It’s nothing new to say that sometimes Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy. I’ve been a Bernie supporter, but I really want to enthusiastically support Hillary because (a) she likely will be the Democratic nominee, and (b) all things being equal (or even close to equal), I certainly would prefer to have a woman candidate, and then president.

It’s interesting how Hillary has been involved in so many “cover-ups” beginning with Whitewater in Arkansas, and then Gennifer Flowers (yes, with a ‘G’), an alleged Bill femme fatale in days past. Her modus operandi seems to be to disclose considerable information, but not enough to put people’s concerns to rest. But interestingly enough, none of the alleged scandals, or wrong-doings that have come to light over the past twenty-five years have turned out to be anything close to what the accusers say they are. I imagine that the F.B.I. investigation of her personal mail server, which she used while serving as Secretary of State, will again determine that while her judgments were less than optimal, overall the situation is much ado about nothing.

The transcripts of her three speeches before Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Street firms may not be as insignificant as she would like us to believe. As of now, we know little about them. Politico has reported that during one of the Goldman speeches, “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.”

This tidbit is far from being either conclusive or damning. But as mystery shrouds the contents of her speeches, they are a breeding ground for rumors, and there is little doubt that Donald Trump will use fact or fiction without distinction to try to bring her down.

Like so many, I am very curious about what she said in those speeches. If it’s left up to Hillary, it’s close to a certainty that I will never find out. But The Hill is now reporting that “GOP operatives on the prowl for secret Clinton transcripts.” This is what we call opposition research. I have always disliked such action because it seems to be the engine that drives negativity in politics. But when there is something in the dark that needs to be sanitized by sunlight, then I will grudgingly accept it.

According to The Hill,

Ian Prior, the communications director for the well-funded Republican group American Crossroads, said information about the Goldman Sachs speeches could prove cataclysmic for the Democratic Party.

Finding and releasing the transcripts “would be a heck of a way to outflank Hillary on her left [in a general election] and stop Bernie’s supporters from voting for her,” he said.

American Crossroads is one of those Karl Rove-founded Super-Pacs that excels in raising money (hundreds of millions in the 2012 presidential cycle), and in losing big (a success rate in the single digits). But that doesn’t mean that it can’t hire sleuths to investigate real or imagined transgressions by opponents. The truth doesn’t matter; what counts is arriving at a conclusion that could be embarrassing in the cross-hairs. Consider it to be the 2010s version on the 1970s “plumbers” established by Richard Nixon.

What I’d like American Crossroads to find would be the truth; i.e. an actual transcript of what Hillary Clinton said in those speeches. In a sense, it would be a relief to Hillary Clinton; she would no longer have to stonewall this issue. It’s also quite possible that she wisely hedged her bets when she spoke on Wall Street and said very little to the moguls that would inflame Democrats. If she said more, she could explain it to many by saying that she had to throw out some red meat to the crowd because she was being paid $225,000 a pop for these speeches. Americans could understand that as they accept Trump’s fixation with being wealthy.

But perhaps most importantly, Hillary Clinton could do what so many would like her to do … say that that was then and this is now. In the past, she felt that she had to kowtow to Wall Street go gain their good graces and their political donations. If she becomes the Democratic nominee, that will no longer be necessary, she can try to emulate Bernie Sanders’ small donations strategy once she eschews the big bucks coming from a concentrated and very powerful segment of the American population.

It’s not just a question of changing her ways in order to win the election. With Trump as the likely Republican nominee, she will be the odds-on favorite to win the presidency. But governing with questions unanswered that should be answered will plague her throughout her presidency. In a former life, Clinton was on the staff of the Senate Watergate Committee; she needs now to review her notes from that period. It’s been extremely difficult for Barack Obama to govern without a scintilla of a scandal or cover-up. If Clinton wins the presidency, it well may be nothing but trouble if she even has the appearance of withholding what the public deserves to know. That’s why in this one rare case, I’m rooting for American Crossroads to do Hillary a favor and to find the transcripts.

The post Rooting for GOP opposition research on Hillary appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How would you like to supplant Goldman Sachs as a major contributor to Barack Obama? How would you like to help America better see the myth of Barack Obama as the candidate of small contributors and see the reality that he is interlocked with Wall Street interests? Most importantly, how would you like to be part of a process to make it politically imperative to support small donations and forego contributions from America’s biggest monied interests? Here’s a path to consider.

Consider that during the 2008 election cycle, Goldman Sachs donated $994,795 to the Obama campaign. Other top Wall Street contributors included Citigroup at $701,290 and JP Morgan Chase at $695,132.

