On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos

As Todd alluded to, it may take a bit of time for folks to recover from the late nights, early mornings and near-constant action of the 2007 Yearly Kos convention, but I as I've begun to digest some of what I saw, I'd like to lay out a few thoughts over the coming days in addition to my normal blogging on other topics.

To begin, I'd like to take a look at what Hillary Clinton had to say when pressed about her decision to accept campaign contributions from federal lobbyists -- a choice that puts her at odds with her two leading rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Clinton has caught a lot of flak for having said in defense of her position on this matter that "a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." I'd like to come back to that in a moment. But before then, I'd like to speak to an earlier statement she made that was, in a sense, even more telling.

In response to a query about her stance on accepting contributions from federal lobbyists, particularly in comparison with Edwards' stance, Clinton said, "I think it's a position that John has certainly taken" -- a statement that was met with laughter by the audience. This initial response to a question from debate moderator Matt Bai seemed to indicate that it was a question that Clinton was totally unprepared for, one that she had to eat up 10-15 seconds thinking about by throwing out an asinine truism. For a candidate who is not seemingly caught off guard often, it was interesting to find her unable to immediately grasp a strong retort. I don't know if she was unprepared to take this question or just couldn't remember her talking points on this particular issue. But it seemed to undercut the notion that she is a perfectly prepared candidate who is almost impossible to vanquish during a debate (an expectation that is perhaps unfairly high but one that many had seemed to hold).

In a sense, it seems that the failure to quickly respond in a meaningful way is more problematic for Clinton than her seeming defense of lobbyists (even if that defense will be used subsequently in television ads and direct mail pieces). For one, while she doesn't outright say it, the contributions made by lobbyists, themselves, wield less influence than the 10 or 20 or 100 accompanying checks that the lobbyists bundle together for candidates. What's more, Clinton is right that there are some lobbyists who are indeed working on behalf of good causes, and as such it is perhaps not inappropriate to accept contributions from them. Certainly this is not an answer that works particularly well on a political level, but it is one that at least has a basis in logic (and suggests at least some level of thought). Merely throwing out words like "I think it's a position that John has certainly taken" -- and in doing so at least suggesting that you haven't fully thought about an issue that is clearly on the radar in the presidential race -- does not. And as a result, at least some of the Clinton's luster, particularly that she is a candidate who may not always excite but will rarely if ever let down, may have been lost this weekend.

Just to add a couple of thoughts... In the comments there seem to be people taking exception with my contention that this was a flub, that instead it was a joke and people were laughing with her, not at her. As Matt Yglesias put it yesterday, "I promise you it was totally clear that the audience (myself included) was laughing with her" (emphasis original). I don't think it was "totally clear that the audience... was laughing with her" -- I got the sense from talking with others in the audience (of which I, too, was a part) that at least some were laughing at her instead, indicating the entire audience did not, in fact, take it to be a joke. That said, clearly the entire audience didn't take it to be serious, either, so there's more room for interpretation. The words above represent my take on how things played out, but feel free to read the moment another way if you'd like.



Display:


if you have to explain (3.00 / 2)

lobbyists to people in iowa she's toast.

I looked up the nurses and social workers lobby and they spend in a year what Northrup grumman spends in a week.

it's laughable to try to equate the cash poor "good lobbys" with the ones on the top ten list ..


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:13:43 PM EST

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

Yeah, but the charge from your guy Hedgewards and his buddy I'll Bomb Ya is that accepting money from ALL lobbyists is evil. It seems they don't mind shortcutting the valuable contributions these lobbyists for nurses, etc. offer.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (3.00 / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya

Not Obama's position on Pakistan -- f*** off!!


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

no thanks...


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

Do it anyway.


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

Making up names for candidates?

Grow up or stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, whichever is appropriate.


by JR Hawks on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (1.00 / 1)

She's going to regret that answer too.

Because everybody's going to start looking at which lobbyists are giving to Hillary and, I'm guessing, very few of them are nurses and teachers and the vast majority of them are in the financial services industry.

The former Cattle Futures Queen does represent Wall Street, after all.


by Bush Bites on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rightwing talking-point alert!!! (none / 0)

"The former Cattle Futures Queen does represent Wall Street, after all."

