Do Edwards and Obama take "Dirty Money" too?

John Edwards and Barrack Obama have made a big deal about how they don't take "dirty" political money from registered lobbyists.  But, what they dont tell you is that they are more than happy to take big checks from DC's most inside insiders.

If they actually believe that the big problem in Politics is "big money" , why is there this blatant hypocritical double standard for whom they will take money from?

All of the major Democratic candidates are getting over half their fund raising money in checks of over $1000. (and yes, this includes Barrack Obama, who has made it seem that he has raised most of his money in $5 bills.)

From my experience in politics, (and in my earliest days - I worked as, everyone does in the beginning, as a fundraiser at times) many, actually, most of these donors will - sometime call on the member or politician...for something. (Not that this means that they are asking for bad things, often its for tickets to something, a Capital flag or for a meeting for a fine and civic cause) It is completely misleading for those in power, like Edwards and Obama,  who clearly know this - to draw this artificial line.  I know big time and very higly paid Washington insiders, none of whom are registered lobbyists, who are helping Barrack, Edwards...and also, Dodd and Biden...or ALL of the major candidates.  These people are paid by clients to influence politicians, this does not mean that they lobby on legislative issues.  Explain to me please, the big difference between the two.  Please understand, the majority of the biggest money makers in DC and on K street - arent lobbyists - they live, thrive and prosper under the vaguest of insider titles...they are the "consultants".

I looked at Obamas list and there were a slew of DC consultants and corporate reps there that I knew.  It is well known that Barrack's fundraisers have met with some of K Streets biggest players and asked them for their own personal fundraising contact list and solicited these lobbyists to get checks from their spouses and other family members because they were going to make "an issue" about "refusing" lobbyist contributions. The insincerity of those actions led to a couple of stories in the Wash Post and Chicago Tribune early in this campaign.(Plus, if you wanna see big money at play, look at Obama's list of his Chicago and Illinois supporters...)  On Edward's list there were some of the biggest and richest (and smarmiest) lawyers in all of Washington, DC. (Remember, that Edward's own Trial Lawyers Assoc. worked - hand in hand - with the health Insurance Assoc of America to kill health care reform in the 90s)

If you think that Hillary is dirty here, whilst Obama and Edwards are clear....well, I think you ought to learn more about how the political system really works in this age.

This "new" attack by Edwards and Obama and their fans is nothing but the oldest type of politics. Attacking another's morality and character for doing something that the attacker knows, perfectly well, that they are doing themselves.

By the way, in effort for full disclosure, I myself have been a registered lobbyist.  I lobbied for labor rights in new legislation for a member union of the AFL CIO.  That is nothing to be ashamed of.  Rather, I am quite proud of our work and efforts.

I sure wouldn't feel that way if I was one of the slew of Edward's campaign contributors who worked with the Trial Lawyers Association to kill the Health Care Initiative in 1993. They did this just so they could have the "right" to make tens of millions of dollars in fees in the very lucrative medical malpractice industry.

It seems that my idea of who's dirty and who's clean differs greatly with two of the multi millionaires who are running to be the nominee of our Democratic Party to be President of these United States.

Tags: Edwards, Fundraising, Hillary, lobbying, obama (all tags)

Comments

67 Comments

Re:

if both obama and edwards want to make this their latest campaign strategy it would backfire on them.

by lori 2007-08-05 12:46PM | 0 recs
Edwards has been consistent

this is his message going back to 1998...

http://www.youtube.com/v/Tyj9KJWGWMA

by TarHeel 2007-08-05 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has been consistent

CITIGROUP

by alipi 2007-08-05 03:40PM | 0 recs
Good article

Here is a good article Big Tent Dem linked to on this very thing:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/66 092.html

The hypocrisy on this issue is absolutely over the top.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Good article

I am confident the clinton camp can handle this easily

by lori 2007-08-05 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks!

Apparently its okay for Obama to accept lobbyists money from Chicago but not from Washington

by lori 2007-08-05 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks!

Yes. It is.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-05 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Good article

how does edwards fits into this diary?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:37PM | 0 recs
he doesn't

he isn't a lifelong politician

by TarHeel 2007-08-05 02:59PM | 0 recs
not a lifetime politician?

no, hes just been camped out in Iowa for 5 years. Real smart, buddy, real smart.

by alipi 2007-08-05 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Good article

What hypocracy? All that article did was argue the same old tired and irrational argument, which basicly says that refusing to take money from lobbyists means nothing if you don't also shun them completely and refuse to take money from anyone who ever sat next to them on the bus.

