental impact and jobs creation. (For example, even if one gave a US headquartered firm a tax incentive to keep American jobs here, it would simply not be enough to offset the reduced expense the same firm would have for outsourcing labor).
“I believe that America’s free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. …We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other’s success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.” – Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007
True, he said this in New York, and New York is where most of his (and Clinton’s) top contributors reside. Still, factory workers came in fourth in his list. In light of this kind of emphasis, the rise of ‘Obamacans’ is not suprising. But it is worrying. It would be less worrying had Obama showed up to more votes. But, with all his stress on change, he has missed 38% of Senatorial roll call votes, compared to Clinton’s 26%.
Obviously, Clinton has become dogged by her own rigidity, one that doesn’t translate well in rallies or personal connections. Declaring, “I’m so ready!” with a far weaker level of dramatic emphasis than Obama on a bad day, is not what anyone wants to hear. Spending any time whatsoever making excuses for her losing streak is not helpful either. Continuing to focus on issues, demand debates and to ignore tactical conversations is a net benefit to the country, no matter what the election outcome. If I was Clinton, I’d fire her speech writers immediately.
Actions speak louder than words. In early January, Obama told a packed gymnasium at Dartmouth College that “under an Obama presidency, America will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and wiretaps without warrants.”
But, a month later, when the very bill that would expand government powers to tap into our personal communication and immunize telecoms who were involved (and receiving a tidy share of contracted funds in the process) was overwhelmingly passed (68-29), he wasn’t there. He was out campaigning. So was Clinton.
Meanwhile, following the money gives an indication of real policy bend. The top five corporate donors (with the money coming either from the PACs, employees or owners, and their immediate families) to Hillary Clinton are (in amount order) DLA Piper, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Lehman Brothers. It’s pretty much the same for Obama – give or take a few banks: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, National Amusements, Inc., and JP Morgan Chase.
Obama supports a 36% cap in credit card interest rates as being consumer helpful. That’s extortionist, given that credit card companies fund themselves in the single digits. He wants mortgage paperwork to be more transparent, but isn’t at all focused on how speculative trading in mortage product could be curtailed to eliminate the risks that kill the market, and lose homeowners their homes. That attacks the people that pay for him. And Clinton.
The media, and most Democrats, tend to underestimate Obama’s prowess as a politician, while condemning Clinton for hers. Both are formidable in the political acumen department. Being a consummate orator in today’s rock star world makes you a good politician, just as being an adept politician means embracing your inner rock star, even winning a Grammy. Yet, momentum and bandwagons aside, it’s the least adept politician who has the best shot at changing the country. Politics as usual produces policies as usual.
About the Author
Nomi Prins is a journalist and Senior Fellow at Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization. She is the author of Other People’s Money: The Corporate Mugging of America and Jacked: How “Conservatives” are Picking your Pocket (whether you voted for them or not). Other People’s Money, a devastating exposé into corporate corruption, political collusion and Wall Street deception was chosen as a Best Book of 2004 by The Economist, Barron’s and The Library Journal.
Before becoming a journalist, Nomi worked on Wall Street. She has appeared internationally on BBC World and BBC Radio and nationally in the U.S. on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CSPAN, Bloomberg TV and other TV stations. She has been featured on dozens of radio shows across the U.S. including CNN Radio, Marketplace Radio, Air America, NPR, WNYC-AM and regional Pacifica stations. Her articles have appeared in The New York Times, Newsday, Fortune, Mother Jones, The Guardian UK, The Nation.com, The American Prospect, Frank151, The Left Business Observer, LaVanguardia, Against the Current and other publications.
Astute observations, Nomi. I would add that neither of these two is working to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act or the Military Commissions Act, both of which curtail constitution rights in frightening ways. As long as those egregious pieces of legislation are on the books, we are not the country we were before the installation of the current regime.
Based on how they have voted, with either Clinton or Obama in the White House, I would also expect that US troops will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of four years.
I have protested the atrocities of the Bush regime, camped in the 115 degree heat in Crawford at his backdoor, demonstrated, rallied, marched, knelt in an orange jumpsuit and a black hood on the sidewalk in December, handed out flyers, help a house party to study the state of this country, blogged, telephoned, written, performed protest poetry, etc. for too long to be able to support either of these candidates.
Some of my activist friends are distressed that I will not go along with whatever Democratic candidate is selected. A few others are actually running for office themselves. I am going to have to find a candidate I can support, regardless of that person’s chances at winning. The Republican party has modeled for me what winning at any cost looks like. I want to vote for someone who has principles that are good for the country and the world and can be counted on to act on them.