I see you've been reading one of Rush Limbaugh's old books.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, it sucks that the dominant frames about... (none / 0)

hillary are right-wing frames.  the fact that she lost control of her image is one of the reasons she's so vulnerable in the general election...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I agree.  She has relied on inevitability and an attachment to the Clitnon years in the 90s.

Hilllary Clinton is not inevitable. Ykos did all Dems a great favor by showing it.


by TomP on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:15:28 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I can tell you who is not going to get this nomination Obama and Edwards, who have decided to work in tandem to knock Hillary off.  The thing that bothers me is the snide remarks that each has made.  Today in additon to attacking Hillary, Edwards has attack Paula Deen who does a cooking show for getting a contract with Smithfield Foods.  Paula Deen is the nicest lady and it shows that Edwards is a snide little man who cannot sell himself unless he trashes women.  And as for the 2 years Senator from Illinois who thinks he knows everything about everything.  He should take a time out.  He has become an arrogant fool.  I guess its how you act when your losing that shows what you're really made of.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:02:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well, there's always 2012... (none / 0)

we're going to need a great candidate after 12 years of republican administrations and after another clinton has divided democrats again.

it's difficult to understand how you could appropriate the label of change yet support the status quo candidate...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:29:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, there's always 2012... (none / 0)

Some times change means going back to what worked.  Clinton was a great president who appointed the best people and not the cronies that this administration seems to favor.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:05:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

facts (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/6/13816 /53522

Read my diary on eyewitnesses' impression on Hillary's performance at YKOS.

No spin, just facts.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:20:15 PM EST

there are over a hundred (3.00 / 1)

YouTubes with Hillary talking about lobbyists.

Am I not supposed to trust my own eyes?  


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (3.00 / 1)

That's right. It's clear that Hillary was booed when she said lobbyists have had no influence on her and her silly response, "it's a position that John has taken" was laughed at. VIDEO-Edwards Challenges Dems to Reject Lobbyist Donations: Hillary Refuses


by NCDemAmy on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

So Hillary was booed. What does that prove other than she sticks by her principles unlike Hedgewards and I'll Bomb Ya who both have questionable fundraising practices and don't mind a little pandering if it can make Hillary look bad. Both of these guys have plenty of soft points to exploit. And since they started this they can't really complain when the counterattack begins. And it will.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya

Not Obama's position on Pakistan -- f*** off!!


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

Hillary will demonize Obama and Edwards?

Shocking.


by JR Hawks on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hillary has principles??? (none / 0)

are these like her turning her back on just war traditions -- and her church?  or her penchant for secrecy?  or her hiding things that the courts and congress want?  are these the principles you speak of???


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

Oh the hypocrisy runs rampant among these two. According to Murdock Obama and Edwards have taken his money.    


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: facts (none / 0)

it is a FACT that those opinions belong to the people attributed (i assume anyway). That is the only FACT involved. It cannot be a FACT that someone did well or did not do well. Stop being crazy.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

um, anything on the substance?

This is a post Mike Allen could write.

Ron Fournier of the AP actually covered the issue in his article.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:21:10 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

what substance would you like to discuss?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is money from federal (3.00 / 2)

lobbyists different from Corporate CEOs, law firm partners, PACS, lobbyist's spouses, state lobbyists, hedge fund managers, etc.

The fact is campaign finance reform has been a an issue since Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and all these fixes are crap.

There is one only, and everybody knows it - public financing of campaigns.

Campaign finance reform that does not discuss public financing of coampaigns is simply a disingenuous wankfest.

This post does not even rise to that level.

Was the crowd llaughing with hillary or at her is big controversy that required an update.

Puhleeeaze.

I understand why Obana and Edwards are doing this. What I do not understand is the purpose of this post.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

true (none / 0)

but Edwards has never taken PAC money either !!!

CEOs are limited to maximums and if you don't take PAC money as Edwards has not since 1998 than you limit the influence of one person compared to another - but it's still not equal.

FYI - from my understanding Hillary, Obama and even Dodd have more contributions from wall street than  Edwards


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

PAC are capped too.

What's your point?

