Did Clinton Darken Obama’s Skin?

From Factcheck.org

Some Obama backers cry “racism.” We find the accusation to be
unsubstantiated.

Summary

Obama supporters on the Internet are agitated over the apparent darkening of Obama’s image in a Clinton attack ad.

Our video team took a look. Our conclusions:

• The Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event.

• However, the YouTube copy of the ad, on which the bloggers base their conclusions, is darker overall than other copies of the ad.  We obtained a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on a Texas TV station, and it is lighter.

• Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama’s skin color that’s affected.

• Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.
  

Others will speculate about the Clinton campaign’s intentions and motives, as they already have. But without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to conclude that this is anything more than a standard attempt to make an attack ad appear sinister, rather than a special effort to exploit racial bias as some Obama supporters are saying.

Analysis

A March 3 post by an Obama supporter on the liberal blog site Daily Kos framed the question starkly in its headline: “Is the Clinton Campaign Now Engaged in Intentional Race-Baiting?” A March 4 follow-up by another blogger on AMERICAblog.com asked, “Why is Obama’s skin blacker than normal in Hillary’s new attack ad?.” The blogger concluded that the image had been intentionally darkened, going on to charge that Clinton is “using racism to win.” Both of these posts have attracted hundreds of comments and have been re-posted on other widely-read Web sites.

The ad they refer to is “True,” a 30-second spot that the Clinton campaign started running in Texas on March 3. The campaign also posted it on its YouTube site that day. The ad includes a clip of Obama from the Feb. 27 debate in Cleveland. We noticed nothing amiss about this ad when we first saw it, but in light of the widespread accusations from Obama supporters, we’ve taken a closer look.

The first thing to note is that the version of the Clinton ad that appears on YouTube, which prompted comments on the blogs, is darker overall than other copies of the ad that appear elsewhere.

YouTube Version Is Unusually Dark

Here’s one of the frames from the YouTube version:

Here’s nearly the same frame as posted on Clinton’s Web site, which to our eye is noticeably lighter:

And here’s a high-quality version recorded by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a unit of TNS Media Intelligence, as it appeared at 5:27 p.m. March 3 on station KCEN in Waco, Texas:

The CMAG version is lighter still. We’ve made no color corrections nor otherwise manipulated these images. We simply took freeze frames directly from each video in its original format.

Ad Versus Debate

All of that said, when we compared the video of Obama in the Clinton ad (any of the versions above) with the video of the debate as it appears on YouTube, there are pronounced differences in color.
Here’s the YouTube version of the debate clip:

However, Obama’s skin tone is somewhat darker in MSNBC’s streaming version of the debate on its Web site:

Our conclusion: Had the bloggers compared the CMAG version of the ad to the MSNBC version of the debate, they would have a far less compelling case for intentional darkening in the Clinton ad. To our eye the Clinton ad has a noticeably less reddish hue, but whether it looks darker or not depends on which version of the ad is being compared to which version of the original debate footage.

Why the Differences?

Without access to the project files of the editor who produced this ad, we can’t measure precisely what color manipulations were performed. However, we can offer some observations based on our own experience, if you’ll bear with a brief interlude of techy nerd-speak.

Some of the differences may be due to video compression required by YouTube, which encodes video to Flash format and re-sizes it, using its own required parameters before posting. The Clinton camp may have had one color scheme in its original video and ended up with a slightly different one after YouTube’s processing.

In our experience posting videos to our Just the Facts feature, conversion to Flash format drives up contrast and reduces the mid-range color values that are frequently found in flesh tones and facial detail. We’ve noticed that Obama, and other candidates, appear drained of a bit of their color in some of our videos after they’ve been processed for posting.

Still, the Clinton ad makers may have darkened the Obama images intentionally, to some degree. When it comes to video editing, the possibilities are overwhelming. But that doesn’t necessarily mean their motives were racist. We note that the entire ad is cast in dark tones and even Hillary Clinton herself appears in shadows, as though she were working late into the night.

A Page from the Attack-Ad Playbook

A standard technique used in attack ads is to portray the opponent in black and white while showing the person being supported in glorious, flattering color. And attack ads often use dark images to convey a sinister tone to the message. As the University of Pennsylvania’s Kathleen Hall Jamieson (who is director of our parent organization) stated in her 1992 book Dirty Politics:

Dirty Politics (p. 51): Quick cuts, use of black and white, dark colors, shadowed lighting, stark contrasts, videotape, the voice of a seemingly ‘neutral’ announcer, and ominous music are the techniques associated with ‘oppositional’ production spots.

And in fact, when we compared the frames in the ad to frames from the debate video using the “eyedropper” tool in Photoshop image-processing software, we found that the frames in the Clinton ad are uniformly darker. We found no pronounced difference in the degree to which Obama’s skin, as opposed to his tie, his shirt, or the backdrop was darkened.

We’re not mind-readers, so we can’t say whether or not the makers of this ad intended to engage in “race-baiting” or were “using racism to win” as some Obama partisans are claiming. Based on evidence at hand, we find those claims to be unsubstantiated. And the many potential differences between source footage, encoding manipulations, and other variables only make it less likely that any such attempt could be proven.

A final note: The last time we became aware of any clear example of digital manipulation was two years ago, when the Republican National Committee posted a Web image of Howard Dean with a hint of a little Hitler mustache. And charges of foul play were confirmed when the RNC posted a revised version, without the apparent mustache.

-by Emi Kolawole and Justin Bank

Harry and Louise Again?

From Factcheck.org

Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context.

Summary

An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care. Specifically:

• It touts measures included in Obama’s plan to help low-income individuals buy insurance but fails to mention that Clinton would provide similar financial assistance.

• It says Obama’s plan would save the average family $2,500 per year – an estimate provided by experts at the campaign’s request – but doesn’t say that Clinton estimates hers will save $2,200 per year.

• It also neglects to point out that Clinton’s plan isn’t the only one that would have an enforcement mechanism for those who failed to purchase insurance. Obama’s plan, which would require that children be insured, would need one as well, though it would affect fewer persons.

The Clinton campaign objected to the mailer on grounds that its image of a middle-class white couple is reminiscent of the “Harry and Louise” TV spots that the health insurance industry used to attack the 1993 Clinton health care plan. We see the resemblance, but fail to see the relevancy.

Analysis

Barack Obama said at the Jan. 31 debate in Los Angeles that his health care plan has “about 95 percent” in common with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s. Nevertheless, his campaign sent out a piece of direct mail that lacks a good amount of context and could mislead those who are not familiar with Clinton’s plan. The mail piece drew an angry protest from the Clinton campaign, which compared it to the well-known “Harry and Louise” TV spots by the Health Insurance Association of America that attacked the 1993 Clinton health care plan.

Obama for
America Mailer

Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?

Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it… and you pay a penalty if you don’t.

The way Hillary Clinton’s health care plan covers everyone is to have the government force uninsured people to buy insurance, even if they can’t afford it.

“…forcing those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it through mandates…punishing those who don’t fall in line with fines.”
- The Daily Iowan, December 21, 2007

Punishing families who can’t afford health care to begin with just doesn’t make sense.

Barack Obama believes that it’s not that people don’t want health care, it’s that they can’t afford it.

Barack Obama believes Americans who don’t have health care coverage desperately want it; they just can’t afford to pay for it. That’s why the Obama plan covers every American by reducing costs more than Hillary Clinton’s, saving the typical family up to $2,500 per year.

Bill Clinton’s own Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, wrote, “I’ve compared the two plans in detail…But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s.” – Robert Reich, December 3, 2007

The Obama Health Care Plan:

• Offers health care coverage for all Americans similar to that of members of Congress, and subsidies to help those who cannot afford it.
• Reduces insurance costs more than Hillary’s plan, including capping insurance company profits in places where they have taken advantage of people.
• Saves the typical family up to $2,500 per year.

