Why don't you just ask his campaign directly? Alternatively, I know that some of the other TPM folks like Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld talk to the various campaigns all the time. I'm sure the Obama people would be happy to clarify where they got their numbers from.

I don't know where Obama got his data, but they seem credible to me.

For 2008, the Bush administration requested $17.05 billion for "International Development and Humanitarian Assistance" (Budget Subfunction 151) and $8.63 billion for "International Security Assistance" (Budget Subfunction 152). These totals exclude emergency foreign affairs funds requested for 2008 for the so-called "Global War on Terrorism."

That totals $25.68 billion, which would be consistent with what Obama is saying. Now, development assistance advocates like DATA are unlikely to include large chunks of this funding in their totals of poverty-focused aid (most notably, the $4.5 billion in foreign military financing), but Obama's speech seems to explicitly include these sorts of things.

Anyway, it looks to me like Obama's numbers are credible. If he had said "We need to double spending on international poverty alleviation to $50 billion," I would agree with your critique, Steve. But since that isn't what he said and since not all U.S. foreign aid is anti-poverty aid, I think it is a little out of line to refer to the implied $25 billion estimate as a "fictionalized amount of current American aid."

Obama gives five ways for America to lead again. The third way comes after the first and second way, and before the fourth and fifth way.

oops Thanks...

He's well to their left. Third Way is a conservative/centrist Democratic thinktank.
They do some interesting, serious work, but in general and particularly on Iraq-related issues, I don't think Obama would be closely aligned with them.

Frankly, Clemons should get off it and find a more worthy thesis for his next post, or not post at all. His comment is incredibly nitpicky and obtuse.

Debt relief is very important to global aid and reducing poverty. (duh!)

Calling it a "one-time" occurrence, is totally obtuse in context. It's only a "one time" gain for the receiving nation, but from the US standpoint, with many poor nations needing debt relief, it's hardly a "one time" opportunity for aid and reducing global poverty. (duh again!)

If Clemons wants to argue the US should do more, fine. If he needs more clarification from the Obama campaign, fine.

But grabbing attention with this non-gotcha is obnoxious and reminds me of the crap FOX and CNN and other really shoddy outfits do, and we don't need any more of. It's exactly the kind of sensationalism which only does a disservice to candidates, issues, and readers. Knock it off.

Alternatively, Obama may just rounding up for political effect.

Steve, I didn't really understand the thrust of your criticism. Since Obama's argument is that current US aid levels are too low, how would he benefit rhetorically by rounding the numbers up? Wouldn't he have wanted to represent them at the lowest defensible figure he could come up with, so as to emphasize Republican negligence, and to portray his own $50 billion proposal in the best possible light?

I think Readstoomuch probably has it right. If Obama had given a lower number for US aid, by neglecting the security assistance component, then he could have presented his $50 billion proposal as a more impressive tripling of foreign aid. But then he would have been open to the charge of misrepresenting US aid as lower than it actually is, for political effect.

kozmik, I'm a big Obama fan, but Clemons's point here is neither nitpicky nor obtuse. The US has a very serious problem with fudging its numbers on foreign aid and development assistance, and more importantly with misstating what that aid has actually accomplished. It would not be going too far to call the behavior of many US aid agencies fraudulent. The US's self-defeatng habit of using foreign aid as advertising for American generosity has corrupted the entire enterprise and makes foreigners more cynical about America.

I'm sensitive on this point because I've just been listening to stories about USAID and PEPFAR's new mandated size for display of its logo on clearly visible materials on all program material it donates -- frequently at programs where it has done nothing worthwhile, just donates an air conditioner or two and then expects its logo to be smeared all over this (foreign-government-owned) facility. Obama should get his numbers right as a sign that he takes foreign aid seriously, as an arena for accomplishment of goals, rather than noisy US self-promotion.

Accumulating Peripherals

Third Way is probably right of center on a lot of issues these days. And I mean right of center of the whole country, not just Democrats.

For example, third Way was all for globalization, but failed to implement meaningful trade agreements for a level playing field. Historically, the Right is basically for Wall Street and the Left tends towards labor.

After NAFTA and the resulting rush to the bottom harming more Americans and global workers than it helped, current centrist thinking is more in favor of Fair Trade, i.e. globalization and specialization, but with baseline standards for a level playing field and some consideration for a net good to Americans and humanity, not just more profits to Wall Street.

Third Way seems stuck defending old positions, and has failed to evolve and remain centrists.

kozmik, you're acting completely weird here. As I said, I've been an Obama backer from day 1. I think he's the soundest candidate on foreign policy and every other count. But one of the worst and most insidiously corrupting aspects of the Bush Administration has been its addiction to playing fast and loose with numbers. In the field of foreign aid, this has meant the invention of completely bogus indices for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of US programs, clearly aimed not at helping ensure the programs actually accomplish anything, but at being able to wave numbers around for political purposes. There is actually an explicit directive at USAID requiring all funded programs to send "inspiring stories" of individuals the program has helped back up to HQ level for promotional purposes. Meanwhile, the targets for PEPFAR include unmeasurable stuff like "numbers of HIV cases prevented", which is just an invitation to manipulation of data.

Here in Vietnam, one of the ills of the Communist system which the government itself acknowledges is called "target disease": the habit of setting meaningless targets in a top-down fashion, regardless of the need for them, and then manipulating results to ensure that the targets are met. What Steve is looking for here is a signal that Obama understands that US aid policy has come to suffer from the same sort of target disease, and intends to take a more serious and evidence-based attitude towards foreign aid policy. That's a perfectly solid point to make, and it's also something I would like to see from Obama. Again, to be clear: Obama rocks. My lighter is up; this is the song I would like to hear.

Accumulating Peripherals