Lobbyists are capped too.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

My point as I said above is which PACs matter- especially with regard to Democratic primary politics interests.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Which pacs, which lobbyists.

The whole thing is a phony issue.

And this post, despite Singer's protest that  I misread his post, I refer again to whatr HE SAYS is important - foocuses on the phony nothingness of Clinton's delay in answering.

And we complain about the Media's triviality? About covering haircuts?

This is haircut coverage.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:23:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

you think her receiving money from Big Phrma is a phony concern?>


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

How much did Obama receive? Can you answer that or doesn't it matter?


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

I don't know.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Borrowed from hwc:


From insurance industry employees:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select .asp?Ind=F09

Clinton: $341,240
Obama: $258,172

Dodd and Romney have received more from the insurance industry.

From pharmaceutical industry employees:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select .asp?Ind=F09

Clinton: $172,151
Obama: $160,572

Romney has received more from the pharmaceutical company employees.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

question- does it matter if they all commit the same bad act? not sure how you think that makes it ok or why if all of them doing it is somehow negates the point of whether or not they should be doing it? inother words- do you get that I am making an issue specific, not candidte specific argument?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

My position on this is simple and clear. I support any candidate's right to raise money from any LEGAL source. We are a nation of laws and I support them.

If you want to change the law so that campaigns for President are financed by the electorate I am willing to support that provided there are limitations on what we will pay for and how much.

But while the laws exist and as long as no candidate violates the law I will support any candidate's right to raise funds legally. Money is money. It all spends the same. Unless it is from an immoral source or used illegally I am not going to criticize anyone for obeying the law. If you have an issue with Hillary's contributions then provide substantive proof that it has in any way influenced her voting record. Otherwise be cool because what she is doing is LEGAL.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

So your answer is the Bushian response to when people asked about the ethics of Karl Rove- 'its legal."? Well thanks for the dodge but I was asking about ethics and politics, and more specifically the ethics of a Democrat taking money interest at odds with  Democratic Party constituencies. Like I said- your best bet is the quiet up and hope the real issue goes away, and instead fluff like this diary wins out. Otherwise, you got problems in a Democratic primary with your sort of argument.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

I gave you my opinion of the matter. I did not dodge your question at all. If you don't like my answer fine, but don't accuse me of not answering or dodging your question. So nice of you to link me with Bush and Rove. How very asshole of you. Stop making shit up!


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

If I asked you what color is the sky at noon in  Texas, and you respond back the sky is black at night and I can imagine the guy being a many different colors. You answered a question, but you didn't answer the question asked. The asshole thing to do is to pretend that you did rather than admit that you didn't. Saying its your opinion doesn't change that fact. And calling me asshole doesn't either. This discussion with you is exactly why I say to Big Democrat many of you aren't interested all in the issues- just your candidate winning. I get that. I even get why you had to assume I was an Obama supporter. Afterall, that's all that matters to your way of thinking.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: responding to the question you made up (none / 0)

If I asked you what color is the sky at noon in  Texas, and you respond back the sky is black at night and I can imagine the guy being a many different colors. You answered a question, but you didn't answer the question asked. The asshole thing to do is to pretend that you did rather than admit that you didn't. Saying its your opinion doesn't change that fact. And calling me asshole doesn't either. This discussion with you is exactly why I say to Big Democrat many of you aren't interested all in the issues- just your candidate winning. I get that. I even get why you had to assume I was an Obama supporter. Afterall, that's all that matters to your way of thinking.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

to add to my point- you make the assumption i support obama right? you must - but i let you do that because it was the only way i could get you beyond attacking first. one of my problem with obama's healthcare plan is that it uses the healthcare industry's definition of the word "universal healthcare" I don't acribe any dark motive to that- but I do see the undue influence of having these people around. That is even if Clinton or Edwards or Obama or Mother Thersea had the purist motive on the planet, money would influence them because money means access to things like defining the prhase "universal healthcare" and what the means for average americans.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

final point- do you know much legislation was drafted by lobbying orgs and that language was adopted in its entirety by congress? i know it was horrible under the GOP, and I am not all that convinced that K street doesn't have that influence over the present congress. I wish I were more hopeful, but some of my lack of faith comes  out of seeing people gloss over the issue in favor of their candidate of the moment. do that writ large, and you see how the problem occurs.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Excellent--thank you for that information.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

by the way- difference between haircut and this- is interest of the parties. the haircut was singular, this is an issue of systemic nature of big money being involved in politics. we can't get rid of it but i dont see why we should condone clinton taking money from big prhma either. w/o political pressure why should she or any candidate in the future not take money adverse to democratic positions ?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

You want to discuss this?

this is an issue of systemic nature of big money being involved in politics.