I’ve just looked at Obama’s economic plan, I didn’t see anything about the 36% cap, can you tell me your source?
Thanx for your question. Let me clarify some consolidated thinking on my part and source it.
That cap is in the Economy section under Bankruptcy Laws, not under the preceeding category, Address Predatory Credit Card Practices, where there is no mention of capping regular rates. It technically addresses Payday Loans, which to me, is a perhaps easier, but similar way of people in need getting short term money, but at stupidly high rates. The funding for this comes from the larger banking industry, the leading company of which, is Advance America. They just posted a record set of profits, even in this dismal credit environment, mostly from high rates and charges, which is how they make their money.
Capping itself is a good thing, but capping at something far lower is a more helpful thing. And you can’t target one without the other.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
“Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans.”
Currently there is no cap, and payday rates continue to rise in tandem with related card rates which have been pushing up past the 32% mark for some borrowers. Advance America states on their site that they set rates ‘competitively’ with the market, thus in relationship to broader credit card lenders. Just last week Bank of America (a large funder) announced they would raise rates for certain borrowers regardless of their credit ratings, or payment histories – they said this was to reduce risk, but many of these borrowers were simply paying bills on time, thereby not producing late fees for the bank. This program was similar to one enacted by Citigroup for one of its foreign subs, Egg, which they will likely extend in the US.
My preference for Obama or Clinton would be to reduce, then cap, all forms of lending caps (payday loans, credit cards, etc), period and substantially from current levels, as well as fees, by recongnizing, not isolating all the corporate players involved. This would not be to feed a borrowing habit, but to contain loan shark type corporate rates for those who most need assistance and whose payments are mostly about interest not principal.
I agree that neither of these candidates has stated they would rescind all the horrific acts of this President. Not only the USA Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, but all the signing statements that should be thrown out. However, during the debates no one dared ask these questions, so except for Chris Dodd mentioning on his own that he would do these things, it was never brought up. These elections are held by the corporate media and we hear what they want us to hear – period. Every debate they ask the same stupid questions and none of the REALLY relevant information. I will support Obama only because he was not the perceived front runner. When he messes up, we will have another election. Although it’s hard to believe how much damage Bush did in his first four years and got re-elected (disregarding whether he “won” either election). The Democrats need to wake up that the American people are giving them a chance to right this ship and if they don’t come through, they’ll be out on their ears again. Another unfortunate thing is, THEY have decided what they thought the vote in 2006 meant and they appear to be clueless.
Remember Stalin’s “show trials”? Election 2008 is a Show Election. AIPAC has alredy picked the next “presider”.
nomi, your title is obama vs. clinton but you seemed to have left out the clinton part.
what’s clintons policy on rate caps for payday lenders or did you not navigate her site before your posting.
when comparing and contrasting policies please visit both candidates policies and not just one.
Your piece states: “Actions speak louder than words. In early January, Obama told a packed gymnasium at Dartmouth College that “under an Obama presidency, America will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and wiretaps without warrants.”
But, a month later, when the very bill that would expand government powers to tap into our personal communication and immunize telecoms who were involved (and receiving a tidy share of contracted funds in the process) was overwhelmingly passed (68-29), he wasn’t there. He was out campaigning. So was Clinton. “
If you look at the record of the votes on Telecom Immunity (S 2248) on February 12, you will see that the vote was 31-67 and that notably among the 31 was possible Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Hillary Clinton was absent, while John McCain voted in favor.)
Please correct this error so that you do not give the wrong impression of Senator Obama.
Hi Paul,
Sorry for the confusion. The vote record source that I used was directly from the Senate’s web site, and judging from their voting record, for S.2248 – it seemed that Obama had been absent from the vote (as was Clinton, and Graham, and yes, as you mentioned, McCain voted in favor).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020#top
nomi
Thanx Sam. Clearly there’s a lot at stake for both candidates in this election, and therefore, in their economic platform details. My concern in this particular piece is advocating oneself as a candidate of change, while not necessarily putting forth a platform of dramatic change, as opposed to delineating the nuances of rather similar economic platforms. Clinton’s economic policies don’t take on the unregulated rate nature of corporate lenders meaningfully enough either – the placement of my statement ‘And Clinton.’ at the end of that paragraph, was meant to encompass the relationship to banks of both candidates, as written earlier in the piece.
nomi
Thank you for another thought provoking article…Sylvia