Of course that is nonsense.

The point is not that lobbyists are the spawn of Satan and even sharing the same airspace will polute the fabric of your soul forever--the point is that lobbyists have too much influence in the political process, and too much of that influence comes not from the arguments they make but from the checks they write.

Guess what? In the real world wives of lobbyists are actually different people who usually have their own careers and opinions and checkbooks. The implicit sexism in the assumption that a donation from a lobbyists wife is the same as a donation by the lobbyist becomes clear if you ask yourself why is it only the wives everyone is concerned about? Lots of lobbyists are women--how much ya wanna bet some of their husbands made donations to one candidate or another?

But that's the thing--we don't automatically assume that any political donation made by a man whose wife happens to be a lobbyist is reeeeaaaaallly a sneaky way for his wife to donate under the radar. We assume that if a man writes a check to a candidate it's because he supports that candidate.

But if it's a woman who writes the check, and her husband happens to be a lobbyist, then obviously the donation is reeeeaaaallly from him, because as a woman she's only an extension of her husband, right?

As for accepting money from "firms that have lobbying operations" that's so silly it's hillarious. This just goes back to the same ridiculous argument that says that accepting donations from anyone who has ever met a lobbyist is the same as accepting money from the lobbyist themself.

So I guess Obama and Edwards really are hypocrits. They have both taken a courageous stand in an attempt to limit (but not eliminate) lobbyist influence in Washington, but none of that counts if they don't also eschew donations from everyone who's ever met a lobbyist. And with the whole 'five degrees of seperation' thing that's just not possible.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-05 02:31PM | 0 recs
Wrong

Here is a good article Big Tent Dem linked to on this very thing:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/66 092.html

The hypocrisy on this issue is absolutely over the top.

Bookgrl  - no hypocrisy - Clinton could do the same thing.  Couldn't she?  

by dk2 2007-08-05 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re:

This is just the latest ploy.  Nobody ever talks about lobbyists on the blogs, it is barely mentioned.  All of a sudden, bam, we see 6,7 diaries on it?  Because it was made into an issue at Ykos, the ONLY issue Clinton was not in 100% sync with the crowd?   Why lobbying all of a sudden?  DC lobbyists amount to a smidgen of total contributions, less than 1% of Clinton's contribution intake, for instance, which obviously makes this one of the least important issues imaginable.  

 So, why that issue?   Because the detractors have run out of other issues to try.  If there was ever a setting at which Iraq could have become a major issue for Clinton, it was Ykos.   Yet, NOTHING.  Not a peep.  In fact, her comments on Iraq got a lot of applause.    The same is true for issues like education, health care, etc.  

I am glad this is the turf that is being fought now.  It is rather ho-hum and does not promise to change the race one iota, is just insider-discussion stuff.    But it also shows that Iraq is a major plus for Clinton, as Democrats nationally and in any state believe that Clinton would be best in handling Iraq, foreign affairs, an international crisis, etc.

by georgep 2007-08-05 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re:

Yeah its just funny this is what the campaign has become all about , lobbyist money .

Edwards , whenever I hear him speak I always get a strange uneasy feeling about him , I don't think I could vote for him in the primary . Because I just wonder how someone can be so radically different from 04 to 07 , I get the same feeling when I listen to Mitt Romney.

If you read these 2 articles you will see the hypocrisy in terms of lobbying

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

by lori 2007-08-05 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: my goodness...the hypocricy is startling

Yeah its quite startling , the sneakiness of the whole thing . At least She is up front about it . Thats why Obama in particular if he is called out will be in serious trouble . There is no way to spin it , even his campaign officials recognize it.

by lori 2007-08-05 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re:

I agree. Both Edwards and Obama are hypocrites. But let's just put aside the merit of this debate, NOBODY cares about this issue just as Edwards' Murdoch attack is so feeble. Voters care about Iraq, healthcare, education, on and on...

by areyouready 2007-08-05 01:32PM | 0 recs
I agree.