Read the entire plan at BarackObama.com.

Barack Obama. Health care we can afford. Change we can believe in.

The mailer focuses on the primary difference between the two candidates’ proposals: whether they would require everyone to obtain coverage. Clinton’s plan would require all Americans to get insurance, though she hasn’t said what will happen if they don’t. Obama’s plan would require insurance for all children but not for adults. Both plans would help consumers with the cost of getting coverage – although you wouldn’t know it from reading Obama’s mailer.

Affordability for All?

The mailer opens with the claim that “Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it.” Clinton’s plan does require everyone to have health insurance, and there will be some kind of penalty for those who don’t comply. The mailer is correct on that point. But the Obama mailer leaves out any information on cost-reduction measures and low-income help that Clinton’s plan offers, while it touts such measures found in his plan – some of which very closely mirror Clinton’s.

For instance, the mailer says Obama’s plan will save the average family $2,500 per year. That estimate comes from several Harvard professors who examined the plan at the Obama campaign’s request. But Clinton says the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, estimates her plan would do nearly as well, saving about $2,200 per year per family.

Also, the mailer says Obama’s proposal “offers health care coverage for all Americans similar to that of members of Congress, and subsidies to help those who cannot afford it.” It leaves out the fact that Clinton, too, proposes allowing Americans to “choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress,” as her Web site states. Instead of direct federal subsidies, Clinton would rely on tax credits that hold premiums to a set percentage of income:

Clinton Plan: This credit will ensure that securing quality health care is never a crushing burden for any working family. This guarantee will be achieved through a premium affordability tax credit that ensures that health premiums never rise above a certain percentage of family income. The tax credit will be indexed over time, and designed to maintain consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans, even for those who reach the percentage of income limit.

The Clinton plan doesn’t specify what “a certain percentage” will be, and whether health care is perceived as a “crushing burden” will probably depend on the family. Obama’s plan is similarly vague, promising “income-related federal subsidies” for those who “need assistance” but not specifying amount or eligibility requirements.

Student Judgments

The mailer also includes a quote from The Daily Iowan:

Obama Mailer: “forcing those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it through mandates … punishing those who don’t fall in line with fines.”

This snippet is from an opinion column in The Daily Iowan. Obama doesn’t tell readers that this is a college newspaper written and edited by University of Iowa students. That’s not to say it’s wrong, but a student newspaper carries less authority than a professionally written and edited major U.S. daily. The full quote reads, “Rather than forcing those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it through mandates and punishing those who don’t fall in line with fines, Obama’s approach to ensuring total coverage of all Americans aims to lower costs by pinning the pressure on insurance and pharmaceutical companies.”

The Obama campaign is trying to shift the focus to some unspecified “punishment” that Clinton’s plan would mete out for those who didn’t obtain coverage. It’s true that a “mandate” implies penalties for noncompliance, and Clinton’s campaign has yet to outline what those would be. But Obama’s plan, which would mandate coverage for children, would presumably also have some enforcement mechanism, and he doesn’t make explicit what that would be, either, at least as his plan is laid out on his Web site.

“Harry and Louise”

According to news reports, the Clinton campaign lashed out at the use of the mailer in a conference call with selected reporters, complaining that the mail piece bears a resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” TV spots of 1993 and 1994 (pictured here).

One person on the call emotionally said the Obama mail piece was “outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois.” That outburst was quickly disavowed during the call by Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, who said it is “not a comparison that [the campaign] would make.” The unpaid health care adviser who made the remark, Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, later apologized. He sent an e-mail to reporters saying, “My passions overwhelmed me. I chose an analogy that was wholly inappropriate.”

We agree that there is a resemblance between the photo on the Obama mailer and the TV spots. In those ads actors portraying a white, middle-class couple expressed grave concerns about how the Clinton administration’s health care plan would affect them. The ads were part of a $17 million campaign by the insurance industry that was widely credited – rightly or wrongly – with contributing to the defeat of the Clinton plan, and the ads still anger many advocates of broader government efforts to provide health insurance. But so far as we can see, Obama’s choice of images in his mailer has nothing whatever to do with the accuracy of the claims it makes, or the accuracy of what “Harry and Louise” said, for that matter.

– by Jess Henig

Sources

Obama, Barack. “Plan for a Healthy America,” 29 May 2007.

Clinton, Hillary. “American Health Choices Plan,” 17 Sept. 2007.

Blumenthal, David and David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman. “Final Costs Memo,” 29 May 2007.

“Caucus 2008: Our Endorsements.” Editorial. The Daily Iowan, 21 Dec. 2007.

Thrush, Glenn. “Clinton adviser apologizes for remarks on Obama ad.” Newsday, 2 Feb. 2008.

Scarlett, Thomas. “Killing health care reform.” Campaigns & Elections, Oct-Nov 1994.

Sliming Obama

From Factcheck.org

January 10, 2008

Dueling chain e-mails claim he’s a radical Muslim or a ‘racist’ Christian. Both can’t be right. We find both are false.

Summary

If these two nasty e-mail messages are any indication, the 2008 presidential campaign is becoming a very dirty one.

One claims that Obama is “certainly a racist” by virtue of belonging to Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which it says “will accept only black parishoners” and espouses a commitment to Africa. Actually, a white theology professor says he’s been “welcomed enthusiastically” at the church, as have other non-blacks.

Another e-mail claims that Obama “is a Muslim,” attended a “Wahabi” school in Indonesia, took his Senate oath on the Koran, refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. Each of these statements is false.

These false appeals to bigotry and fear remind us of the infamous whispering campaign of eight years ago, when anonymous messages just before the South Carolina primary falsely accused Republican candidate John McCain of fathering an illegitimate child by a black woman.

Analysis

We turn first to the most recent of these Internet whispering campaigns: a widely forwarded e-mail that says Barack Obama’s church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is anti-American, will only accept black parishioners and tilts toward Africa at the expense of the United States. The e-mail claims Obama is therefore “certainly a racist” and “desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa.”

We’ve had scores of queries about the accuracy of this one. It’s bunk. For one thing, the church welcomes whites, according to a University of Chicago professor of divinity who says he has attended. And while its controversial pastor is a fiery advocate for blacks and liberal causes and a fierce critic of anti-black discrimination, we’ve seen no evidence that he preaches hatred of or discrimination against whites.

False E-Mail Sent to FactCheck.org Readers

Received Dec. 31, 2007

Subject: Obama’s church

Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It’s the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.

Obama’s church:
Please read and go to this church’s web site and read what is written there. It is very alarming.

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their web site, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama’s church…_ B-L-A-C-K!!!_ Doesn’t look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing. Are you aware that Obama’s middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.
Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm

The first clue that this e-mail is the product of careless ignorance is that it claims that “Obama’s middle name is Mohammed,” which is false. His middle name is Hussein.

As for the accusations against his church, this e-mail is not the first place they have come up. Nearly a year ago conservative blogger Erik Rush called the church “cultish” and “separatist” in a Feb. 2007 interview on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes” and questioned whether its parishioners could consider themselves Americans or Christians.

Here are the facts:

It is true that Trinity describes itself as “a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian” and which “does not apologize for its African roots.” The church’s Web site specifies a commitment to Africa and to “historical education of African people in diaspora.” The congregation is overwhelmingly black; few if any whites can be seen in the photographs and videos of the congregation posted on the church’s Web site. But none of that makes the church “racist” or anti-American.

