The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo

Here.

Alan Solomont, who heads Obama's New England fundraising, said tonight is about including everybody, raising money, generating excitement, and expressing the ``enthusiasm that people in our area, young and old feel, toward Barack's candidacy.'' ``Barack Obama is about challenging the status quo,'' Solomont said.

Versus

One of the best-known Democratic donors on his list of 130 top fundraisers, Alan Solomont, was registered as a federal lobbyist as recently as the last filing period for such registrations, at the end of 2006. Solomont, who helped raise more than $35 million for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, founded a nursing home and assisted-living company. During the administration of Bill Clinton, some Republicans claimed that he had used his clout as a fundraiser to argue against tougher regulations of nursing homes.

And.

He also gets a better place at the table. One of the reasons the nursing home industry is hugely profitable is because its leaders, Solomont included, have fought off attempts at regulation and reform. When Solomont was raising money for Governor Dukakis, he was also helping craft the Dukakis policy on long-term care for the elderly.

Soloment isn't exactly surrounding himself with the most ethical people ever.

But though he had been vice chairman of the UMass board in the early 1990s and was one of two finalists for the UMass presidency, Solomont was passed over in favor of Jack Wilson, who impressed trustees during a stint as interim president. Solomont's partisan affiliations may have worked against him. In addition, although Solomont enjoys a solid business reputation, some speculated that after dealing with the controversy over William Bulger's brother, fugitive mobster James "Whitey" Bulger, the UMass board of trustees was leery of Solomont because of legal problems in which his brothers were embroiled. One brother, Jay Solomont, was in an Israeli prison on a charge of misappropriation of funds (a source close to the family says Jay was recently paroled); another, David Solomont, was accused of embezzling $1 million from a start-up firm (the case was recently dismissed after a settlement was reached).

I'm not a purist and I know that this is what you have to do to garner the huge sums of money to run for office.  It's just useful to be skeptical here, and to recognize that lobbying and lobbyists aren't bad, per se, but that they are a fact of life.  They cannot and should not be eliminated, but it's possible to change the way they do business structurally by forcing transparency on their political activities.  It's also wise to recognize that people who have profited immensely from the status quo do not necessarily believe that changing the status quo means what we think it means.  There are lots of ways to make change happen.

Update [2007-4-20 16:10:17 by Matt Stoller]:: I should add, though he hasn't released specifics, that I like the way Obama is talking about his energy plan.

"It will take a grass-roots effort to make America greener and end the tyranny of oil," Obama said. Earth Day this Sunday, he said, "should mark the beginning of a nationwide effort to harness our technology, our ingenuity and our will to achieve energy independence in our time."



Display:


Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (3.00 / 1)

Matt's right.  It's all about transparency.


by justinh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:55:32 PM EST

Awesome! (3.00 / 1)

Another entry in a little something I like to call...

NOTES FROM A NEW KIND OF CAMPAIGN:

From the Hill:


Lobbyists tend to be cautious creatures. Evidence that they are flocking to Obama's camp shows that his campaign has gained substantial momentum among the politically sophisticated.

Some of Obama's K Street boosters keep their support a secret to uphold Obama's image as a Washington outsider untainted by D.C.'s influence business.

When Obama declared his presidential candidacy in February, he said he would re-engage Americans disenchanted with business-as-usual in Washington who had turned away from politics.

"And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void," said Obama. "The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter; they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page."

In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs.

Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

"I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network."

The Omaha World Herald:


One of the best-known Democratic donors on his list of 130 top fundraisers, Alan Solomont, was registered as a federal lobbyist as recently as the last filing period for such registrations, at the end of 2006. Solomont, who helped raise more than $35 million for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, founded a nursing home and assisted-living company. During the administration of Bill Clinton, some Republicans claimed that he had used his clout as a fundraiser to argue against tougher regulations of nursing homes. Last year, he reported more than $90,000 in income from lobbying the federal government about Medicare and Medicaid."

The Politico:

Obama announced the no-federal-lobbyist-money rule. But it seems his fundraisers, under pressure to keep pace with the Clinton camp, have decided to follow the letter of that rule rather than embrace its full spirit. Thus, a current lobbyist can't give, but a former lobbyist -- even a recent one -- can. Of course, there is the spouse exemption, even if the money comes from a joint account.

The Washington Post:

The campaign received $50,566 from 49 lobbyists, but aides flagged the checks during initial screening and said they will return the money. Still, for hosting events and otherwise raising money, the Obama fundraising team is relying on partners in lobbying firms who are not registered for specific clients, former lobbyists who recently dropped clients and spouses of lobbyists. The strategy allows Obama's team to reach the wealthy clients of lobbying firms while technically complying with his pledge.