What is sad is how contrived this all was on the Obama side at least(I keep hearing conflicting information about Edwards, so I'll keep it zipped on him) for the get go.  Go to federal lobbyist and get them, their spouses, their partners to make contributions and then decry the system.  I mean, this is a campaign gimmick. Axelrod did the same thing with Deval Patrick in MA, except in that case it was no state PAC's in the primary.  What is also funny about the DP re-do, is that DP railed against, guess who?  State legislatures.  I love DP, and he truly is a remarkable person, but it is sort of funny to see a guy who was a state legislature for 8 years and then a sitting senator for 2 year try running the DP outsider campaign.  I mean, in the GE it is almost 100% sure that the GOP candidate will be far more of a "outsider" than Obama.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

Yeah , Obama case in particular its just disgusting . Every day something contradicts his image , I am beginning to feel like the foundation was built on a pack of falsehood, i mean if you read those articles you can't all but feel disgusted . How can you go all over the place and deride lobbysist and do what you are doing . You are basically being clever by a half.

by lori 2007-08-05 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

This is exactly what's wrong with these politicians who like to grandstand. It's absolutely disgusting.

by areyouready 2007-08-05 01:52PM | 0 recs
Grand stand !

Clinton is the expert at grand standing isn't she?

SHe could except the challange - but she didn't, she could do the same thing they are doing, but she isn't?

by dk2 2007-08-05 03:18PM | 0 recs
Not the only issue...

I think there were other things besides electoral reform to worry about.  This recent report from AP on a blogger's question raises an issue for her campaign which she will need to deal with:


CHICAGO (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president on her husband's White House record, and it's a strategy that cuts both ways.

The New York senator and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, constantly remind voters of the nation's economic prosperity in the 1990s and his record on the environment, college aid and family medial leave. Press releases from the campaign often include sentences that start , "Under the Clinton administration ..."

"Yesterday's news was pretty good," Bill Clinton said last month in Iowa while campaigning with his wife.

But yesterdays' news isn't always easy to explain today.

A San Francisco blogger made that painfully clear to Sen. Clinton during the Yearly Kos Convention, when he asked whether she would support or repeal four major pieces of legislation enacted during the Clinton administration - the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act, the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform.

All four laws are unpopular with liberal voters who historically dominate Democratic primaries and caucuses. The political landscape for Democrats has changed since the 1990s on issues such as gay rights, trade and welfare reform - due in part to the rise of the influential and polarizing liberal blogosphere. That means candidates like Clinton must shift, too, or defend their refusal to do so.

The San Francisco man had put Clinton on the spot.

So she hedged and dodged in a complicated set of answers to explain herself.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gave states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, "served a very important purpose," she told the blogger. The law staved off Republican efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, Clinton said, an argument that seems to consign her husband's support of the law to the "necessary evil" category.

It also assumes the voters will buy the assumption that Republicans had the political might to change the Constitution, a Herculean task.

Clinton said she would favor repeal of a provision of the act that theoretically could endanger the federal benefits of gay couples.

The Telecommunications Act is unpopular with Democratic bloggers and other liberals who believe the law has led to rampant media consolidation. The topic received widespread discussion at the Kos convention, which wrapped up Sunday, in light of Ruppert Murdoch's purchase of The Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch's massive global media and entertainment empire includes Fox broadcast network, which is vilified by liberal bloggers.

Clinton dodged the issue

"You'd have to ask Al Gore," she told the blogger, referring to the former vice president who spearheaded the Clinton administration's telecommunications policies. "Al was very involved in designing and pushing that through."

It wasn't lost on Clinton's crowd that Gore has not ruled out a presidential run in 2008. She had just passed he buck to a potential rival.

It is rare to hear Clinton, one of the field's most polished candidates, admit ignorance on a policy issue. But doing so came in handy as she fobbed off the question on Gore.

"He's an expert," she said. "I'm not."

The North American Free Trade Agreement lowered economic barriers between the United States, Canada and Mexico, but many voters believe it has cost the nation more jobs than it has produced. It's a constant source of tension for Clinton on the campaign trail.

While she won't commit to repealing NAFTA as some other Democrats do, Clinton puts some distance between herself and her husband by saying one of the cornerstone's of his presidency "did not realize the benefits it ... promised."

His decision to sign the 1996 welfare reform law angered many of his advisers, including some from his wife's political circle. But he felt enormous political pressure to sign the Republican-backed legislation or be branded a liberal in the run-up to his re-election campaign.