Prof. Martin E. Marty

And in fact, a professor of theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School, Martin E. Marty, wrote this in April 2007, rebutting Rush’s claims on Fox News:

Prof. Marty: To those in range of Chicago TV I’d recommend a watching of Trinity’s Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything “cultic” or “sectarian” about them. More important, for Trinity, being “unashamedly black” does not mean being “anti-white.” My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed.

Regarding this renewed attack on Trinity, Prof. Marty told FactCheck, “That kind of e-mail is vicious and lying, and makes my blood boil. … Many civic officials, public school teachers, etc. are members at Trinity; [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright has been on TV with his services for years, and no one found them racist – it’s smear politics.”

Trinity would not comment to us for this article. Rev. Wright, however, appeared on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes” on March 2, 2007, and responded at length to the claim made by Rush. He said in part:

Alan Colmes:  I want the public to understand where your church is coming from, because you’re being accused of being a black separatist church, and thus Obama is being accused by default of being a black separatist. Can you straighten that out for us, please?

Wright: OK. The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.

There’s no question that Wright has been a controversial figure, a passionate advocate for black self-help and to some, a radical. Jason Byassee, in a lengthy article on the church published in Christian Century magazine, said, “There is no denying … that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity.” He added, “Conservatives may find the Africentric church too political, and liberals may squirm over its revivalist emotion.” But he praised the church’s success in growing to more than 8,000 members, making this black congregation the largest single church in a predominately white United Church of Christ denomination, saying “the black church continues to makes converts in unlikely places, reflecting a God who makes a way where there is no way.”

Wherever we looked we found ample evidence that Obama’s church is pro-black, but we found none to support a claim that it is anti-white. Calling it “racist” is, in our judgment, a falsehood.

The Manchurian Islamic Candidate?

Readers have also asked us about an oft-forwarded e-mail falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim and suggesting that he is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. “from the inside out” with “one of their own.” This screed reads like the outline of a bad remake of the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate, in which Frank Sinatra unravels a Communist plot to make “one of their own” the president.

There is little excuse for those who continue to circulate this one. The most audacious falsehood it contains (of several) is a claim near the top: “We checked this out on ’snopes.com’. It is factual. Check for yourself.” Anyone who actually does that would quickly find that Snopes.com, the respected debunker of urban myths, judges the message to be “false.” And yet we continue to receive examples sent to our readers by others who either don’t take the time to check, or who don’t care that they are repeating false and damaging statements.

False E-Mail Sent to FactCheck.org Readers
Received January 6, 2008

Who is Barack Obama?

Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts…this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States…better heed this and pray about it and share it.

We checked this out on “snopes.com”. It is factual. Check for yourself.

Who is Barack Obama?

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas.

Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. Hi s father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.
He is quick to point out that, “He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.”

Obama’s political handlers are attempting to make it appear that
that he is not a radical.

Obama’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level – through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?…… NOT ME!!!

This claim, and others similar to it, originated with a Jan. 2007 Insight Magazine article – a publication owned by News World Communications, which also owns the conservative Washington Times newspaper:

Insight: Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This article, citing anonymous sources, claimed that “Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.” But this allegation was quickly shown to be false. Days after the article appeared, CNN sent reporter John Vause to Jakarta, Indonesia, to visit the school. He reported:

CNN: I came here to Barack Obama’s elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa … like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. … I’ve been to those madrassas in Pakistan … this school is nothing like that.

CNN interviewed the school’s deputy headmaster, Hardi Priyono, who said: “This is a public school. We don’t focus on religion.”

Alex Wong/Getty Images

That same day, Obama’s Senate office issued a press release saying the claims in the magazine story were false and citing CNN and other reports. Subsequent news stories in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune found no merit in the madrassa claim. Obama’s childhood in Indonesia, a country with the world’s largest Muslim population, is not something he has attempted to hide. He dedicates pages in his best-selling book “Dreams from My Father” to his life overseas.

This e-mail cobbles together some other false claims that have been circulating for months.

Swore on Koran? The e-mail says “when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran” – bunk yet again. Obama did not place his hand on the Koran when he was sworn into the U.S. Senate. This claim confuses Obama with the first and only Muslim member of Congress, Democratic House member Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Obama was sworn in using his own Bible, as widely reported in newspaper accounts and pictured above. That’s his wife holding the Bible with Vice President Dick Cheney swearing him in. (Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate.)

Pledge of Allegiance? The slime doesn’t stop there. The e-mail also claims Obama “will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag” and that “while others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.” These e-mails usually come with this photo, seen here as it appears on Time.com’s Web site:

The photograph was taken during a “steak-fry” for Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa on Sept. 16, 2007. What is pictured is the singing of the national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. For proof, see this video taken by ABC News during the event.

And for proof that Obama has no problem reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, check this video of C-SPAN’s recording of the Senate’s morning business, with Obama presiding, on June 21, 2007. Or this one from Feb. 1, 2007.

A point not raised in this e-mail: Some have complained that Obama should have placed his hand over his heart during the singing of the anthem, as pictured in the Time photo. It is true that the U.S. Code states that “all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.” But the word “should” rather than “shall” makes that a recommendation and not a legal requirement. To confirm, we spoke with Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society – home of the original manuscript of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and asked if anyone could be punished for not placing their hands over their hearts during the national anthem.  She quickly replied, “Oh, of course not,” adding that “there is no obligation to put your hand over your heart.” Garside told us she has been asked numerous times about this rumor and finds the controversy to have “gotten a little bit ridiculous.”

The “Black Baby” smear

Scurrilous smears like those contained in these two e-mails can have a damaging effect. Before the South Carolina primary in 2000, for example, phone calls were made to voters in which the callers claimed to be taking a poll, asking: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” McCain had done no such thing. He and his wife had adopted their daughter Bridget, who has dark skin, as a baby from Mother Theresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. A professor at Bob Jones University also had sent an e-mail message telling South Carolinians that McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage,” which wasn’t true. McCain lost the 2000 primary, and the Republican nomination, to George W. Bush.

Such attacks usually can be disproved with less effort than it takes to forward them to others. The statement that Snopes endorsed the false claim that Obama is a Muslim radical is an example. So we find it disappointing that they continue to circulate. But we expect to see more of them as the election year wears on, and we’ll do our best to expose them when readers bring them to our attention.

–by Jess Henig and Emi Kolawole

Correction, Jan. 11: In our original article, we inadvertently dropped the word “United” from one reference to Obama’s church. It is the United Church of Christ, which is different from the Church of Christ.

Sources

“Obama’s Pastor: Rev. Jeremiah Wright.” FoxNews.com interview archive, 2 Mar. 2007.

Byassee, Jason. “Africentric church: a visit to Chicago’s Trinity UCC.”
Christian Century, 29 May 2007.

Fiore, Faye. “He’s the Hill’s King for a Day, but Senate Has Other Plans.” The Los Angeles Times, 5 Jan. 2005.

Adair, Bill. “E-Mail Assailing Obama’s Patriotism Misses Mark.” St. Petersburg Times, 9 Nov. 2007.

Coleman, Francis. “Stop the mass e-mails before it’s too late.” Mobile Register, 11 Nov. 2007.

Kurtz, Howard. “Campaign Allegation A Source of Vexation.” The Washington Post, 22 Jan. 2007.

Drobnic Holan, Angie. “Obama attended an Indonesian public school.” PolitiFact.com, 10 Jan. 2008.

Beacon Jr., Perry. “Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.” The Washington Post, 29 Nov. 2007.

Davis, Richard H. “The anatomy of a smear campaign,” The Boston Globe, 21 Mar. 2004.

Steinhauer, Jennifer. “Confronting Ghosts of 2000 in South Carolina.” New York Times, 19 Oct. 2007.