Write a post about it. This covers the delay in answering. It does not cover the issue.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Tried that yesterday. Got a bunch of Hillary supporters swarming the diary and it went no where. False frames: "well you are against big business" or "you are against all lobbying" or other such silliness. Or the one I love- "you hate clinton" Nevermind I voted for her as my senator. Or, she's pragmatic, this is politics, be realistic. Etc and so forth. Another I love- trust her on that she won't be influenced by this. When backed into a corner- the common refrain was "well I don't really care about this issue." What did you write the other day? Is mydd interested in issues? Prolly, not so much as it is in spin.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Edwards and Obama have taken money from Rupert Murdock, what makes them holier than Hillary?  


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

I don't care about whether they were or weren't laughing at her. I do care about the issue.

I think there are separate considerations- some legal, some political and some ethical. We can't do anything about the legal, but we can discuss the political and ethical.

And to use an extreme, patronage system that used define Democratic machine politics was old too before we got rid of it. So- not sure what you mean about the movie reference.

I understand your wider point that we need overall reform. However the problem with this is legal. I can't see the S Ct endorsing public finance alone without it being voluntary by the candidates- do you? This isn't my area of law so I'm not certain on this point.

What I am certain about is that political and ethical pressure should be placed on candidates to get them to not accept certain types of money.

As you say- politics is pander. I agree- I want them to pander to us, the Democrats, and what we stand for. Money from Big Phrma and Big Insurance is not what the Democrats stand for. It's blood money plain and simple.

You speak of politics being about who gets to define the debate. Well, look at universal healthcare- whatever its merits- the fact is we are allowing Big Health to define the debate before we even start a new debate. This is unacceptable to me. We can't change it legally, but we can make ethical and political pressure a tool for getting done what we can't get done legally.  


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

Oh I agree.

But that is easy to remedy - the pbulic financing will be a very generous amount or the amount raised by the highest amount raised by another candidate, or even 110% of the highest amount raised.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

On the legal front, I don't see that surviving the first amendment scrutiny- especially with this S Ct. As I said this isn't my era of expertise.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

Why? I do not see any basis for a legal challenge at all.

It is voluntary.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

hasn't the trend been people opting out?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

Because of the low level of public funds offered.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

You're right people have been opting out of matching funds so they can raise what they like. What I don't like is for the two guys who are losing to trash the candidate who is winning.  Senator Obama charges for free events and sells campaign buttons and other trinkets.  When the people buy the campaign paraphinalia he calls them small doners which makes his list of small donations 3 times as large as Hillary's.  There is alot wrong with campaign funding today but I think Obama and Edwards should check their own glass houses before throwing any more stones.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

the point being that if there is no political or ethical pressure-t hen why would any candidate accept such a system? what incentive is there for them to do so?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

The fact your opponent will be matched dollar for dollar with federal funds pretty much eliminates all incentive to raise money privately.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

I see your point. But that still raises issues of timing - ie Kerry waiting for funding as I remember, but those are minor quibbles. Let me ask you this- do you have faith it will happen? I don't.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you think this spat (none / 0)

on lobbyists will change anything?