Sen. Clinton did not disavow the welfare legislation, but she didn't exactly embrace it, either.

"The positives," she told the blogger, "far outweigh the negatives."

She hopes the same can be said about the strategy to run on her husband's record.

Ron Fournier AP - 5 August 2007

In spite of the parting shot in this article the AP has been pretty kind to Hillary through the course of the campaign, I don't see this as a partisan attack.  Yet if this is the perception in the primary how is she going to manage this problem in the general election?  Apologies for quoting the article in full but I couldn't find any sections which I could bear to snip.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

The perception of the Democratic voters as a whole is EXTREMELY positive towards Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration. The idea that being tied to the Clinton administration hurts Hillary is just pure nonsense.

by hwc 2007-08-05 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

what problem ? I'm scatching my head...

by areyouready 2007-08-05 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

what perception , that she is running on the record of the clinton administration ? that i will say is an overwhelming positive for her among dems in the primary and yes she will have to deal with its double edge in the general, we will cross that bridge when we get there , but in the primary its a no brainer . In New hampshire the 2 for 1 argument is working well for her

by lori 2007-08-05 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

She won't be able to handle it. Her supporters go along the line sof inevitablity and they respond to all issues saying one is repeating a right wing argument without answering the question regarding the issue itself. The problem she face is there is no defense to what she is doing.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

The problem is that you really have nothing to say in these types of posts.   And, yes, the Lincoln bedroom smear is right-wing crap that has been thoroughly debunked, so it is hardly discussion worthy, just because you wish it to be.  

by georgep 2007-08-05 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

georg- you have yet to prove my assertions wrong.t he one person who did posted something confirm ghe point in teh form of some blog entry saying that the issue was in the ordinary course of doing busines sin washington- like that somehow answered the ethical or political concern. if its a smear- show me that they didn't  let people stay there who weren't political donors. its pretty easy to prove me wrong if i am wholesale making it up. you don't get that for once i would like to be proven wrong. i felt this at the time and i have voted for her since this incident happened. the diffrence between you and i is that i dont lie to myself when supporting a candidate. so again- show me how pointing out what happened smears her unles syou are claiming it didn't happened. in which case iw ill be happy to apologize. the rest of this shit by you is just you try to deflect from teh criticism. as i said once before about you- its clear you really realy dont like discussing issues unless you think its helps your candidate.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

As I said numerous times, I find it very cumbersome to talk with someone like yourself, but don't have that problem with others.   That is so because your style is overly confrontational and at times trollish.  In another diary you once again went way overboard, way, way overboard, with gutter behavior, and I am just not interested in that type of junk.  So, while I engage in full discussion with Shaun and many others, your posts usually show me a lack of what I would call an "interesting hook," so I decided to just not deal with you too deeply.   In the end you let yourself go to the point where you get overly personal and use ridiculous vernacular that is unseemly for this board (and subject to banning,) so I ask you, why bother?   I won't, until you can stop with this extreme personal crap you have distinguished yourself with on this blog, as I fear that engaging with you would turn into that, as it usually does, not from me but from your end, and I really have no time for that type of nonsense.    

Besides, ridiculous right-wing attacks like "Lincoln bedroom," "blowjobs," "raping Juanita" and the like are just not worthy of intelligent discussions.  They are just cheap talking points, nothing more.   Really dumb to use that stuff, actually.  Makes your point look weak, you know.  

by georgep 2007-08-05 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Did you answer my question about the behavior described as to whether it happened or not? And as I said to you- this approach you take with me isn't the best. You could have simply linked and said you are dead wrong on this bruh, and I would have accepted that as an answer. I am not interested in a jerk fest for my candidate or anyone elses- thats why I agreed with Big Tent about my candidates screw ups.  Because actually- I would like to be deadwrong on whether the stuff about the Clintons  happened or not.

This whole - you are being trollisth, etc, for asking and bringing up topics that make us as Democrats uncomfortable may work on others, I don't know, but I am hoping it doesn't work so well here. You say its been answered and proven to be a right wing frame.  The link provided me seems to say its ok because the GOP does it too or something like that. It doesn't say that the GOP flat out lied. Am I wrong o n this?

That's fine if I am because its okay to be wrong and find out how I am wrong. I haven't followed this since it was widely reported. The Clintons despite what you think aren't my life.  I asked for a link showing that they didn't let donors stay at the WH house because I was told here for the first time that I am wrong.