N.H. Debate: The Dem’s Turn

From Factcheck.org

When the going gets tough, the tough get misleading.

Summary

During the Democratic portion of the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate:

• Obama claimed we are “back where we started two years ago” in Iraq. Actually, all indicators of violence show dramatic improvement compared with two years ago.
  

• Clinton repeated a misleading claim that the 2005 energy bill was “larded with all kinds of special interest breaks” for the oil industry. Actually, the bill resulted in a net increase in taxes on the oil industry, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

• Obama stated that U.S. medical care costs “twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation,” which is incorrect. U.S. spending is double the average, but not double that of all others.

• Clinton said there is no reason that U.S. troops should be in Iraq “beyond today,” but she has also conceded that she might keep combat troops fighting there for years.
  

In the analysis section we note further misstatements and twisted facts, and we find that Clinton was close to the mark when she criticized Obama for shifting positions on the USA Patriot Act.

Analysis

The Democratic debate took place on the same stage at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire as the just-completed Republican version and had the same moderators: ABC’s Charles Gibson and WMUR’s Scott Spradling. There were only four participants: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Improvement in Iraq

Obama vastly understated the improvement in the security situation in Iraq when he said:

Obama: We saw a spike in the violence, the surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.

There was indeed a spike in the violence in Iraq during the last two years that has been receding as of late. Most recently, nearly all statistical indicators show that violence is sharply lower than it was two years ago, according to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index.

Clinton’s Oily Charge

Clinton repeated a bit of recycled bunk about tax cuts for the oil industry.

Clinton: You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.

We’ve called Clinton on this once before. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies was offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases. The net was a $300 million tax increase over 11 years.

Double the Health Spending? Not Quite.

Obama repeated an old chestnut about health care costs:

Obama: Our medical care costs twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation.

This is an exaggeration. The United States does spend nearly twice as much on average as most developed nations, but it is inaccurate to say that it spends twice as much as “any other.” In a 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation report comparing the health care spending of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries, the United States came in first at $5,711 per capita. But Luxembourg spent $4,611, only $1,100 less per capita than the U.S. The next biggest spender, Switzerland, spent $3,874, also far more than half of U.S. spending. France’s per capita spending was $3,048, still more than half of the costs in this country. KFF noted, however, that the United States’ spending was “over 90% higher than in many other countries that we would consider global competitors.”

Bring the Troops Home. Now. Sort Of.

Clinton said she sees no reason U.S. troops should remain in Iraq “beyond today,” but she also has said U.S. troops could remain in some combat roles in Iraq for several years.

Clinton: So it’s time to bring our troops home and to bring them home as quickly and responsibly as possible and unfortunately, I don’t see any reason why they should remain beyond, you know, today. I think George Bush doesn’t intend to bring them home, but certainly I have said when I’m president I will. Within 60 days, I’ll start that withdrawal.

Clinton manages to say, within just a few sentences, that she’ll start the withdrawal “within 60 days” of becoming president; she doesn’t see why our forces “should remain beyond, you know, today”; and we should “bring them home as quickly and responsibly as possible.” What does all this mean? It’s really hard to say.

We noted in September, after a debate in which the candidates were questioned by NBC’s Tim Russert, that Clinton has put a number of caveats on her goal of having the troops out by the end of her first term. And Michael Dobbs, who writes the Washington Post’s Fact Checker feature, has assembled some of the conditions Clinton has listed that might require a continued troop presence, such as continuing counterterrorism operations, protecting the U.S. embassy, countering Iranian influence, helping the Kurds and training the Iraqis.

We take no position on whether withdrawing the troops immediately, in stages or not at all is the best course. But we do quarrel with simplistic applause lines that mask a much more complicated position, and are thus misleading.

Clinton vs. Obama

Clinton took direct aim at Obama, her chief rival at the moment, by portraying him as a flip-flopper, and she connects fairly solidly:

Clinton: You’ve changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it.

Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the U.S. Senate. She’s relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” As for whether or not he would have voted against it when it was first proposed in 2001, Obama said in October 2004 that he wasn’t sure:

Obama: I like to think that, had I been in the Senate, I would have cast the second vote against the Patriot Act. … But this is how much I admire Russ Feingold: I can’t guarantee it. I say that I would have voted against the Patriot Act. But I wasn’t there in the pressure of that moment – so shortly after Sept. 11 and with anthrax being mailed into Capitol Hill.

(Feingold’s was the lone Senate vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001.)

When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In December 2005, then-Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) brought the bill up for a vote, and Obama said on the Senate floor that he would vote against ending debate – a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. He followed through and voted against the motion, and the Patriot Act reauthorization bill sat dormant until 2006. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support the Patriot Act’s reauthorization. When Frist brought the bill to the floor again in March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report, sending the bill to the president. He also later supported a bill with additional amendments to the Patriot Act, including some civil liberties protections.

Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.

Clinton vs. Obama, Part II

Update, Jan. 7: We did not include the following section in the story when we posted it last night because we were promised additional information by the Obama campaign. We now have that material and can assess the charge by Clinton.

The second part of Clinton’s quote in the section above, which tars Obama with flip-flopping on the war in Iraq, refers to his position on an $87 billion war funding supplemental bill that came to a vote in 2003. In a speech to the New Trier Democratic Party in Illinois in November of that year, he said he would have voted against it. Specifically, he told the crowd:

Obama: Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said “no.” I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.

Four years later Obama attempted to add context to his New Trier remarks in this May 2007 interview on ABC’s “This Week,” saying he supported $67 billion of the $87 billion since that money was directed to the troops:

George Stephanopoulos: But back in 2003, you were against supplemental funding for the war. You gave a speech where you said I would vote against the $87 billion.
Obama: That is true. … And the reason was because I was trying to establish a principle at that time and I said this at the time that for us to be giving $20 billion in reconstruction dollars in a no-bid process where money could potentially be wasted was a problem. But what I also said at that time was that the 67 billion that was needed for the troops was something that I would gladly vote for and I’ve been consistent in saying that as much as I think this has been if not the biggest then one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in history, I want to make sure that our troops who are on the ground who perform magnificently aren’t caught in the political cross fire in Washington.

It’s true Obama had made the distinction, but we were unable to find any evidence that he made it in his New Trier speech or that it was as detailed as he claims. Neither the Obama campaign nor the New Trier Democrats could provide a transcript. He did make this distinction in an October 2003 NAACP forum, according to this report from The Hyde Park Citizen, a local Illinois paper:

Hyde Park Citizen: Obama said he would put more money toward the troops, but not rebuilding Iraq. “We need to make sure that every dollar that is spent in Iraq is spent at home,” he said. “We could have had our allies paying for [their] building process and contributing to the troops.”

But Obama has since voted in favor of Iraq war funding, as has Clinton, on at least 14 separate occasions. Those bills have included a number of line-items ranging from funding for Iraqi reconstruction – the type of funding Obama said he would vote against – to unrelated activities such as tsunami relief and Hurricane Katrina recovery.

The Obama campaign argues that Obama’s support for war funding has been contingent on the money being attached to a troop withdrawal timetable. This has been true for a majority of his most recent votes in 2007. But his earlier votes, dating back to 2005, came with no such caveat, and we found only one occasion prior to 2007 when Obama voted against a motion to push forward funding for the war. But that vote was immediately followed by one in favor of the underlying bill.

Score this one for Clinton, though it’s not a home run.

A Billion Here, a Billion There…

During the debate, three of the four Democrats gave different totals for the cost of the Iraq war (Clinton did not proffer a number).