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you think this spat (none / 0)

prolly not- but i do know ignoring it won't do anything either. candidates need to be called on anti democratic contributors.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you think this spat (none / 0)

about the politics. i am not the best to ask. i am losing faith that things will improve in this country. there is a tipping point where society's dont come back. i don't know if we have reached it yet, but the influence of the forces i see in our society- money, lack of interest in real change where needed etc aren't good signs.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:34:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

"How is money from federal [...] lobbyists different from Corporate CEOs, law firm partners, PACS, lobbyist's spouses, state lobbyists, hedge fund managers, etc. [...] I do not understand is the purpose of this post"

Before you slam my posts, perhaps it would at least be worth it to read them in their entirety. I write,

[T]he contributions made by lobbyists, themselves, wield less influence than the 10 or 20 or 100 accompanying checks that the lobbyists bundle together for candidates.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the substance. But politics is not only substance. Perhaps it should be, perhaps it shouldn't be; but it isn't. It's also about perceptions and people's feelings about candidates. And my sense, from being in the hall and from talking to others who were also in the hall, was that Hillary seemed unprepared for a fairly standard question, which to me raises questions about whether or not she is as well-polished as many believe her to be.


My Direct Democracy
by Jonathan Singer on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you mean policy (none / 0)

like having a healthcare plan?  (snark)


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

And this is exactly why she is particularly vunerable on this. Not because of lobby money alone,b ut because of her own inability to say anything to attack money interests that are supporting her.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

What is the policy dicussed in the post?


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

the policy is how can you have a conversation about policy regarding healthcare with the discussion already tainted by people aren't just at the table but they script the conversation


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

That is not in this post.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

prolly right- i am just piggybacking to what i thinkt he real issue is


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (none / 0)

Why did you cut out the opening line of that paragraph?

Sonce it is the point of my criticism it is really something for you to cut out the idea that I am objecting to.

Put in the whole excerpt.

What was more important to you in this exchange? What did you write was more important?

Don;t rewrite your post here in the comments.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

"which to me raises questions about whether or not she is as well-polished as many believe her to be."

If I were her opponent I don't think I would count on that assumption.

Going into this convention Hillary was the least favorite candidate there except maybe Gravel. She walked into the lion's den even after someone tried to poison her appearance by announcing something that wasn't true. I think considering the circumstances she did very well.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

One of the things that disturbs me about the campaign money is that the candidate gets to keep quite alot of it after the election.  Its really hard to believe.  I read that Kerry had 15 Million left over after the 04 election which was his to keep or give to another candidate of his choice.  There is something really wrong with this if this is true.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

You do realize that Singer risks the wrath of Jerome by taking on his girl Hillary don't you?

Hardly something that can be done by thinking about it long and hard in advance.


by JR Hawks on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

I don't think the problem was her being unprepared for the question I think the problem was that she knew nobody was going to like her answer and tried a quick dodge. When she found out they weren't going to let her get away with it she simply fessed up, noting that all lobbyists aren't big corporate interest.

OK Clinton maybe thats a fair point so how bout for now on you pledge to only take contributions from the lobbyists the don't represent corporate or special (non-progressive) interests.

I think its telling that Obama can still out-fund raise her without taking this corporate cash.


by wiretapp on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:21:31 PM EST

Exactly (3.00 / 0)

this wasn't the MSM debate.

the moderator came back to her and made her actually answer the question.

Something CNN and MSNBC don't do.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (none / 0)

this isn't a thread about your distaste for the media. Lets keep it on subject here.


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

And when she was boo'ed, she also knifed progressives by saying something mean like "I was expecting this" - etc. Anyone have that exact quote?
This forum really touched a nerve - and her mean side was exposed.  Maybe she really did throw a lamp at Bill.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Uhh from my understanding when she said that it was said in a joking manner and the audience laughed.

Her mean side indeed.


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I agree with the dictator- it was funny. The answer that got her booed was more sad than funny- nevertheless, after you have dealt with a year long impeachment hearing on your husband for lying about cheating on you in the Oval Office- its hard to get phased by a couple booes. Shes not my favorite, but ya can't deny she's a badass.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's another word (none / 0)

for a power-hungry candidate who gets in bed with a man who led the cheers for her husband's impeachment - but it's not "badass."