Bloomberg:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ran ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on their home turf, raising cash from the biggest investment banks on Wall Street. Obama raised $479,209 from employees at the banks in the first quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. That was better than Giuliani, a Republican who collected $473,442. Clinton, Obama's Democratic rival, raised $447,625.

Business Week:

Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas (UBS ) and a supporter of Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.), says his candidate understands commerce and is promoting trade agreements that benefit the U.S. "both as a consumer and a provider of goods and services.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awesome! (none / 0)

David, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that Edwards is fundraising just as much from Wall Street as anyone else, and is just as successful there as he is elsewhere.  Do you just figure that if you repeat the same quotes all over the place, maybe I won't be there once, and then your candidate might appear as holy as you paint him?

According to OpenSecrets, Edwards raised $493,210 from the securities and investment world.  UBS employees gave to Edwards too, after all.  So David, glass houses, stones, okay?
 


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:42:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Adam (none / 0)

I've never denied that Edwards is asking for $$ on Wall Street, but they're not giving him much because they don't like his agenda. (About half of his Wall Street cash came from the firm where he worked briefly)

Obama is not only asking and getting lots of cash from Wall Street, he's inviting Wall Streets execs like Wolf to help him refine his agenda.

As I said below, Obama's wooing Wall Street is less concenring that his wooing of K-Street corporate lobbyists (though of cours there's overlap between the two.) Edwards, unlike Obama, isn't putting together a network of lobbyists supporters, nor does he have a policy of asking lobbyists' spouses for cash.

I don't think Edwards is a saint. I think he's a flawed man, and a flawed politician who happens to be a better, cleaner, more populist candidate than Obama.

If you don't have a problem with the game Obama is playing--claiming to be running a new kind of campaign while he gets in bed with Wall Street and K-Street--that's your business, but that doesn't mean he's not doing it.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam (none / 0)

Oh, he worked on Wall Street?  Gosh, I forgot that!

And when Wall Street employees give at the same rate as the public at large, I fail to see how you can draw the conculsions you're reaching.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the Obama problem: (none / 0)

"Barack Obama is about challenging the status quo," Solomont said.

He isn't about specific policies, like universal health care or carbon caps.  He's about "hope" and "change."  Yet we've been hearing establishment politicians such as Clinton (both) and Reagan talk about hope and change for years and years.  More talk about these ideas won't make them happen, and nothing Obama has done so far suggests credibly that, if elected president, he will actually change the way of doing things in Washington, because he has been so closely adhering to the same old script as long as he's been on the stage.


by lorax on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:58:31 PM EST

Re: Here's the Obama problem: (none / 0)

Obama's always "against cynicism."  Because the pro-cynism candidates are tough to beat.


by justinh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Strategy? (none / 0)

I understand that everyone who visits MYDD is ready for policy specifics in April of 2007.  But honestly, I'm baffled at the criticism Obama is getting for not rolling out detailed policies now.  NO ONE ELSE IS PAYING ATTENTION!

Ok, sorry for the caps -- this just frustrates me.  Strategically, rolling out details now does two things:  (1) makes junkies like us happy, but doesn't register with most voters; and (2) gives your opponents specifics to twist and distort.  From a strategic perspective, I'm not sure why Obama would do anything differently than he is.  

Anyway, just my two cents.  He will have policies that I'm sure will be imperfect and deserving of criticism.  But can't we let him articulate them first?  Just a thought.


by HSTruman on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy? (3.00 / 1)

I don't think it's necesarily the lack of in-depth policy alone that is frustrating to people; it's that the cliches and canned rhetoric are having such an impact.  In other words, I suggest that some of the frustation with Obama isn't so much with Obama as it is with the superficiality of politics and how easily people succumb to conventional rhetoric.


by justinh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy? (none / 0)

Interesting point, although I guess I like to think that what I'm buying into with Obama is something more than just empty cliche rhetoric.  :)


by HSTruman on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy? (none / 0)

I think we're all hoping the same thing.


by justinh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy? (none / 0)

I think the point is that a lot of us are wanting to get in to policy and specifics.  I think people who are organizational leaders, union members, netroots folks, activists, are ready for more.  Not all obviously.  Not even a majority apparently, but it does seem like the majority on this site are.

That is a strength.

I don't understand the idea of waiting around for 8 more months or a year to get specifics.  It was suggested that people attack your ideas etc.   huh?  Isn't that the point of a debate.  No one is attacking john edwards' ideas as far as I can tell.  That has been a strength, not a liability.  So I really don't understand why those who push for substance get ridiculed by the hopers.