Obama: It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion. It may get close to 2 (trillion dollars).
Richardson: … the $570 billion that we’ve spent on this war.
Edwards: $600 billion dollars and counting.

Richardson was closest when he said the U.S had spent $570 billion, but he was still over by, oh, about $120 billion. According to the Congressional Research Service, spending on the Iraq war through FY 2007 was $448.6 billion. Edwards was farther off when he said $600 billion. That figure is closer to the amount spent on all military operations, including Afghanistan ($608.8 billion) Or the amount that has been requested for Iraq through the next year ($606.9 billion.)

Obama doubled the numbers when he said, “It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion. It may get close to 2 (trillion dollars).” He is most likely citing the work of the Democratic majority’s staff on the Joint Economic Committee that attempted to estimate the “total economic cost” by calculating the “shadow cost” of the war, an estimated figure that accounts for the loss of cash flow, interest and available capital to the American taxpayer.

Ode to the Patient’s Bill of Rights

John Edwards claimed to have been one of three authors of the Patient’s Bill of Rights. Clinton pointed out that it never became law. Everyone said that Bush killed it.

Edwards: What we did – and I didn’t do it alone, don’t claim to have done it alone – but I, Senator McCain who was here earlier, Senator Kennedy, the three of us wrote the Patient’s Bill of Rights, the three of us took on the powerful insurance industry and their lobby every single day of the fight for the Patient’s Bill of Rights and we got that bill through the United States Senate and got it passed.

Clinton: You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the Patient’s Bill of Rights through the Senate; it never got through the House. … We don’t have a Patient’s Bill of Rights.

Edwards: Because George Bush – George Bush killed it.

Clinton: Well, that’s right, he killed it.

Edwards is correct that he was a prime mover behind the bill. And Clinton is right in saying it never became law. But Bush wasn’t the only executioner. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate never entered serious negotiations to resolve differences between the Senate’s bill and the much weaker version that passed the House.

Richardson Recycles

Richardson repeated some of his dubious boasts yet again, and he’s waited long enough on one of them that he’s almost right: “I’ve created 80,000 new jobs. … I’ve insured kids under 12 in my state. I’ve improved education.” In fact, New Mexico hasn’t yet seen the 80,000 job gain that Richardson has been boasting of for more than a year, starting at a time when the rise during his term in total nonfarm employment in the state was only 68,100. As we said in August when we first exposed this falsehood, Richardson will eventually be right. But not yet. As of the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures released last week, the state had gained only 79,400 jobs since the month before Richardson took office.

And while it’s true that New Mexico teacher salaries have gone up and some test scores have improved a bit, the reading scores for eighth-grade students have actually fallen since Richardson took office. The state remains near the bottom in all student test categories.

Return to Sender

A couple of statements were so wildly off-base that we’re wondering if the candidates simply made verbal typos. Still, we feel obliged to correct the record. One of these flubs was by Edwards, when he said that he “saw a projection just a week or so ago suggesting that America could lose as many as 20 [million] to 30 million more jobs over the next decade.” Maybe he was referring to certain categories of jobs, because the U.S. is expected to have a net gain in jobs overall – almost as many as Edwards says we’ll lose. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total employment is expected to increase from 150.6 million in 2006 to 166.2 million in 2016, or about 10 percent. Things are somewhat bleaker in the manufacturing industry, where BLS predicts that 1.5 million jobs will be lost by 2016. While bad, that’s actually not as bad as the 3 million manufacturing jobs that BLS says we’ve lost between 1996 and 2006.

Update, Jan. 7: After this article appeared, the Edwards campaign contacted us to give the source for his statement. The senator was referring to a projection by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal group critical of reduced trade barriers, that between 18 percent and 22 percent of today’s jobs “could potentially be offshored,” meaning sent overseas. The report stressed, however, that of these “potentially” lost jobs only a fraction were likely to be lost, in fact. And the report made no attempt to balance lost jobs against those gained in U.S. industries that export goods or services.

The other statement involved Richardson, who said that “there’s been a proliferation of loose nuclear weapons, mainly in the hands of terrorists, that could cross presumably a border.” But neither the FBI nor the CIA nor the National Threat Initiative has found evidence that terrorists currently have nuclear weapons.

– by Viveca Novak, with Brooks Jackson, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson

Correction, Jan. 8: In our original article, we incorrectly said that Bill Richardson was mistaken in citing the price of gasoline in New Hampshire. An observant reader alerted us to the fact that Richardson was talking about the price of home heating oil, not gasoline. Richardson was correct to say that home heating oil in the state is at its highest price ever, and in fact costs slightly more than the figure he cited.

 

 

 

 

Sources

Obama at New Trier. 21 Mar. 2007. The Politico (via YouTube). 6 Jan. 2008.

ABC “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Guest: Barack Obama. 13 May 2007. Transcript. Federal News Service.

Sen. Obama Promised to Support Repealing PATRIOT Act, Then Voted to Extend It. 6 Jan. 2008. Hillary Clinton for President. 6 Jan. 2008

Illinois NOW Questionnaire for Senator Barack Obama. 10 Sept. 2003. Illinois National Organization for Women [via ABC News]. 6 Jan. 2008.

Senate Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on the Patriot Act. 15 Dec. 2005. U.S. Senate. 6 Jan. 2008.

Congressional Record pg. S13712

Obama, Barack. Senate Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S. 2271 – USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. 16 Feb. 2006. U.S. Senate. 6 Jan. 2008.

Senate Roll Call Vote No. 25

“War at any Price: The total economic costs of the war beyond the Federal Budget,” Joint Economic Committee. Prepared by the majority staff. Nov. 2007.

Amy, Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11.” Congressional Research Service. 9 Nov. 2007.

Major Executive Speeches: Global Intiative Nuclear Terrorism Conference. 11 June 2007. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 6 Jan. 2008.

The Worldwide Threat in 2003: Evolving Dangers in a Complex World. 11 Feb. 2003. Central Intelligence Agency. 6 Jan. 2008.

Bunn, Matthew. “Securing the Bomb 2007.” The Nuclear Threat Initiative (2007): 1-188.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Retail Gasoline Prices by Grade by Formulation.” EIA Web site, 6 Jan. 2008.

Oil Price Information Service, New Hampshire average. AAA, 6 Jan. 2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Retail Gasoline Historical Prices.” EIA Web site, 6 Jan. 2006.

Jared Bernstein, Lawrence Mishel, James Lin, “Quantifying the Threat of Offshoring.” Economic Policy Institute, 14 Nov. 2007.

Chinn, Lesley R. “Eleven Senate Candidates Debate Issues at NAACP.” Hyde Park Citizen. 9 Oct. 2003: 44.

Senate Vote 109, 2005
Senate Vote 117, 2005
Senate Vote 252, 2005
Senate Vote 254, 2005
Senate Vote 326, 2005
Senate Vote 364, 2005
Senate Vote 366, 2005
Senate Vote 112, 2006
Senate Vote 171, 2006
Senate Vote 261, 2006
Senate Vote 117, 2007
Senate Vote 125, 2007
Senate Vote 126, 2007
Senate Vote 147, 2007
Senate Vote 172, 2007
Senate Vote 181, 2007

Top 20 PAC Contributors to Federal Candidates

From Opensecrets.org

Top 20 PAC Contributors to Federal Candidates, 2007-2008*
DEMS | REPUBS | ALL

PAC Name Total Amount Dem Pct Repub Pct Operating Engineers Union $1,417,675 86% 14% Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $1,097,950 98% 2% American Bankers Assn $1,039,370 40% 60% Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $1,017,000 97% 3% AT&T Inc $1,010,550 39% 61% National Beer Wholesalers Assn $1,003,500 52% 48% Laborers Union $974,000 91% 9% American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $896,636 99% 1% Credit Union National Assn $874,849 59% 41% American Assn for Justice $833,000 96% 4% National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $823,900 77% 23% Air Line Pilots Assn $821,000 86% 14% General Electric $793,500 49% 51% United Parcel Service $787,787 42% 58% National Assn of Realtors $780,000 53% 47% National Assn of Home Builders $763,000 44% 56% Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $706,800 93% 7% American Hospital Assn $706,080 62% 38% International Assn of Fire Fighters $704,800 75% 25% American Crystal Sugar $689,000 66% 34%

Totals include subsidiaries and affiliated PACs, if any.

