The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine

  There's an old addage that goes something like, "The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel".

  There's something about the complete abandon of logic and consistency, the utter absurdity in claims and actions, that foils a rational mind and leads it into laughter. This is a lesson of so many great satirists: from Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss to Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. It includes Bush's "best of all possible wars" and how Hillary "learned to stop worrying and love the bomb". And it is a lesson not unlearned by the Edwards and Obama campaigns.

  Apparently, it will be Edwards and Obama who will be "standing up to the special interests" for America. After repeated slams of Clinton for accepting money from registered lobbyisits they have imaged themselves as the clean candidates who refuse such special interests. At Yearly Kos, Clinton was challenged on lobbyist funds and rightfully booed when claiming that it would not affect her policy. Obama countered that these lobbyists wouldn't be spending Billions if they weren't having an effect, saying "They aren't spending that just because they are contributing to the public interest. They have an agenda".

  Edwards was even more aggressive saying, "Why don't we start today reforming the Democrat Party by all of us admitting no more from this day forward, not a dime from the Washington lobbyists... We do not do business with these insiders". Then in a grand form of a common sense gesture, he asked the crowd, "does anyone here have registered lobbyists working for them?". Apparently, no one raised there hand.

  However, it is unlikely that many in the crowd had money bundlers, members of hedge funds and 527 commitees working for them either. Edwards didn't ask that question. But why?

  Before the campaign, Edwards started two nonprofit organizations and a 527 soft mony commitee that raised $2.7 Million. However, according to the N.Y. Times:

"So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it."

Mr. Edwards depended for his activities in large part on donations from supporters. In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 "soft money" organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.

From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile.

  And further added:

Of the explicitly political entities, Mr. Edwards' OneAmerica Committee 527 organization allowed donors to give without limitations. The money was transferred to his leadership political action committee. Leadership committees were initially created to allow prominent politicians to raise money for distribution to needy office-seekers. But Mr. Edwards spent the entire $2.7 million he raised for OneAmerica, including $532,000 raised by the 527, on himself, an increasingly common trend among politicians.

  Edwards is also the the only Democratic presidential contender who has worked for a hedge fund: New York-based Fortress Financial Group LLC. And "received $182,250 in campaign contributions from employees of Fortress Fortress in the first thee months of this year".  

  And then there's the money bundlers: Edwards has 543 bundlers! That's more than double the number of Clinton and Obama (not that having over 200 each is great). What's worse Edwards doesn't even disclose who they are who they work for or even how much they raise!

  And what of Obama? He has 262 bundlers and only discloses names after they raise $50,000.  He hosts dinner like this one. He keeps talking about refusing money from lobbyisits and PAC's, but as this article shows, he secretly recives their help. From the article:

While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help...

...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.

  It's also worth mentioning that both Edwards and Obama attended, and spoke at, the national convention of the lobbying group for trial lawyers. In fact, Fred Baron, former president of American Trial Lawyers of America is Edwards financial chairman. And Obama has accepted money from law firms with lobbying operations.

  But, I'm sure none of this will affect their policies, right Dr. Pangloss? And I'm sure these are the two to clean up Washington, right Dr. Strangelove?

  ...or maybe I'll have to start writing tragedies.



Display:


Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (none / 0)

This is the typical "outsider" posture.  It isn't serious.  They are all getting money from the same kinds of sources.  It's absolutely sad when their supporters try to differentiate from state lobbyist and federal lobbyist.  You don't raise 30 million dollars selling tee shirts.  We can have publically financed elections or we can have a more transparent system, but this idea of getting money for spouses and partners and former lobbyist, it actually makes the process less transparent, which makes it more difficult to hold politicians accountable.


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:23:06 PM EST

Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (none / 0)

Hey, your diary made Hillaryhub.  Congrats.  :-)


by georgep on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. :-) (none / 0)


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Issue Is Taking Washington Lobbyist Money (none / 0)

This is very simple.  Hillary Clinton should NOT take any money from registered Washington lobbyists.  

She is the only one of the top three candidates who takes money from registered (yes, these are registered individuals) Washington lobbyists. Washington lobbyists are a very special, select group of individuals. They spend all day, every single day, steering our government.  

A February 2007 Harris poll found that 79% of Americans believe that Washington lobbyists have too much power and influence on our government.  Duh, they know the truth!    

Look, she is on one side of this particular issue, and 79% of America is on the OTHER side.  If she persists with her retrogressive position, and the media continues to report on this fact, her support could plummet.  She is actually risking it all, by standing up for Washington lobbyists, and taking all their money.  What is she thinking?!  

And yes, Clinton supporters (like the diarist) are free to change the subject, free to criticize Edwards and Obama for taking money from individuals who happen to be in various other professions...including gasp...lawyers!  (BTW, the top three have received about the same amount of money from lawyers.  OMG!) Earth to Clinton supporters, lawyers are NOT the equivalent of registered Washington lobbyists!  Duh.

To Clinton supporters who want to help Clinton win the nomination, I would strongly suggest you email the campaign and tell her to STOP taking money from Washington lobbyists.  She needs to change her mind on this, and you need to help apply the pressure.  

Not taking money from Washington lobbyists is the progressive thing to do.  It is the principled thing to do.  And, interestingly, it is the smarter thing to do politically.  

Clinton is needlessly skating on very thin ice here.  And for what?!


by Demo37 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The same crap... (3.00 / 4)

and the same hate from the same Clinton supporters.  Didn't you hear your candidate last night?  Why so much hate?  You all could learn a great lesson from her.  You all act like your candidate is in last place.

Yes, Edwards and Obama have bundlers.  Stop the presses.  But not from lobbyists.  Can Clinton say the same?  Edwards and Obama do not take money from PACs or Washington lobbyists.  Can Clinton say the same?

Clinton went from the debate last night to a fundraiser at the home of a lobbyist.  Does Edwards or Obama have that same distiction?

While I have some issues with Obama's conversion with lobbyists and PACs, and how complete his break is, Clinton has expressly celebrated not just her ties, but her status as candidate of the corporate crowd.  Congrats.

For the record, according to opensecrets.org, contributions from some selected industries are set forth below.  This information is more telling than that supplied by the diarist, who found it necessary to mislead and imply there was deception or hypocrisy on the part of both Edwards and Obama.

Of course, all of the top candidates received significant support, especially from lawyers, though one would not realize this about Clinton from those here.  Only Edwards is allegedly in their pockets.  

Notice the giving of the other special interests, representing the most powerful industries in America.  See where the candidates get their money and who is getting the most.

   Industries that relate to Health Care:

   Insurance Industry:
       Christopher J. Dodd: $592,950
       Hillary Clinton: $341,240
       Barack Obama: $258,172
       Bill Richardson: $91,183
       John Edwards: $83,737
       Joseph R. Biden: $61,325
       Dennis J. Kucinich: $500

   Pharmaceuticals/Health Products:
       Hillary Clinton: $172,150
       Barack Obama: $160,572
       Christopher J. Dodd: $56,700
       Joseph R. Biden Jr.: $10,500
       Bill Richardson: $7,150
       John Edwards: $6,758
       Dennis J. Kucinich: $800

   Health Professionals:
       Hillary Clinton: $998,851
       Barack Obama: $701,993
       John Edwards: $254,297
       Bill Richardson: $131,225
       Joseph R. Biden: $74,050
       Christopher J. Dodd: $66,250
       Dennis J. Kucinich: $7,900
       Mike Gravel: $1,000

   Industries that Relate to Money and Investments:

   Hedge Funds:
       Christopher J. Dodd: $726,950
       Hillary Clinton: $703,600
       Barack Obama: $652,105
       John Edwards: $218,290
       Bill Richardson: $85,900
       Joseph R. Biden: $28,300

   Securities & Investment:
       Hillary Clinton: $3,330,325
       Barack Obama: $3,156,174
       Christopher J. Dodd: $2,200,916
       John Edwards: $668,590
       Bill Richardson: $351,000
       Joseph R. Biden: $250,900
       Dennis J. Kucinich: $750
       Mike Gravel: $250

   Commercial Banks:
       Barack Obama: $607,259
       Hillary Clinton: $492,725
       Christopher J. Dodd: $352,500
       John Edwards: $131,876
       Joseph R. Biden: $102,250
       Bill Richardson: $83,000
       Dennis J. Kucinich: $225

   Real Estate:
       Hillary Clinton: $2,746,039
       Barack Obama: $1,337,529
       Christopher J. Dodd: $582,783
       John Edwards: $500,870
       Bill Richardson: $418,775
       Joseph R. Biden: $328,784
       Dennis J. Kucinich: $6,800
       Mike Gravel: $300

   Lawyers/Law Firms:
       John Edwards: $6,541,388
       Hillary Clinton: $6,259,925
       Barack Obama: $5,471,423
       Joseph R. Biden: $1,546,518
       Bill Richardson: $861,022
       Christopher J. Dodd: $827,940
       Dennis J. Kucinich: $7,236
       Mike Gravel: $500

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select .asp?cycle=2008

Is it not Clinton who is at or near the top in every category?

Yet here come the usuals, screaming "hypocrites, phonies, losers."  The name parade keeps coming.  You all talk worse of other Democrats than you do of Bush himself.  And that is pathetic.

Reading the vile, the ridicule, the right wing talking points, day after day, shows us more about you all than you may realize.


by citizen53 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:33:44 PM EST

Re: The same crap... (none / 0)

Is she not favored to win?  This only proves what hypocrites Edwards and Obama are.


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:37:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The same crap... (none / 0)

WTF???


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

when hillary loses... (none / 0)

i'll bet all the people who called democrats hypocrites will be gone.  hillary, of course, if the biggest hypocrite of them all!  she has the audacity to attack cheney's secretiveness in developing an energy proposal when she did the very same thing with health care.  she says this is a change election while she continues to defend the status quo, presidential prerogatives and a failed nuclear strategy.  she dares attack the white house for withholding rove's emails when she hid her own billing records in a white house closet.

there is no bigger hypocrite than hillary.  bookgrl is right -- edwards and obama are lightweights when compared to her hypocrisy...


"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 Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:19:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks... (3.00 / 1)

as the name parade continues.

I sure hope you looked at the numbers, too.

Might as well include Lobbyists:

Lobbyists:

Hillary Clinton: $413,140
Christopher J. Dodd: $174,050
Joseph R. Biden Jr.: $90,050
Bill Richardson: $67,400
Barack Obama: $60,567
John Edwards: $10,450

Even if these are state lobbyists, Clinton received 40 times more than Edwards and almost 7 times more than Obama.

Using the logic we get here from the namecalling Clinton supporters, is it fair that we call her 40 times more corrupt?

Nice going, however, in illustrating exactly what I was sating.  I really appreciate the help.


by citizen53 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks... (none / 0)

So the lobbyists know John Edwards is a loser and they give him less money. And your point is what?

I really think Edwards is bringing this stuff up because he is behind in the polls and for no other reason. It's a sour grapes now I am suddenly purer because I haven't raised AS MUCH money from lobbyists as Hillary.


by DoIT on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:50:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The numbers speak for themselves... (none / 0)

and if the diary can imply that there was wrongful bundling and other activities, we will just have to live with the actual numbers as indicative of the level of support by respective sectors.


by citizen53 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 02:26:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, he's right... (none / 0)

you are comparing apples (paid lobbyists for industries, who can legally report their industry as lobbying) and oranges (contributors who happen to work in those industries).  but i don't expect hillary's supporters to know better, they've been intentionally misled by bill in this regard...


"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 Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0)

I am not a Clinton supporter, even though you needed to make a snide remark, so typical these days.  Nice going.

As to the numbers, I did not pretend that they serve anything other than what they are.  I even included the lobbying numbers elsewhere in the thread.

That said, while the numbers are not broken down by individuals, let's not pretend that the bulk of the funds come from people giving $25 or even $100.

This is especially so in Clinton's case, so far as I know.


by citizen53 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry for assuming... (none / 0)

i only see obama and clinton supporters nowadays...


"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 Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (none / 0)

Old comedy..or not..next


by benny06 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:44:05 PM EST

Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (none / 0)

What you posted showed is that they are all getting gobs of money from the same sources.  In fact, commercial banks love Obama, trial lawyers are crazy for Edwards.


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:49:04 PM EST

Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (none / 0)

This is in response to citizen53.  I posted in the wrong place.


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Opps, I mean clarkent. (none / 0)


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary the Overdog (none / 0)

Remember how quickly Bush began repaying his contributors after being elected? He made deals, he raided the government, he forced war upon the nation, and no telling what else, just to make his big donors happy...at the expense, I might add, of average workaday Americans.

With Hillary being so top-heavy with all the same folks that supported Bush, will she not also feel compelled to consider THEIR interests first?

These are the same folks who are also in bed with Big Media...which is why Edwards is not being given a fair shake. He has never been given a fair shake by the pussilanimous, deferential, obsequious Media.

Edwards is the underdog. As a David, I have always pulled for the underdog. And now I hear they are making a movie...(or is it a film???)

Dodd is great. Dodd is good. In fact they all are this year. May the cream rise to the top, and may we have the wisdom to vote for them.


David Beckwith Charlotte
by anonyMoses on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:59:28 PM EST

Re: Hillary the Overdog (none / 0)

"Edwards is the underdog. As a David, I have always pulled for the underdog. And now I hear they are making a movie...(or is it a film???)"

The "underdog" movie was just released this past weekend, fyi.  


by georgep on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary the Overdog (none / 0)

Most excellent...thanks! :)


David Beckwith Charlotte
by anonyMoses on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trial lawyers... (none / 0)

Clinton is loved by them, too.  $6,259,925 worth of love.  She almost got as much as the $6,541,388 that Edwards received.

Yes, you can pick one or two categories to cherry pick your point, but Clinton is no lower than 2nd in ANY!

Why no name calling this time?  I almost didn't recognize the post.  


by citizen53 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:59:29 PM EST

Wake up, buddy. They are (none / 0)

all getting tons of money from the same sources.  she's favored to win, so she get alot of backers.  It isn't brain surgery.  


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all... (3.00 / 0)

I am not your buddy.  My buddies don't, without hesitation, call other Democrats hypocrites.  Got that?

If you want to believe she just gets money because she is favored, go for it.  I think it's funny that you want to imply that she is not out there heavily fundraising among the most powerful special interests.

Just why do you think they give?  Totally altruistic I suppose.

And, by the way, since she is the one favored, then how does Obama do it?  Huh?  Tell me, please, even though it's not brain surgery.


by citizen53 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all... (none / 0)

They are all going after the same dollars.  


by bookgrl on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:17:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep saying it... (none / 0)

but that does not make it so.

Edwards said he did not want the money from Washington lobbyists and PACs and Fox management, but Clinton said she did.

So they are NOT going after the same dollars. try though you might to spin to the contrary.


by citizen53 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 02:22:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trial lawyers... (none / 0)

And all that does is prove that the reason Edwards is attacking Hillary is that he is low in the polls and Hillary is getting almost as much money from a constituency that he rightfully should have a lock on, at least in his own mind.


by DoIT on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (3.00 / 1)

Speaking as someone who is extremely unenthusiastic about HRC, I have to say bookgrl is right.  The distinctions here are micro.  You can't expect to address the pervasiveness of a lousy campaign funding system in the midst of a competitive campaign, and you can't expect a candidate to completely renounce tainted money when money is so linked to winning.  So...we know they're all a bit disingenuous on this issue.  Let's move on.


by PositiveLiberty on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:29:39 PM EST

Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (none / 0)

Well said.  After this election, I hope there is a movement for publicly financed elections.  I believe all the Dem's candidates said they would support this, so I hope we hold them to it.


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Washington Lobbyists Are Not A Micro Issue (3.00 / 1)

My goodness, what happened to progressives?

Washington DC is corrupt...therefore...let's keep taking money from registered Washington lobbyists?  Yipes! Do you remember the Abramoff scandal?  Uh...it was about the unseemly power of lobbyists over Washington DC.  Remember that particular problem we have?

Hillary Clinton is the last holdout on this.  Edwards and Obama are doing the right thing.  She needs to do the right thing, and change her mind on this.  Stop taking money from registered Washington lobbyists.  


by Demo37 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards-Obama Comedy Routine (1.00 / 1)

Both Edwards and Obama aren't fooling everyone, just their supporters, and they will not be enough to get either one of them the nomination, thank Goodness.

Everyone kept wondering why Obama started to sound like Edwards- well, now we know- he's a big hypocrite just like him- that's why.  I'm embarrassed for the Democratic party to have these two on a national stage.


by reasonwarrior on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 02:23:25 AM EST

yeah, better for the democratic party to be led... (none / 0)

by a war-monger.  that's the contrast!  <shakes head>


"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 Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:25:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]


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.