Don't hate the media, become the media. -- Jello Biafra
by Orlando on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy? (none / 0)

We haven't even had a debate yet, so OF COURSE edwards hasn't gotten challenged on his plan yet.  He will and it may hurt him.  

Above and beyond others being able to distrot plans if their released too soon, however, is the fact that it's good to be able to roll out new information when the general population is actually paying SOME attention.  Most voters don't read about the plans anyway, but if the roll out is timed properly they at least see the right headlines at a point when they are paying attention to who is even running.  Respectfully, I think everyone on this site is quite a bit ahead of the curve regarding our appetite for policy specifics.  :)


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the Obama problem: (none / 0)

Obama missed his calling.  Snake oil salesmen look different than they use to, but they are still out there.  "policy on long-term care for the elderly"  What would that be?  A wheel chair and a hill?  Transparency is not the issue.  The issue is being owned by corporations, conflict of interest, not being able to bite the hand that feeds you.  Obama is just another guy selling his own brand of brooms.  


by dkmich on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the Obama problem: (none / 0)

"Snake oil"?  Charming.  The guy has a decade-long legislative record.  Look at it.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you can't raise this much money (3.00 / 1)

from ex-lobbyists and current spouses of lobbyists and financial firms by promising to screw them later.

It's becoming clear that it seems highly unlikely Obama will radically transform anything policy related in DC.

we may all get along better but I doubt the HMOs and financial services Co's are threatened by Obama


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can't raise this much money (3.00 / 1)

That's the thing: Edwards is chasing Wall Street money just as much as anyone else, and he's as proportionately successful there as he is everywhere else.  In insurance, the Obama:Edwards ratio is the same as it is overall.  Ditto commercial banks & real estate.

In other words, whoever you say "owns" Obama "owns" the same percentage of John Edwards.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, Adam (none / 0)

Do you know the difference between K-Street and Wall Street?

Cause we're talking about lobbyists here, and Obama is cultivating a network of support led by Tom Daschle--indeed, Daschle may have given him $$$ assuming her shares a bank account with his wife--while Edwards is making no effort to make friends on K Street.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, Adam (none / 0)

The poster referred to "the HMOs and financial services Co's."  So I answered him.

Re K-Street, Edwards raised $115,720 from the District of Columbia this quarter.  And if you need me to, I can go through the figures and tell you which law firms-that-lobby he took money from that's included within that.  Y'know, like Jack Abramoff's old firm.  Or Tom Daschle's.  It's all there.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How much did Obama raise there? (none / 0)


by david mizner on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How much did Obama raise there? (none / 0)

A lot more, just like he has all over America.  

Y'see, though, I don't see money as inherently corrupting.  You see a cause and effect where nothing's been established.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Im not saing (3.00 / 1)

it's necessarily cause and effect--I think the reason Obama is wooing Wall Street and K-Street is that there won't be a conflict between their interests and his neoliberal agenda. He's not exactly beholden to them; he knows he can cultivate them because he won't end up advocating policies that corporatist Dems dislike. In other words, it's a sign of what his agenda is going to look like.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:03:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Im not saing (none / 0)

Obviously, Edwards actually has a voting record that  has demonstrated a pro-corporate agenda at times in the past -- on trade with China, on personal bankruptcy, etc.  

You're making a prediction about what Obama's presidential agenda is going to be based on the employers of some of his contributors.  But they, like all contributors, may like him for who he already is, not for what they believe they can mold him into being.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How much did Obama raise there? (none / 0)

Obama raised a lot more disproportionately.  Hillary raised even more even more disproportionately.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, Adam (none / 0)

Moreover, of that DC total, 85K+ came from checks of $1000 or more.  Y'know, like $4600 from a guy at "Quorum Strategies".  $4600 from a lawyer at WilmerHale, which who represents these folks.

You really want to look in the mirror?


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well I don't (none / 0)

expect you to concede, Adam, that Obama is less clean than Edwards, but what you've already written compels to concede that Obama is no cleaner than other candidates, correct?


by david mizner on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I don't (none / 0)

I think they're all pretty clean.  I don't even think there's anything inherently corrupting about PAC money.  I actually despise the kind of "gotcha" contribution-finding that I just did, but I wanted to make a point about how silly this all is for folks who are raising $25M+ overall.


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:28:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, Adam (none / 0)

Ah yes, the mysterious character from "Quorum Strategies", otherwise known as Miles Lackey, a special assistant to President Clinton for national security affairs and senior director for legislative affairs at the NSC during the Clinton Administration. Not a registered lobbyist.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Put another way (none / 0)

Edwards' top 11 contributors (based on the employer of the individual donor) are seven law firms and four banking/investment companies -- Fortress, Goldman Saches, Deutsche Bank and Citigroup.

Obama's top 11 includes five law firms, his law school alma mater, Time Warner, Exelon and three banking/investment companies -- UBS, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.

What's the difference?


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

(and when it says Time Warner) (none / 0)

It means folks like Will & Grace creator Max Mutchnick, West Wing exec producer Tommy Schlamme and music producer Mo Ostin.  


by Adam B on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can't raise this much money (none / 0)

And lawyers?  Edwards is no saint tho the people on mydd tend to think he is.  All hail St. Edwards.  
Let's see, the man was so far to the right he might as well have been a republican.  He did zip in the Senate, when he bothered to attend,  and pissed of the people in his state.
He pushed Kerry to not retract his vote on the war during the campaign.  But, presto chango, less than a year later he is Mr. Populist!  retracts his vote and panders to the netroots because he NEEDS them to survive.
But, who is really Edwards???
by vwcat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great comment, vwcat! (none / 0)

You totally changed my mind, what with the power of your reasoning and your honesty.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can't raise this much money (none / 0)

You are wrong.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,131721,00.html

One criticism of Edwards is that he talks centrist but votes liberal

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/ edwards.html
Some of this goes back to tone, words, and accent. The emergence, in 2002, of a handsome, articulate, drawling southerner brought to mind another handsome, articulate, drawling southerner who actually was a centrist. But John Edwards was, and is, no Bill Clinton. Despite a widespread perception to the contrary, Edwards never joined the Democratic Leadership Council, though the organization courted him heavily. "That was not the route he wanted to go," says Elizabeth. Indeed, all the way back in 2002, The New Yorker noted that "Edwards has chosen to present himself as a rollicking, full-throated, us-against-them populist."

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sect ion=root&name=ViewPrint&articleI d=12479

Now shut up.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A rose is a rose is a rose (none / 0)

From the second link:

Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, has told some donors that their support enables him to run a new kind of campaign by refusing fundraising help from federal lobbyists, but a list of his top fundraisers released over the weekend shows his campaign has defined the term in a way that allows him to accept contributions from people who were federal lobbyists at the start of his campaign.
[bold my emphasis]

"Defined the term in a way that allows him..." WTF?

What I don't understand is that Obama has raised huge numbers from small donations and stands to gain much, much more. Why is he doing this?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:03:18 PM EST

Re: A rose is a rose is a rose (none / 0)

And he left his lobbying position to fundraise for the campaign.  So now we are against lobbyists, ex-lobbyists, their relatives, and their clients.


by Obama08 on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A rose is a rose is a rose (3.00 / 1)

Depends on who/what they are lobbying for.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A rose is a rose is a rose (none / 0)

He's still a lobbyist.  But the question, as always, is so what?  It's about transparency.  Will his involvement in the campaign shape policy that many would find objectionable?  Maybe and maybe not.  That's the point.


by justinh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A rose is a rose is a rose (none / 0)

Actually, you're wrong.

"Last year, he reported more than $90,000 in income from lobbying the federal government about Medicare and Medicaid.

In an interview, Solomont said he had withdrawn his lobbyist registration as soon as he signed on as a fundraiser for Obama.

"When I joined the campaign, I ended that," he said.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, said accepting help from a recently former lobbyist did not breach the campaign's policy."

From the same story which was selectively quoted.


by Obama08 on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously? (none / 0)

That's like saying when Bush hires the head of Montsanos as number 2 at the EPA, he's going to write laws that restrict the very industry he's going back to after his term expires.  Or Gail Norton, for that matter.

Changing his "registration" doesn't change his interests.

LOTS of lobbysits work on campaings during election season--that's one of the huge problems with politics and democracy--if there is no transparency.


by justinh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its also about hypocrasy (none / 0)

and that new kind of politics.

But this saying one thing and then doing everything possible to actually do the opposite looks like politics as usual.


by okamichan13 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 12:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Really???  Find one guy who works for Obama and because he was a loobiest and a good fundraiser and successfull enough to almost get the presidency of UMass, you try to paint Obama as a bad person???  This is almost as bad as Clinton trying to make Obama apologize for Geffin.  

I am starting to think MyDD (Chris Bowers excluded) is as slanted in it's coverage of Obama as Fox News is.  I'm still waiting for a story about something tangental to Edwards such as a random person who works for him who got a parking ticket or blog post and seeing that spun as how Edwards is a horrible person.


by jalby on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:30:34 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

loobiest.  My bad.


by jalby on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (3.00 / 3)

I think Matt's point, indicated by the title, is that Obama isn't necessarily the anti-establishment, reformer candidate his campaign is suggesting.


by justinh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's kinda of like (none / 0)

a product re-launch where they repackage the product but the product isn't that different.


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: product relaunch (none / 0)

If this is the case, then shouldn't we be suspicious of Edwards and his new packaging?


by Kingstongirl on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: product relaunch (none / 0)

You missed the meaning of the comment.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama isn't necessarily the anti-establishment, (none / 0)

reformer candidate his campaign is suggesting.  

Of course he isnt'; and anybody who thinks he is is being naive.  The problem I have with Obama is that he is "pretending to be" a reformer when he isn't.  You want to not do health care, then freakin say so.  You want to do more free trade, say it!  Don't sweet talk, con, and, yes, lie to everyone.  I am sick of being lied to by everyone.  BO's dancing around the point and never taking a position is enough reason not to vote for him.


by dkmich on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:42:59 PM EST

Re: Obama isn't necessarily the anti-establishment (none / 0)

Wait until his policy proposals to say that he isn't a reformer and the reform bit has been a song and dance.


by Obama08 on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama isn't necessarily the anti-establishment (none / 0)

Actions speak louder than words.  If he wasn't ready, he shouldn't of declared - yet.  Isn't that what they tell you when you want to market a new product or service?  Better be able to deliver or don't open the doors.  


by dkmich on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Edwards can do no wrong. It's like his senate term never existed because now he's out of the senate and can espouse any position he wants to get the "netroots" on his side, I like Edwards and don't enjoy debating his negatives but the anti-Obama meme that he's an establishment candidate is ridiculos coming from Edwards supporters,look at Gravel if you want a "pure" outsider, Obama is not taking the most "bold" policy approach, what he is selling is that his apporach to the policys that 99% of dems agree on will produce more results for our causes, alot of the primary debate comes down to whether they value subtle slight differences between our nominees as more important than  finding the best person to sell our party's basic ideas to the country as a whole in the process fundamnetally changing the overall political landscape the way Reagan did. Obama can do the latter, which people that give him money to do so is irrevelevant to me as long as they support Obama and not the other way around.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:41:24 PM EST

Thousands expected for Obama fund-raiser at BU (none / 0)

Cynicism thy name is Stroller. Please ignore the nine paragraphs of the story that show an movement energy that does want to change the status quo.

It won't be a typical political fund-raiser...

More than 5,000 supporters are expected to attend the fund-raiser at the Agganis arena...

Organizers say the event, which has been largely planned by college students,...

As political fund-raisers go, the price to attend tonight's rally is cheap.

The student leaders say that Obama's message of hope and nonpartisanship resonates with their peer group...

and try to define the Obama campaign by one of his fund raisers. Sorry it does not fly.


by JoeCoaster on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:03:28 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Hate to disagree Matt, but the way lobbying in the US is currently done is bad, very bad.  Sure, theoretically, lobbying doesn't have to be evil, but we long ago passed the point where the most powerful lobbies weren't almost all forces for, frankly, evil.


by Ian Welsh on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:12:41 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Moveon is powerful on the Hill, as is labor.  They aren't evil.


by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Must say, reading the comments that the St. Edwards supporters sound a tad more jealous than pointing out anything real.
Pouty because St. Edwards did not raise as much money or attract as many supporters from both the rich and the grassroots.
Whine whine whine.
by vwcat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:47:03 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Personally I have to ask why it is such a bad thing to have people on your side.  

My guess would be that such a mindset of suspicion is naturally self-perpetuating.


by sterra on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:41:53 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

So yesterday $$$ was good(Chris' post), because the Democrats out-raised the Republicans, but today remorse is setting in?


by Kingstongirl on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:55:44 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Correction, Jonathan Singer's post.


by Kingstongirl on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Speaking of taking on the Status Quo?
Joe Trippi is now on board with the Edwards Campaign.
I am not committed to any campaign enough yet to work for one..but I am leaning..
 Trippi did change the way money was raised.
He is also full-tilt on principle..
After hearing this I went over to Edwards site..
he is already blogging..

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie
by DenverD on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:09:32 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

sorry if this is a duplicate post..not sure..
Speaking of taking on the Status Quo?
Joe Trippi is now on board with the Edwards Campaign.
I am not committed to any campaign enough yet to work for one..but I am leaning..
 Trippi did change the way money was raised.
He is also full-tilt on principle..
After hearing this I went over to Edwards site..
he is already blogging..

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie
by DenverD on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:14:09 PM EST

Re: The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo (none / 0)

Multiple posts..
very embarrassed..
I am not an idiot..I only play the part of one on the net..
I better go get some sunshine
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie
by DenverD on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:16:19 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.