The right and left things is irrelevant to me  b/c I don't accept that the right should do it anymore than the democrats. I didn't become better with K street the minute we won office last year. You seem to be arguing my team versus there when I am asking about the behavior itself. Again, did they let donors stay at the WH?

Of course the right is full of shit. That's not really something I care about. What you consider over the top is that I am not really interested in being friends with you here or anyone here. I am interested in the subject matter I am asking about. When I ask in the other diary whether this site is about electoral politics alone or issues- its a serious question. Many of you seem so partisan and not very much interested in issues at all beyond how you ca spin it for your candidate. It really didn't come home to me until last week over the Pakistan issue. On that I will give you credit int at you seemed to legitimately believe what you were writing. But for too many it seemed an excuse to bash Obama who you know I don't support rather than what they thought of the issue.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Here is the thing about me, and I have been quite consistent with that on this site:

I don't care for "getting personal."  If someone tells someone else to "f- off" they are acting trollish, simple as that.  I don't care if that person is a Clinton supporter, an Obama or Edwards supporter.   That is why this place is such a good fit for me.  Time and time again posters are being told by the frontpagers to not get personal with each other, not at all.  Poster attacks are off-limit, especially the gratuitous kind.  Candidates (and also pundits, campaign staff, etc.)  are fair game.    So, from that vantage point I much prefer to talk with someone who may be emotional, yes, but who follows the golden rule to never let it go as far as yelling stuff at someone you would never say in their face in a personal meeting.    Ok, now, if things can be discussed on a respectful level, I am all ear.   We are Democrats, after all, and in a little over 4, 5  months most posters here will be strongly supporting the surviving candidate (probably Clinton.)  

As for the way your posts come across:  I can't really speak to how you discuss your chosen candidate, Edwards.  I don't read every post on here, but most.  However, you have demonstrated an intense dislike for Hillary Clinton which makes you a highly partisan anti-Hillarian who is basically unbending on anything to do with her.  It is hard to reason with such a person, it basically is impossible, as the negativity borders on the irrational.    That is why, once I detect such a drift, I don't really spend a lot of time trying.   To what end?  To "convince" you to vote for her?  I am not here for that.   So, when I read "Lincoln bedroom" from someone like yourself or "Juanita Broderick" from some of the other people in the same grouping, it is usually time to tune out and move on.  

by georgep 2007-08-05 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

yes because that intense dislike is defined by my having voted for her for Senate. if i dont like someone i dont vote for them no matter what. it's comments like that by you that makes conversations hostile with you because what you call personal is actually my trying to ask a legit quesiton without all the bullshit spin. still no answer from what i can tell to my basic question that asked several posts in as to how what i said was false. just a lot of how you don't get personal but then turn around and do exactly that.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Where did I get personal?  I stated that I have no appetite for personal attacks like "you are full of shit" or "you are an idiot" or "f-you."   I will never direct any of those types of attacks against you or any other poster, not just because it is sticking to the board rules and guidelines, but because it affords the other poster the proper respect in discourse.  The same civility we would give to someone we meet in a real-life setting should not be suspended just because we find ourselves in a virtual place and have anonymity.

Anyway, if you have a legitimate concern and want to ask, that's fine.  But "Lincoln bedroom" is right-wing narrative.  Are some here to harp on Edwards' right-wing narratives?   What purpose would that serve?  To make him look ridiculous?  To show how much disdain one has for him?   I don't get why someone would want to go into an area that 99% of posters on this blog would agree to be right-wing framing.    

by georgep 2007-08-05 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Why should anyone respond to right wing smears?  Didn't we have enough of that nonsense in the 90s?  If you were doing this on dkos you'd be troll rated.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-08-06 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Not much there, Shaun.  The "Defense of Marriage Act" issue for instance.  So, we are talking whether to make gay marriage legal rather than just allowing civil unions.  Edwards is the candidate with the problem on that issue, as the last debate showed.  It was apparently an embarassing moment for him.  The Edwards campaing tries to finesse the issue by showing that Elizabeth Edwards is FOR gay marriage while John Edwards is AGAINST it.   Obama is treading lightly on the subject as well.  