*For ease of identification, the names used in this section are those of the organization connected with the PAC, rather than the official PAC name. For example, the “Coca-Cola Company Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government” is simply listed as “Coca-Cola Co.”

Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, October 29, 2007.

Democrats Debate in Iowa

From FactCheck.org:

Richardson stands out for exaggerated and inaccurate claims.

Summary

In the final Democratic debate in Iowa, we found:

• Richardson claimed “enormous progress” in New Mexico education, when in fact the state’s eighth-grade reading scores have slipped and remain among the worst in the U.S.

• Richardson exaggerated the extent to which his state’s teacher salaries increased.

• Richardson said one-third of U.S. health care spending goes to “administration and bureaucracy,” but Medicare officials put the figure at 7.4 percent.

• Dodd criticized “the Chinese government” for slave labor, when in fact it just sentenced a slaver to death.

• Dodd said University of Iowa costs have gone up 141 percent in six or seven years; we find they rose 81 percent.
• Obama claimed Medicare would save “a trillion dollars” if fewer Americans were obese. We find little support for that figure.

 

 

Analysis

This was the final debate among Democratic candidates prior to the Iowa caucuses. It was held Dec. 13, sponsored by the Des Moines Register and televised on national cable networks.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson added to his string of inflated, false or dubious claims.

School Puffery

On education, Richardson once again repeated his unsubstantiated claim that U.S. students rank 29th in the world in math and science, which we first debunked in September. And he made these inflated claims about his own record on education:

Richardson: Well, we’ve made enormous progress in my state. We were 49th in the world in – in the country in teacher salaries. We’re 28th today. Educational achievement has increased.

The salary claim is not true, according to the National Education Association’s Rankings & Estimates report. Pay has improved, but not that much. New Mexico’s teacher pay ranking was 44th the year before he took office and now is 36th, according to the most recent report.

It’s true that educational achievement has increased since Richardson took office in 2003, but not by much. And in the case of reading scores for eighth-graders, the state has actually lost ground. In 2002, for example, 36 percent of New Mexico eighth-graders scored below basic levels in reading in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. This year it was even worse; 38 percent failed to achieve basic reading competency. That’s hardly “enormous progress,” and New Mexico remains in the national test-score basement.

The state’s eighth-graders were in a statistical tie with five other states for next to last among the 52 states and jurisdictions covered. Their reading scores weren’t statistically different from those of Mississippi or Alabama. Only the District of Columbia scored significantly worse.

A Shaky Claim on Health Spending

Richardson used a questionable figure on health care costs, saying that “one-third” of the $2.2 trillion spent on health care “goes to administration and bureaucracy.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services does project that health care spending in the U.S. will be more than $2.2 trillion in 2007. But the figure for administrative spending given by CMS’ National Health Expenditure Data tables is far lower than one-third. The data show 7.4 percent of all national health expenditures in 2007 will go to “program administration and net cost of private health insurance.” (Net cost is the difference between benefits and premiums.)

Richardson’s statistic does have some support, however. A survey conducted by PNC Financial Services Group, which says it’s “a leading provider of electronic financial services to the health care industry,” said that nearly a third of expenditures went to administration. But that finding, released this year, was merely the opinion of the 200 hospital and insurance company executives queried. “There was no hardcore data or a number that they have,” confirmed PNC spokeswoman Amy Vargo.

Also, a 2003 article in the New England Journal of Medicine said that in 1999, 31 percent of health care expenditures went to administration. The authors included indirect costs, such as an estimate for the time physicians spend on administrative work.

Greenhouse Gasbag

Richardson blithely claimed he would slash greenhouse gases:

Richardson: Also, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I would do so by 90 percent with a cap-and-trade program.

What Richardson didn’t say is that he isn’t promising to achieve that 90 percent reduction until 2050, a detail we found on his Web site. Richardson didn’t specify what his plan would do to the prices of electricity, manufactured goods and so on, saying only that he would be “asking the American people to sacrifice a little bit.” But according to one recent estimate, a less ambitious plan now pending in the Senate could cost the average household the equivalent of $800 to $1,300 a year in today’s dollars by 2015. That’s just one guess, of course. But there’s little doubt it would require more than “a little bit” of sacrifice to accomplish a 90 percent cut.

Dodd on Chinese Slaves

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd unfairly accused the “Chinese government” of using slave labor.

Dodd: When you have the Chinese government, as they just did, even make it more difficult for us to access even entertainment, not to mention, of course, the intellectual property theft that goes on on a daily basis; here you’re still using slave labor; you know, you manipulate your currency to give you a 40 percent advantage over our manufacturers and our people working in this country here, that’s no longer just a competitor. That’s a very different relationship.

Dodd is right that slave labor exists in China. In June 2007, a group of parents in Shanxi Province discovered that owners of many of the region’s brick kilns were kidnapping and enslaving children, forcing them to work up to 18 hours per day. But Dodd is wrong to suggest that the Chinese government is sanctioning slavery. Nearly 35,000 police officers descended on Shanxi province, raiding more than 7,500 work places. And less than a month after the story garnered international headlines, Chinese courts had sentenced 28 overseers at the kiln to prison and ordered another executed.

We agree that enslaving children is reprehensible, but Dodd was wrong to suggest that the Chinese government condones the practice.

Dodd Fails Math

Dodd also miscalculated when he said, “the cost right here at the University of Iowa has gone up 141 percent the last six or seven years.” The costs went up, but not nearly by that much.

In 2000, an in-state student could expect to pay $7,503 a year for tuition, room and board, and the school lists the current figure at $13,543. That’s an increase of 81 percent. For out-of-state students the cost of tuition, room and board has gone from $15,265 to $26,715, an increase of 75 percent.

Big Fat Trillion

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois used an estimate of uncertain provenance when discussing Medicare savings:

Obama: If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars.

Obama got this claim from a “candidate briefing book” put out by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. CAP cites the CDC and the Commonwealth Fund as sources for the estimate, but representatives from both organizations told us that the claim was unfamiliar to them.

We worked up our own back-of-the-envelope estimate, using official figures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially estimates that obesity cost $75 billion in 2003. The CDC also says that “approximately half” of the cost burden for both overweight and obese people is borne by Medicaid and Medicare. Obesity rates doubled between 1980 and 2000, also according to the CDC. So if obesity rates returned to “rates that existed in 1980″ they would be cut in half, and that in turn would imply that Medicare and Medicaid together (not just Medicare alone) would save about a quarter of $75 billion, or roughly $18.75 billion per year.

– by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson

Correction, Dec. 14: In our original article, we said that a New England Journal of Medicine piece was published in 1999. The article was about 1999 data, but it was published in 2003. We also mistakenly referred to Bill Richardson as the former governor of New Mexico.

 

 

Sources

Reading 2007 State Snapshot Report, National Assessment of Educational Progress

National Education Association, Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2006 and Estimates of School Statistics 2007. Washington: GPO, 2007.

National Education Association. Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2005 and Estimates of School Statistics 2006. Washington: GPO, 2006.