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's another word (none / 0)

oh annefrank. There you go again


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's another word (none / 0)

Whhhaaaatt?! I'm only posting facts.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Liberals prefer to be perfect and lose.  I want to win this election because we cannot afford another 8 years with the likes of Giuliani whose idea of healthcare is that we all buy our own.  No employer based healthcare, no medicare, no veterans healthcare.  We are all on our own.  Is this not a bigger issue?   Perhaps the reason that corporations and yes even Ken Starr is contributing to Hillary's campaign is because maybe they are sick of the status quo too.  Corporations were not exactly hurting during Bill Clinton's presidency, nor were the little guys.  Perhaps the Dems have the answer and everyone is hopping on the bandwagon.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:05:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

liberals have sacrificed a lot of their... (none / 0)

principles over the years to win.  that's just an idiotic statement.  and there is a bigger issue at stake here: whether we undermine the constitution, or at least its spirit, by nominating another clinton seeking to continue the clinton dynasty.  concentrating political power at the federal level in the hands of two families is not only royalist, its dangerous.  greater principles mean that we can't support hillary, no matter what she promises.  if democrats make the mistake of nominating her (and i'm sure they will, all of this was said about kerry in 2004), they cannot blame the principled americans who turn their back on democrats for hillary's inevitable defeat...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberals have sacrificed a lot of their... (none / 0)

Dynasty?  Bill Clinton was a great president who created 22 Million jobs, balanced the budget and gave us a huge surplus.  I want Hillary because she can bring in the same people to fix the mess Bush has left us.  We cannot afford an unknown like Obama right now.


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:01:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

agreed- politically speaking the best thing she can hope is that people move on. this is a loser for her and she's got to know that.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya takes corporate cash. He just takes it discretely so he can pretend to look pure with no attachments. He ain't no poster child for pure in politics even if he says he is.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya

Not Obama's position on Pakistan -- f*** off!!


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Isn't that sweet of ya.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Not intended to be, I assure you.


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Wiretap - Lobbyists have contributed to less than 1% of her entire funds raised.

Obama takes money from Chicago lobbysists, just not federal, and has taken lots of money from large banks.

Edwards takes hedgefund money and trial lawyer money.

Hillary was honest about it, the others tried to blur the lines, to which Kucinich made sure he would comment.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

True, and I'm sure Obama is getting some lawyer money as well.

But if you look at average donation amounts its clear that she is getting the bigger bucks from fewer individuals who would theoretically have more influence with her.


by wiretapp on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

"who would theoretically have more influence with her."

But that isn't proof of any untoward activity.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

And I'm sure the fundraisers by Murdoch and News Corp aren't "proof of any untoward activity" either - yet.
BAWAAAHAHAHAHA!!

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The summation of this diary (none / 0)

Look this diary isn't really about the merits of her answer so i won't discuss that here. (Its be discussed ad nausem elsewhere.)

This diary is about the way she answered the question and the summation is, Hillary Clinton is funny...thats bad.

I certainly don't think this was a hit piece but was this really a diary worthy?

It seems even if I charitably read your diary, and being really generous on my part, then its ultimate conclusion is "Hillary is not perfect...sometimes she pauses!" (Cue evil music in background)


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:22:48 PM EST

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

I think its absolutely diary worthy. The "thats cetainly a position John has taken" is the first time she really seemed unprepared and cornered in the Debates. Although i must admit that the only reason it IS diary worthy is because she has done so well up to this point.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

The point is - IMHO - regardless of her performance in other debates - the media declares her the "winner" and "presidential" - as Murdoch as instructed.  Hillaries aren't accustomed to analyses of Hillary without a corporate media slant. But most online progressives have given her a low grade for forum performance and her blah, blah, blah in breakout to decrease the number of questions.

Why would a candidate get in bed with a man who led the cheers to impeach her husband?


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

from what i've seen a lot of people in the blogging community liked Clintons performance.

When bloggers said she hit the health care question out of the park was that Murdoch too?


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

Hillary is a woman therefore she has to be perfect or its back to the kitchen.  ha ha


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:07:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hillary knows where the kitchen is??? (none / 0)


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hillary knows where the kitchen is??? (none / 0)

Good one lolol


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OMG!!!! (none / 0)

She's not perfect!


by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:27:24 PM EST

Re: OMG!!!! (none / 0)

I know, I've been crying most of the day. My heart is crushed.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (none / 0)

The Netroots wouldn't have been doing their job.


by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (3.00 / 1)

Still she did more good then bad overall. This'll be the most hostile crowd she'll face during the primaries. She didn't win the debate, But this should have been her most difficult challenge until the caucus itself. And if this is the worst mistake she made... Then I'm impressed.

I think more people there thought more positive about her after YK appearances then before. And that was what she had to do.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (none / 0)

this is perhaps the sadest comment along this thread. a  modicum of actually having to answer questions relevant to most normal people is consider the toughest she will face. well there you have it in a nutshell. i would hope this isn't the toughest any of them will have to face.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (none / 0)

That would've been a nice sentiment if I wasn't primarily talking in terms of hostility of the crowd. Obama and Edwards were playing a home game. Clinton was facing her most difficult audience. They'll all be very busy answering questions relevant to most normal people for months and months to come in town halls and other forums as well.

And I'm also intrigued. What should be more difficult having to answer questions relevant to most normal people for any politician.? Seems to me that should the most important task any politician should have during election time. So what would be more important for a politician to do and what should be a bigger challenge?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:25:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

She was honest that she will take money directly from lobbyists, including the corporate ones.  But I cannot support a candidate who does this.  


by benny06 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:27:33 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

since you said that then read this.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obam as-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen. -obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-0 4-19.html


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 2)

Obama's not my candidate.  John Edwards is.

Thanks for the links though.


by benny06 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

So its ok to take it from hedgefunds and trial lawyers


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes it is proper (none / 0)

To take donations from those who work on Wall Street.  Edwards doesn't take donations directly from a hedge fund.   Folks at his former employer, Fortress, do contribute to his campaign, and well aware that he has said that hedge fund managers will have to ante up more investments for universal health care, which means he will repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making over 250K.  

Further, all of the candidates, although I cannot say for Mike Gravel, take donations from lawyers.  

If you think Dennis K is pure in not receiving donations from Wall Street workers, go look at his recent 2Q report.


by benny06 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's lobbyists world (none / 0)

>>>>>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."

Dutta declined to discuss his work.

Williams, of Credit Suisse, said that asking for access to lobbyists' networks is not the same as asking lobbyists to raise money for Obama.

"When they say, `Give us access to your network,' it's not so we can raise money from them; it's so we can have conversations with them and see whether [members of the networks] are interested in what we're saying," he said. "They may decide they are not interested."

Some lobbyists who favor Obama want to stay below the radar to avoid retaliation from rivals such as Clinton, Biden, and Dodd.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Thank you for the heads up with regard to The Hill article.  Obama is a sorry character.  He has certainly learned the ropes when it comes to lobbiests while professing to be holier than anyone else.  So he asks for money from lobiests' wives and takes influence from the lobbiests.  What this means is that in effect he is saying to the fat cats "I am your guy and I will do your bidding."  If you accept lobbiest money it is not necessarily a quid pro quo but if you take their influence then you have sold yourself to the highest bidder.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Chances are that you wouldn't support her regardless of what she did or didn't do. We are talking less than 1% of her total contributions coming from lobbyists. That ain't exactly a lot of cash.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Her answer completely undermines (3.00 / 3)

the rationale for having not only campaign finance reform, but ethics reform in government. Its that sweeping when you look at what she's saying - in a nutshell big money doesn't influence government.

She also indirectly equates the interests of groups like big pharma, banking interests with groups like unions, teachers, nurses etc. I'm sure they don't particularly like that comparison.

I'm not sure she really meant to go so far in her statements, but either way, she said it and its huge. Seems to go to Johnathan's idea that she just really wasn't prepared for the question and rushed out something quick, hoping it would work. Either she'll backtrack, which seems doubtful, or she is going to entrech herself in this rather extremist position (for the Democratic party).

Not a good move and certainly won't play well in NH or Iowa or probably anywhere else that gets wind of this. Guaranteed the other campaigns will make great use of this in the early primary states


by okamichan13 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:30:05 PM EST

Re: Her answer completely undermines (none / 0)

Obama and Edwards better hope their glass houses are strong enough to withstand a counterpunch.

For example, Obama's campaign has taken in more money from Pharmaceutical companies than Clinton's. By setting himself up on a pedestal, Obama becomes vulnerable to an hypocrisy attack.


by hwc on Mon Aug 06, 2007 a