None of the candidates are running on revamping or redoing the welfare system.  It is simply not an issue.  Even Edwards, who runs on a poverty platform, has not made any statements regarding the current welfare system, instead focuses on health care.  

NAFTA is also never mentioned.  What exactly IS Obama's position on it?  Repeal?  Anyone know?  

Bottom line is that with the current top-tier candidates (especially with the current 1-2 alignment at the top) none of these issues are likely to play in any fashion, because the players involved don't have the profile of running against the  "Defense of Marriage Act" or for the repeal of the current welfare system and a return to the pre-1996 system.  

by georgep 2007-08-05 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

I take your point George, but the real problem is more that she, alone among Democratic candidates, has to basically defend the whole previous Clinton administration as if she were the incumbent and I see this as more of a general election than primary issue.

As for NAFTA I agree the silence is deafening and I wonder if this will become an issue, in many ways I wish it were more widely discussed.  Obama has steered clear of this too.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Yeah, I agree on that one.  She has to take the good with the bad from the Clinton years.  Most people think of it as a "good," but part of her problem with Republicans stems from their problems with Bill Clinton, no doubt.  

In a way, though, some of the items you mention will kind of help her appeal to moderates and Independents in the general, a reminder will serve to buffer some of the "overly liberal"   impression (from a moderate GOPers point of view) many have about Hillary Clinton at this point.  Many of them were indeed not happy about the welfare system and appreciated the change, not on GOP terms but a compromise that would preserve much of the old system.   Many of them are free traders, etc.  

I think if none of these items become issues in the primary season (they probably won't) they will probably be a bottom-line plus in the general.   Where the negatives come into play are more the personality issues (i.e. B.C.'s affair stuff.)

by georgep 2007-08-05 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Of course for nearly all Americans those years were pretty damn good.  For example, COPS did more to lower crime rates than anything else in a generation.  And, look at us now.  Bush underfunds the program, and crime is skyrocketing in the cities.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

I agree, George, and that was, I hoped, the point of the article too.  It's a two edged sword and while it is mostly cutting her way at this stage in the primary it may become an issue later.

I certainly don't think it will sink her, far from it, but it does reinforce the perception she is running as the virtual incumbent for the Democrats.  It is an unusual situation and too soon to say what the ramifications might be later, assuming, of course, she gains the nomination.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Boy!

Clinton was seriously on her game during that breakout session forum at DailyKos. She wonked em to death and was really charming.

Here's her opening remarks. I'll keep hunting for video of the Q&A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9m wM

by hwc 2007-08-05 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

She didn't pass the buck to a potential rival.  She knows, as well as most clear-headed people, Gore is not going to  run.   I thought her answer was deftly handled.  Bill's record is more of a positive than a negative but 8 years in the White House, there is always going to be something people take objection to.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-06 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

That's the bet, but the stakes are high.  She's staking a win in the primary against a potential general election negative.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-06 03:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

She would make a better candidate than Obama and Edwards- can you imagine what the Republicans would do with the major goofs that Obama and Edwards have made in the last two weeks?  Hillary is the only candidate smart and experienced enough to avoid potential disasters like those two.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-07 01:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Not the only issue...

Ya think?  The major goofs, eh?  And she's the only smart and experienced one?  Hmmm...  makes you wonder why the rest of us even bother, doesn't it.  

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-07 01:28AM | 0 recs
Hillary bends over for Corporate America

I'll take the Trial Lawyers over Pharma and Big Oil any day of the week.

by rbrianj 2007-08-05 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Im not saying they should be shunned

Yeah I did read it....and in a choice between two evils, greedy trial lawyers and corporate america, I'll still take the trial lawyers.

by rbrianj 2007-08-05 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary bends over for Corporate America

yes, you're right - you have only two candidates to choose from: HRC (big pharma, big oil) and JE (trial lawyers, creepy liars everywhere).

Surely there is no middle ground, surely there is no man running who can think for himself and not be swayed by the political winds du joir in decisions such as declaring pre-emptive war (without even reading the intelligence).