National Education Association. Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2004 and Estimates of School Statistics 2005. Washington: GPO, 2006.

National Education Association. Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2003 and Estimates of School Statistics 2004. Washington: GPO, 2006.

National Education Association. Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2002 and Estimates of School Statistics 2003. Washington: GPO, 2006.

Tuition Rates Schedule 2000, University of Iowa Archives.

Estimated Costs, 2007-08, University of Iowa Website.

Prepared Statement of Anne E. Smith, Ph.D. at the Legislative Hearing on America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, S.2191 of the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate 8 Nov 2007

“Text of statement release by VNS after decision not to release exit poll results.” The Associated Press. 5 Nov. 2002.

Delaware Senate Exit Poll Results. 6 Nov. 1996. CNN. 13 Dec. 2007.

Exit Polls. 6 Nov. 1996. CNN. 13 Dec. 2007.

Elegant, Simon. “Slave Labor in China Sparks Outrage.” Time 20 June 2007.

French, Howard W. “Child slave labor revelations sweeping China.” International Herald Tribune 15 June 2007.

Schearf, Daniel. “China Kiln Worker Sentenced to Death in Slave Labor Case.” Voice of America 17 July 2007.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “NHE Projections 2006-2016, Forecast summary and selected tables,” updated 21 Feb. 2007.

PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. “PNC Health Care Industry Study: Reducing U.S. Health Care Costs Through Electronic Claims and Payment Processing, 2007 Study Highlights,” 2007.

Woolhandler, Steffie, et. al. “Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada.” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 349: 768-775, 21 Aug. 2003.

The Democrats’ Lobbyists Lob

From Opensecrets.org

Lobbyists do represent ordinary Americans, as Hillary Clinton claims, but those contributing to her campaign mostly represent big industries, the Center for Responsive Politics finds. Obama and Edwards eschew lobbyists’ money, but their biggest contributors still lobby in Washington.By Lindsay Renick Mayer

November 29, 2007 | As John Edwards and Barack Obama continue to assail Hillary Clinton for accepting campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists, she has tried to dispel their accusation that being the top recipient of K Street’s money puts her in the pocket of entrenched corporate interests.Among Clinton’s defenses is that lobbyists also work in the interest of ordinary people. “A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, they represent social workers—yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people,” Clinton said at a Democratic candidates forum in August. That’s when Edwards and Obama, who refuse contributions from federal lobbyists, first strongly called on their front-running rival to do the same.

According to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, however, Clinton’s assertion doesn’t quite hit the mark. While some lobbyists certainly do represent “real” people and large corporations, those who are contributing to the 2008 presidential candidates—including the senator from New York—aren’t on Capitol Hill to talk about the issues of nurses or social workers, or firefighters or cops. By matching lobbyists who have donated to the presidential candidates this year with their clients, the Center found that these individuals are instead largely advocating for big industries such as pharmaceutical, automotive and computer companies.

Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington, said Clinton’s claim that lobbyists represent the everyman is misleading at best. “It’s not honest at all,” he said.

“The first thing I’d want to know is how much is from lobbyists representing traditional industry groups and how much comes from [those representing] unions,” Jones said.

In total, 353 federally registered lobbyists (including those working at lobbying firms or in-house for corporations, unions and associations) contributed at least $787,300 to Clinton’s presidential campaign in the first nine months of this year, more than they gave to any other candidate, in either party. Lobbyists who represent health professionals, including the nurses Clinton singled out, account for $82,805 in contributions to her, while those representing the pharmaceutical industry paid out $562,900.

Only 14 lobbyists who gave to Clinton reported representing health professionals, compared to 76 who represented the pharmaceutical industry. Nine lobbyists who gave to the New York senator represent clients from both groups. Of contributions listed on campaign finance reports, Clinton has not received a single donation from lobbyists working for the two largest trade groups representing the working-class Americans she cited in August, the American Nurses Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

Lobbyist-contributors bill big

Clinton’s lobbyist-contributors represent a $225 million slice of the Washington influence industry, for that is how much they billed their clients, either individually or as members of lobbying teams, during the first half of 2007, according to the most recent disclosure reports available. Clinton contributors who lobby for pharmaceutical companies and interests billed more than any other industry, $30.7 million, or 14 percent of the total. They represent such drugmakers as Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and the influential trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Clinton contributors who represent assorted manufacturing and distributing interests, such as the American Iron & Steel Institute, logged 6 percent of the total billings for her lobbyist-contributors, as did lobbyists representing the computer and Internet industry. Advocates for doctors, nurses and other health professionals billed $2.1 million, or just 1 percent of the total paid out to Clinton’s donors and their colleagues from January through June.

Clinton’s point is not entirely lost, however, said Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State University who researches interest groups and lobbying. Even if the lobbyists giving to her represent more corporate interests, “it doesn’t necessarily invalidate her point that deciding to exclude contributions from all lobbyists would exclude some people who argue on behalf of constituencies she supports,” he said. Clinton’s campaign did not return phone calls before this was posted.

For Edwards and Obama, however, pointing out that Clinton accepts contributions from lobbyists while they have vowed not to is “an opening they can use to differentiate themselves,” Grossmann said. “It fits within the story they’re trying to tell of a Washington insider versus someone who will bring change.”

Compared to other types of campaign contributors, lobbyists aren’t among the most generous. In the first nine months of this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees of lobbying firms contributed a total of $2.1 million to the presidential candidates, 64 percent of which went to Democrats. By comparison, lawyers gave nearly $39 million, employees at securities and investment companies gave nearly $24 million and retired individuals have given $25.1 million.

But while lobbyists may not be the biggest givers, their contributions are scrutinized more carefully. Lobbyists are hired by their clients explicitly to influence legislation and policy through direct contact with members of Congress and other government officials. And campaign contributions often facilitate that contact.

“[Contributions from lobbyists] suggest to people that access is part of the game,” Jones from the University of Washington said. “Giving money to politicians this way suggests they will be an easy ear. Even if you can’t buy politicians, they’re certainly going to listen.”

Edwards and Obama have said they will not accept contributions from K Street for this very reason—lobbyists’ money is often intended to persuade politicians to support a private interest rather than the public’s. Obama has argued that the money that insurance and drug companies spent on lobbying helped defeat Clinton’s health care proposal in the early ’90’s. “You can’t tell me that that money didn’t have a difference,” he said to Clinton in August. “They aren’t spending all that just because they are contributing to the public interest. They have an agenda.”

Interests that lobby bankroll Obama and Edwards, too

Not everyone believes that a contribution from a lobbyist is any different from a contribution from someone else. Ed Rothschild, a Washington lobbyist, tried to contribute $500 to John Edwards without success. “It’s the companies that hire the lobbyists that seek to influence government policy. The lobbyists are just like accountants or lawyers or whoever else is hired for a certain job,” Rothschild said. “At the end of the day, the people that help support your campaign are interested in influencing public policy whoever they are, wherever they come from.”

Rothschild, whose lobbying clients this year have included Wal-Mart, Google and Sunoco, said that his primary job at the Podesta Group is in public affairs, a type of public relations that doesn’t always qualify as lobbying. He noted that the term “registered lobbyist” doesn’t differentiate between someone who works for a single client a couple of hours per month or lots of clients full time. Although his donation to Edwards was returned to him, Rothschild said the candidate still has his support.

Vowing not to accept contributions from lobbyists isn’t a foolproof plan for Edwards or Obama. Both still accept money from state and local lobbyists, employees at law firms that offer lobbying services, family members of lobbyists and former lobbyists. Contributions from Washington lobbyists have still managed to seep into both Democrats’ coffers.

At the end of the 3rd Quarter, the Edwards campaign listed $4,500 in contributions from seven registered lobbyists, according to Federal Election Commission reports. The campaign returned one of these contributions in early November, a spokeswoman said, and the refund will be reflected in year-end filings. When Capital Eye alerted the campaign to the other donations that would appear to violate Edwards’s policy, the representative said the campaign had missed those contributions and would return them promptly.

The Obama campaign had collected nearly $34,500 from 29 registered lobbyists by the end of the campaign’s first nine months of fundraising, according to FEC reports. The Obama campaign did not respond to several requests to review those records.

Obama and Edwards also refuse money from political action committees controlled by corporations and other interests, but they and every other presidential candidate accept money from employees of corporations and other interests that employ lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007. Of Edwards’s top 20 contributors, only seven have employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $6.3 million. But the plaintiff attorneys who dominate the list of Edwards’s top donors are well represented in Washington by the influential American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), which has spent at least $3 million on lobbying this year alone. As for Clinton, all but four of her top 20 contributors have employed lobbyists this year.

Republicans haven’t made lobbyists’ money an issue

In total, registered lobbyists who have made campaign contributions to any 2008 presidential candidate billed nearly $563 million to their clients in the first half of 2007. Lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry billed the most at nearly 10 percent, and those representing business associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, billed 5.5 percent. The drug-manufacturing industry also happens to be the top spender among all industries on federal lobbying, and the Chamber of Commerce is the top spender by organization.

While the Democratic presidential candidates have been arguing over who is more aligned with Washington lobbyists and corporate interests, the Republican candidates haven’t had a similar debate within their party. Republicans running for president have received $753,200 in campaign contributions from lobbyists—Clinton alone has raised more—and those lobbyists have billed their clients at least $335.3 million this year. Of that total, lobbyists representing business associations billed the most at 8.4 percent, and lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry billed 7.1 percent.

The top three Republican fundraisers—Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain—received money from lobbyists representing those same two industries, in addition to insurance companies, public sector unions and the entertainment industry. Among Republicans, McCain has received the most from lobbyists at $300,000.

-CRP Research Director Jihan Andoni and Researchers Greg Gasiewski and Adam Crowther contributed to this report.

Fundraising by Party

At Opensecrets.org, there’s a great interactive map detailing top fundraisers in every state.  In my state, Rudolph Giuliani has raised the most money.  Fascinating.

Biggest Donors Are Digging Deeper

From OpenSecrets.org:

Biggest Donors Are Digging Deeper for ‘08

__________________

Top industries and interest groups have increased their giving over 2004 by 46 percent, Center finds. As money shifts to Democrats, giving from Republican strongholds is mostly flat. 

____________________

WASHINGTON—The industries and interest groups that contribute the most money toward federal elections have substantially increased their giving since the 2004 election, according to an exclusive analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

On average, top-giving industries and interests have increased their total contributions to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to national party committees, by 46 percent since the same point in time four years ago. Compared with the first three quarters of the 2006 cycle, when there was no election for president, contributions from the top 50 most active industries are up 54 percent.

“A power shift in Congress and a wide-open race for the White House add up to record-breaking contributions from the nation’s biggest givers,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center’s executive director. “There is an intensity to the fundraising for 2008 that we’ve never seen before, which means the candidates and parties will be all the more beholden to their biggest donors.”

As interest groups and industries contribute substantially more money, they are also shifting their giving to Democrats, both to members of Congress now that the party is in control and to Democratic presidential candidates. The typical big-giving industry is now giving 57 percent of its contributions to Democrats, a shift of 14 percentage points from both 2006 and 2004, when the party and its candidates collected only 43 percent of the money.

Looking at specific industries and their contributions toward the 2008 election, individuals and PACs associated with the securities and investment industry, which includes hedge funds and private-equity firms, have increased their giving 91 percent since 2004. Lawyers and law firms—the top industry based on total contributions of $76.4 million—are up 52 percent. The real estate industry has increased contributions 51 percent, and the entertainment industry has boosted its giving 68 percent. Health professionals and the insurance industry have both increased their giving 23 percent.

The Center examined the 50 industries and interest groups that have contributed the most money toward the 2008 federal elections. Researchers analyzed more than $581 million in individual and political action committee contributions that flowed from those industries and interests in January 2007 through September, and made comparisons to the same periods in 2003 and 2005. (CRP is the only organization that attempts to classify all individual donors to federal politics by industry.) The analysis includes only contributions itemized with the Federal Election Commission, or those exceeding $200.

The sharpest increases since 2004 tend to be in the ideological sector. Democratic/liberal interests have increased their giving 396 percent since 2004, fueled particularly by Internet fundraising organizations such as ActBlue. Candidates have been donating money to each other at a greater rate, too. Contributions from candidate committees are up 164 percent compared with four years ago, and contributions from leadership PACs—political action committees formed by politicians to support other candidates—are up 88 percent over the ‘04 cycle.

The industries with the smallest increases, and even decreases in several cases, tend to have Republican-leaning track records. The automotive industry, which has contributed 75 percent of its money to the GOP since the 1990 cycle, has decreased its contributions by 20 percent since 2004. Food processing and sales, which includes grocery stores and manufacturers of food, is down 10 percent. Contributions from telephone utilities are down 4 percent over ‘04. Single-digit increases have registered among general contractors, defense aerospace and building materials and equipment—all industries that have leaned Republican for years. And the oil and gas industry has increased contributions just 15 percent over the ‘04 cycle, well below the average for big industries.

“Democratic donors seem unusually mobilized for this election,” Krumholz said, “but those industries who’ve traditionally given to Republicans seem to be either nursing their wounds from ‘06 or sitting this election out. That’s a challenge for Republicans—how to mobilize their fundraising base to compete with the momentum on the other side.”

The following chart shows the industries and interest groups that have increased their contributions by the greatest percentage compared to the 2004 cycle. The chart shows how each industry’s 2008-cycle contributions from individuals and PACs are split between Democrats and Republicans.

Largest Increases in Contributions from Top-Giving Industries & Interest Groups, 2008 cycle vs. 2004

Industry or Interest Group

08 Total

Increase vs. 04

08 Dem %

08 Repub %

(Analysis includes contributions greater than $200 to federal candidates and parties from individuals working in the industry and from associated PACs, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Contributions were generally made during the first nine months of 2007 and 2003.) 

#  #  #

The Center’s website, OpenSecrets.org, tallies contributions from top industries and interest groups in the site’s 2008 Election Overview: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/industries.asp?cycle=2008.

 

About the Center for Responsive Politics

The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Founded in 1983, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. CRP’s award-winning Web site, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource for campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available anywhere. CRP relies on support from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses, labor unions or trade associations.

Clinton and Obama: Contributions by Gender

From Open Secret:

Contribution Details – Hillary Clinton

	$200-499		$500-999		$1000-2300		$2300+		$4600+
	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total
Female	3692	$940,462	2425	$1,292,483	4330	$5,390,341	5419	$18,271,950	2173	$10,166,250
Male	2261	$587,017	2210	$1,174,578	4913	$6,207,365	7097	$24,731,626	3140	$14,838,838

Contribution Details – Barack Obama

	$200-499		$500-999		$1000-2300		$2300+		$4600+
	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total	# Donors	Total
Female	5466	$1,407,243	3754	$2,005,453	4470	$5,580,109	5097	$13,712,069	608	$3,057,609
Male	5568	$1,440,949	4092	$2,182,696	6204	$7,681,275	7049	$19,154,481	901	$4,608,013

Totals include contributions from individuals whose gender could be determined by the Center, as released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on 10/29/07.