On pointing out lies and mistruths

Commenting on my previous post, Ciccina asks: "Is it okay to mention one side's distortions, but not the other?"

Definitely not, but as I have mentioned before, I am not a journalist, but a partisan blogger.  Still, in the interests of (some) fairness, here's my take on the distortions/lies split between the two campaigns:

First, anecdotal: The front page of FactCheck as of writing lists a dozen recent articles.  One debunks rumors spread about Governor Palin by chain e-mails (though a few have some truth to them); two point out issues with Obama ads.  The remaining NINE point out distortions, smears and lies spread by John McCain, Sarah Palin, and their acolytes, mostly about Barack Obama.

Second, some quantification.  Politifact has a truth-o-meter that tracks claims and statements made by each candidate.  As of writing, they have looked at 113 for John McCain, and 114 for Barack Obama.  I assume these are serious enough to be looked at by Politifact; some may be fluff, of course, but a lie is a lie, and a truth is a truth.  Etc.

Anyway, I graded these judgments on a numerical scale:

True: +10 [25-39 McCain-Obama]

Mostly-true: +5 [20-24]

Half-true: 0 [19-21]

Barely-true: -5 [21-12]

False: -10 [22-18]

Pants-on-fire: -20 [the most egregious lies carry the heaviest penalty; 6-0]

Weighting and averaging the scores, Senator McCain gets a -0.84, while Senator Obama gets +2.37.  So it seems that on average, Senator McCain's statements fall somewhere between "half-true" (0 points) and "barely-true" (-5), while Senator Obama's statements fall between "half-true" and "mostly-true" (+5).  Reducing the "Pants-on-fire" weighting to -10 still leaves Senator McCain at sub-zero levels.

There you have it... Yes, all politicians stretch the truth or exaggerate; but of the two Presidential candidates currently running, one has been much more truthful than the other.  And it is not the one claiming honor and integrity as his cornerstone.  Surprise, surprise.

More on Senator Clinton as a Presidential candidate

I have made my sympathies very clear - I support Senator Obama, based partly on his skills as a uniter. Clinton supporters often come back with - look where the last "uniter" got us!
That's a dumb attack - Senator Obama is definitely not Bush-43. Intelligence, honesty, policies - everything.
What I do say, though, is that if any Democratic candidate is like Bush-43, it is Senator Clinton. She is way too secretive, employs folks based on their loyalty rather than competence even when events prove this is not wise, and demonizes her opponents, Republicans or other Democrats. On that note, here are some recent articles:

1. Slate.com's John Dickerson makes a "Hillary Clinton as Bush-43" comparison based on her advocacy of a policy against the advice of all experts, and the use of charges of elitism to brush off any criticism. Here's the relevant clip:
"Embracing intellectual obtuseness and deflecting criticism with charges of elitism is a tactic George Bush often deployed while campaigning. It's striking to see Clinton do it because she has been a regular and harsh critic of Bush's blindness to expert opinion. It's even more striking to hear her aides actually sound like Bush administration officials. When I asked Communications Director Howard Wolfson if the Clinton team could offer any intellectual ballast for the gas-tax vacation, given that so many policymakers had criticized it, he said, "The presidency requires leadership. … There are times when the president does something that the group of experts, quote unquote, does not agree with. Presidents get advice and then act, and that is what Senator Clinton is doing." Or, as George Bush used to put it: A leader leads. Even if off a cliff." [emphasis mine - RS]

2. William Chafe, writing for The Charlotte Observer, examines Senator Clinton's claims of experience, particularly her actions over Whitewater and universal healthcare during President Clinton's administration.
Basically, then-First Lady Clinton refused the Washington Post access to her Whitewater files, which made the press dig further in Whitewater, lead to Kenneth Starr's appointment as Independent Counsel, which eventually led to the Monica Lewinksy scandal. If Senator Clinton had just allowed the WaPo access to her files...
As for health care reform, Senator Clinton took the "my way or the highway" approach [another striking parallel to you-know-who!] Senator Clinton refused to accept a bipartisan compromise, says Chafe, and as a result zero progress was made.

3. Carl Bernstein writes about the Rovian/GOP-style tactics Senator Clinton's campaign is using to tar Senator Obama - guilt by association. This, when Senator Clinton herself has extensive ties to the radical left - though that was brushed away with a "one-sentence mention" in her book "Living History." [Compare that to Senator Obama's refreshing candor in his books! - RS]

So - what makes Senator Clinton think she can get universal health care - with a government mandate and wage garnishment - passed the second time round, when she couldn't get it done with a Democratic Congressional majority in the early '90s? And do we really want another loyalty-driven, secretive administration?

More openness from Senator Obama [UPDATED 3/14 AM]

I really like how open and candid Senator Obama is - he has released his tax returns, and has openly admitted drug use during his youth. And now, the Senator has released a list of the "earmarks" he asked for over the past three years. [UPDATE] His campaign website lists earmarks requested for FY 2006 and 2007. Apparently, Senator Obama has not released his requests from his time in the Illinois state legislature to the AP - but records are publicly available for 2 years.

After one of the most secretive administrations which has frustrated many Democrats, isn't it time Dems demanded honesty and forthrightness of all their Presidential candidates?