But you know, I hear there is a senator in Chicago..

by alipi 2007-08-05 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Who has TAKEN huge money and helped out

hmmm... was not aware of this. Climate action is my No.2 voting issue.. this may be a problem. Let me look into it more and get back to you.

by alipi 2007-08-06 05:08AM | 0 recs
These two

These two are absolute losers, hypocrites and whiners. The more they attack Hillary Clinton, the stronger we're behind her.

by areyouready 2007-08-05 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: These two

I'm glad you are solidly behind Hillary. It shows you are a dedicated person. I respect that.

by rbrianj 2007-08-05 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: These two

I have a feeling it is Edwards that will continue pushing this lobbyist issue , Obama will be painted in the corner if he tries it . Howard wolson alluded to it yesterday when he said  " Obama's campaign had made a decision to take lobbyist money from Chicago not from Washington " , that was a signal to him that if you try it we will expose you.

I don't know about Edwards yet but I won't be surprised if a story comes out tomorrow that he had accepted lobbyist money too.

by lori 2007-08-05 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: These two

Yes, he must be like the rest, and if he is then it justifies all that is being said in here in defense of the money interest weighing down legit debate in DC. Someone has an excellent diary up right now about how not all lobby interests are equal in terms of where the money is coming from. Some of you if you have an open mind might want to read that rather than trying to figure out how to drag all the candidates into the place. this isn't about your candidate versus ours- its about an issue. As I said with my diary I am becoming convinced that big tent democrat was right. Peo here really can not discuss issues. They inevitablly are dragged into clinton hater or some other nonsense.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:59PM | 0 recs
Hill

Hillary supporters, please recommend this diary. We need to counter every smear put out by those two losers.

by areyouready 2007-08-05 02:01PM | 0 recs
Straw men and cowardly lions

Let's start with the straw men--

Who, other than yourself, has said lobbyist money is "dirty."

What was your point about the $1000 checks? It seems like a pointless point at best.

Who told you that Barack Obama raised "most of his money in $5 bills?" Someone was lying to you, and it wasn't the Obama campaign. They've never said anything of the sort.

Your point about "consultants" is a valid point. But having said that the next question is whether we should just throw up our hands and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do." Or should we continue to take positive steps towards reducing the influence of money on politics? Lobbyists today, consultants tommorow?

Who attacked anyones "morality?"

You know, it's always a good policy that if you are going to critique a candidates position you should have the good grace to attack the actual positions they have taken instead of making upo a bunch of BS, putting it in the candidates mouths, and refuting your own BS. That's called 'setting up a straw man.' You look real impressive to the misinformed by knocking down those straw men, but you haven't touched on the real issue that Edwards brought up and Obama endorsed.

John Edwards challenged all the Democratic candidates to stop taking donations from lobbyists. This is a great idea.

Lobbyists are paid to influence politicians--that's their job. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as the tool they use to do the influencing is the power of their arguments and not the power of their pocketbooks.

No ones claiming that if they all just stopped taking lobbyist donations then everything would be perfect, the lion would lay down with the lamb, and butterflies would never die. The only thing I've heard anyone claim is that it would be a positive step in the right direction, and it's a step that needs to happen. Hillary can get on board or be left behind--it's her choice.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-05 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw men and cowardly lions

exactly.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw men and cowardly lions

Ohhh, I'd rather her not get on board with blatant hypocrisy.  Thanks anyway.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw men and cowardly lions

you keep using that term- but how is applicable to say edwards who actually brought the issue up, and more importantly even if obama i the biggest hypocrite on teh planet, how does it answer the concerns raised with regard to the influence of big money in dc. someone has an excellent diary on who is giving what in dc and its disproportionately coming from peo who don't have the american peop's interest at heart. so  again, how can this be defensible from clinton- that she is accepting money from peop for example who are not interested in helpign the americna people at all.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw men and cowardly lions

I have told you my views.  I'm not flustered with the 1% of PAC money.  I have given Edwards some credit on this.  But Obama is being an outright hypocrite.  I plainly can not keep arguing this with you.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw men and cowardly lions

and my response back is you aren't arguing with me. you are arging with the majority of democrats who are. and with the link i provide that show where the money is coming from.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw men and cowardly lions

put another way- how does this diary refute this other diary?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/4/18315 0/7192

by bruh21 2007-08-05 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw men and cowardly lions

"Lobbyists are paid to influence politicians--that's their job. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as the tool they use to do the influencing is the power of their arguments and not the power of their pocketbooks."