So what did they get out of it? At the very least, they got Barack Obama’s attention. The same cannot necessarily be said about you and me. But we are the very people for whom Barack Obama said that he was campaigning in 2008, and once again says he is doing in 2012.

For the past two and half years, progressives have been hoping that Barack Obama would commit himself to the agenda that many of us thought he favored when he campaigned in 2008. That included supporting the public option in health care, ending the war in Afghanistan, ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and stimulating the economy to whatever degree was necessary to wipe out unemployment.

To date, he has done none of the above. President Obama strikes me as what Winston Churchill once used to describe Russia: an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by mystery. I can’t figure Barack Obama out and I have spoken with dozens of other people who have said the same thing. When I read Justin Frank’s book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, there was very little that surprised me. The fact that as a child he tortured frogs only made his foreign policy and view on human rights that more understandable.

Since I am no closer to understanding what makes Barack Obama tick today than I was from the first day of the presidency, I have decided to take a more empirical approach. It is what Mark Felt, otherwise known as Deep Throat, said to Bob Woodward when he was investigating Watergate. Three simple words: “Follow the money.” Woodward and his colleague Carl Bernstein intensified their examination of the flow of money from the White House to the burglars who broke into the Watergate on June 17, 1972. Soon it became clear that Richard Nixon was involved in not only the cover-up of Watergate, but also the dirty tricks used against Democrats.

I certainly do not see Barack Obama doing anything criminal like Nixon. However, I do think that if we follow the sources of his campaign funding to the policies he supports, we can learn why he has not adopted or practiced a progressive policy. The big bucks came from Wall Street, other large corporations (Microsoft, IBM), universities (University of California, Stanford, Columbia), and law firms engaged in lobbying (Skadden, Arps; Latham & Watkins).

So here is a suggestion as to how to try to get Barack Obama to focus more on what middle and lower income people want rather than monied interests. “We the people” need to get the message to Barack Obama that he cannot take us for granted. We need to make our contributions conditional, conditional on him not taking money from large contributors.

As an example, suppose that we established an escrow account to match the $994,795 that Goldman Sachs gave Mr. Obama in 2008. We ask those individuals who gave small donations in 2008 to make pledges up to $50 into the escrow account. Once that account reaches $1,000,000 (essentially what Goldman donated), then the President could decide from whom he would take the money. The rules of the game would be that he could not take both. He could take either a million dollars from Goldman or a million dollars from the less affluent.

If the money came from small donors, 20,000 individuals would need to donate $50 each to reach a million dollars. Another option would be 100,000 individuals each giving $10.

It’s difficult to determine how many “small contributors” donated to the Obama campaign in 2008 because the names of small donors do not have to be public disclosed. However, the Los Angeles Times reported three weeks after the 2008 election that only 26% of Obama’s money came from individuals giving $200 or less. That is a mere 1% more than those who donated $200 or less to George W. Bush in 2004.

Choosing to be the first presidential candidate to pass up public financing, Barack Obama raised approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars in 2008. If 26% of Obama’s money came from small contributors, he would have received donations of $200 or less from actually 975,000 supporters. It was actually many more than that because most individuals gave less than $200.

However, the money from small donors totaled $195 million. So it would be very feasible to for individuals to supplant the donations of Goldman Sachs and 194 other such entities. The total money would be $555 million, far less than he had in 2008. But think of the good will that he would gain. He could afford to have far fewer commercials and advertisements because the word would be out that he was indeed the candidate of “the people.” Additionally, he could support policies such as another stimulus and ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because he would not be beholden to the people who oppose them.

It’s all about choice. With creative, modest and conditional donating by millions of supporters, Barack Obama would be able to actually do what he told us he would do: be the candidate of the people. If he chose to not take that route but rather stay with the big donors, he might raise more money, but at the cost that it would eminently clear that he was a candidate of the wealthy.

It’s up to us. It will require two things that Barack Obama knows well, community organizing and utilizing the internet to raise money.

Sixteen months before the election, this idea is embryonic. However, it could be implemented with brainstorming and energetic grass-roots work. The goal would not be to elect Barack Obama; it would be to elect Barack Obama free and clear of large donors and only indebted to the millions of middle and lower income Americans who need him most.

If you are interested in further pursuing this and helping to refine the idea, please comment below or e-mail me at arthurlieber07@gmail.com.

The post A campaign finance choice for Obama: People or Wall St.? appeared first on Occasional Planet.