Nice job, Mystylplx!  As I wrote in comments on another diary, I worked as a state level lobbyist for some time and am mostly proud of my tenure, issues I represented and how I represented them.  But I also agree with Edwards move, it properly reflects the times by acknowledging the disgust with Abramoff, the K Street Project, hundreds and hundreds of pharma lobbyists swarming the halls of Congress during the Medicare drug debate...

Edwards' challenge is also implicitly a challenge to us and those who cover politics for a living.  We must continue to demand greater transparency and reporting about who is giving and who is consulting and just how they're doing it so folks can decide for themselves.  If Edwards is just spouting BS, it will soon be apparent.  

by lori j 2007-08-05 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: If you worked as a lobbyist

Mstylplx acknowledged that you had a good point about the consultants (unregistered insiders) and I certainly agree.  Perhaps you really didn't read the post.  But Edwards is right too...we need candidates willing to challenge the status quo, even if it is merely a baby step (and I'm not even sure what I would want a reformed system to look like...I never spout rhetoric like "evil" special interests or "dirty" money).   Maybe it is just symbolic posturing on Edwards part, if so it will soon be obvious to the great peril of his populist campaign.

During my days at the capitol in Sacramento I spent an enormous amount of time convincing clients to give and then give again and bundle and bundle some more..that doing so was essential to access and legislative success, especially when our issues were moving.  My firm established PACS, hosted fundraisers and attended even more (sometimes two or three a day during the high season...you know the drill)always with checks in hand.  You're right, of course, we could never out access what the bigger boys could do through their special non-profit foundations and consultancy firms (we even set up a non-profit, public education arm ourselves...the work we did there did not require reporting as traditional lobbying did).  But, I also would be spinning a pretty pink marshmallow fantasy if I allowed myself to think that our effectiveness (or lack of it as could be the case) was wholly due to the power of our arguments.

Peace.

by lori j 2007-08-05 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: exactly!

Even if there's no difference between registered and unregistered that doesn't mean that refusing to take money from "registered" insiders is a bad idea. With your logic you could argue that because we can never get completely 100% clean in a shower then that means we shouldn't even bother to wash.

The point is we can get cleaner than we are now by not taking financial contributions from registered lobbyists. I imagine it would be more difficult to prevent contributions from unregistered consultants precisly because they aren't registered, but that doesn't mean that shouldn't also be a goal.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-06 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Edwards and Obama ta

not everyone works as a fundraiser in the beginning. I'm not trying to quibble, I just hope that people reading this don't think they have to beg for money to get a start in politics.

Actually, I would say the most common step would be field organizing. For people who are more policy oriented, try getting a job on the Hill (though it's very difficult to break in). If you majored in journalism or communications, you can do press work.

by Max Fletcher 2007-08-05 06:44PM | 0 recs
um, no

There is no single path to success in politics or Washington. But fundraising is actually a pretty rare first step for those on the Hill or in policy oriented jobs  It is much more common for those joining the executive branch in appointed positions.

Many of those who get into substantive positions as a result of fundraising have a very tough time proving themselves, as those around who have the substantive background don't trust them initially.

Having been in Washington a long time myself, I've seen this both for Republican and Democratic administrations. It didn't matter the political bias of the policy folks, the fundraiser had a lot of proving to do.

by edgery 2007-08-05 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: im talking political work!

From what I've observed, there are a lot more people employed as field organizers even at this early point in the campaign than there are fundraisers. Will these people all have jobs in the White House if/when their candidate wins? No, but many will make connections and go on to work for other campaigns/as staff people on the Hill/in a consulting shop as a result of their field organizing work on the present campaign. Again, I just want to reiterate--begging for money is by no means the only way (or most common way) to get a start in politics.

by Max Fletcher 2007-08-05 11:56PM | 0 recs
Can you say....

"DAMAGE CONTROL"?

I think it'd be easier to just GIVE BACK THE MONEY---

unless Hillary has SO MUCH MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS that she'd REALLY be hurting if she did so.

"It's OK that I'm BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by lobbyists, because those lobbyists are 'REAL AMERICANS' too" ~ Hillary

So was Al Capone.
So was Benedict Arnold.
So was Dick Cheney.

Well, maybe not Cheney.

by John Poet 2007-08-05 08:26PM | 0 recs
"Pony man"

There is an interesting blog post on "Blog for Democracy" about the "pony man". Here is the link.

http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/2007/08/ chicago_ykos_day_4.html

by rakk12 2007-08-06 06:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads