Hillary Tells Obama/Edwards Lobbyists Work for "Real Americans"

I think the only news over the weekend was the difference of opinion on Lobbying.

I see this as Hillary's first Gaffe of the primary. Are americans in Iowa and New Hampshire going to believe lobbyists work for them? No doubt, HIllary will be looking to distract the public on this by some opposition research.

I can't wait to see Hillary defend the powerful social workers lobby against defense contractors' and pharma lobbies.

The nurses and social workers lobbies in 2006 spent several hundred thousand. The Pharmaceuticals and insurance companies over $300 million - more than 10% of all lobbying money.

If anyone from the Edwards or Obama campaign reads this forward on to your supervisor to get that high quality video (at least NBC has it of Yearly Kos) of Hillary saying "Lobbyists work for real americans".

It's already going to be fun watching the Youtubes.

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

here's a really interesting clip showing that if the republicans accept DC lobbyist money the democrats can easily frame themselves as the party of the people

Tags: lobbying (all tags)

Comments

28 Comments

Re: Hillary Tells Obama/Edwards Lobbyists Work for

Looks like Obama and Edwards found what they good at: Whining!

by American1989 2007-08-05 01:00PM | 0 recs
Hillary's first GAFFE

I hope there's some really good quality of video
of Hillary saying

"Lobbyists work for real Americans" - Hillary Clinton

that could be made into a TV commercial in 2 seconds

by TarHeel 2007-08-05 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's first GAFFE

Obama is particular is easily vulnearble to charges of hypocrisy . Its okay for him to accept lobbyist money from Chicago but not from washington. Thats a line that will be devastating to him.

by lori 2007-08-05 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's first GAFFE

Edwards has been fairly consistent but the MSM will find someone related to a lobbyist who gave a small amount and say hah...

but we know the media's game and Edwards as been consistent on PACs and lobbyists EVEN returning money from the SEIEU

by TarHeel 2007-08-05 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's first GAFFE

I'd think that matters, yet it doesn't seem to phase Clinton supporters for a second when they are struck by their own hypocrisy... Why should it bother Obama or Edwards?  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-05 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's first GAFFE

Oh so you agree obama and edwards are being hypocritical , how refreshing at least we got that cleared up.

by lori 2007-08-05 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's first GAFFE

It's more of an if and then statement.  If Obama and Edwards are hypocrites... Then should it really phase them?  

It doesn't phase Clinton supporters here when they are hypocritical.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-05 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's first GAFFE

Because Hillary is pragmatic, blunt and honest unlike those two hypocrites and whiners. People hate hypocrties.

by areyouready 2007-08-05 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's first GAFFE

I knew I should have had a list of hypocritical statements from Clinton supporters.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-05 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: what about Unions

Well, that's an interesting question.  Unions can organise, certainly, in fact they best remember that's what they are meant to be doing.  They can form PAC's, and do.  They should be able to lobby and do.  They should be able to recommend that members support this or that candidate or legislation and I suppose they should even be allowed to administer and facilitate contributions from their members for a particular candidacy.

But why the hell should the executive leadership of the AFL-CIO want to give member's money to a campaign for any other reasons than those of the board members of GE or Boeing when they do it?  And what does that do to my franchise?  All the poor slob citizens ever get to do is vote, and contribute what fraction of four grand of our hard-earned dosh we can afford.  We rarely get the time of day from our elected officials until an election rolls around.  If you're a shareholder or union member you have your extra vote at the AGM or the union elections, I don't get to vote there.

As far as I am concerned the corporations, the unions and the damn Sierra Club for that matter have every opportunity to schmooze the politicians for the other three and a half years out of four.  Elections are my one shot at having a say and I want anyone but my fellow citizens to butt out and wait their turn.  It's bad enough as it is.

And just one last point, the only check on corporations, who are not values oriented, is our own government through regulation.  How is that mechanism meant to be managed properly if the regulators are under the influence, benign or otherwise, of the regulatees?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-06 03:02AM | 0 recs
true

Edwards has returned money to SEIEU.   Not because he doesn't support their cause but because the playing field is out of wack.

Who's going to be more effective lobbying congress - the union workers making 50K a year or the CEOs and Vice Presidents making millions?

Also, the CEO  gets to use corporate money via PAC donations and paying lobbyists and does not have to use personal funds.
Union members must take out of pay checks to lobby.

I get your point but it is so far out of wack that it's not a fair fight.

Look how long it took to get a meager minimum wage increase.  No doubt the chamber of commerce lobby had something to say about that and that's why it took so long

by TarHeel 2007-08-06 03:06AM | 0 recs
two losers

Two typical losers, whiners and hypocrites.

by areyouready 2007-08-05 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: two losers

you sound like a middle school bully.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 04:22PM | 0 recs
A Gaffe?

Sounds good to me.  I expected there'd be one somewhere along the way, and if this is it, I'm not really that worried.

When it comes to Anti-Corporate Sentiment, it's all out there, and all of us have been screwed over at least once.

But most of us end up working for them nonetheless.

Here's some counter-point.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/4/1 6710/20498

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 02:48PM | 0 recs
I'd take golberry on in a second

I know as much about that industry as he/she does.

Pharma does almost NOTIHNG that would be called R&D  (research and development) by most basic scientists.

they used to do R&D though much less than federally funded academic labs.

Today pharma calls R& D what are realy just "clinical trials", postmarketing studies and acquisitions of drugs from smaller companies.

today's drug companies are really serial acquirers and marketing groups.

they really discover almost no new drugs.

As an Example Lipitor - pfizer's best all time drug was bought from research done by Warner-Lambert that no longer EXISTS.

Viagra was a complete accidental discovery at a smart physician who noticed his heart patient was getting boners...

Very very little of what Pharma does today is real research.. Clinical trials and acquisitions.

Just like Murdoch/Newscopse bought MySpace we'd give very little credit to newscorp for social networking

by TarHeel 2007-08-05 03:05PM | 0 recs
What about Obama

I get the impression you're an Edwards Supporter, but hey:


I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

Point is, a lot of people out there do work for Corporations.  My wife works for a Corporation and gets paid well doing so, and we're raising our baby daughter.

My guess is, Edwards doesn't think I'm a bad person.  Nor does he want the Company my wife works for to go out of business.

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 03:30PM | 0 recs
certainly not

he's only saying that the money is not clear and free. it obviously influences legislation to benefit the lobbyist.

He's challenging the others to not take the political contributions so they won't "owe them" political favors

by TarHeel 2007-08-05 04:10PM | 0 recs
I suppose we've been through this

But I suspect the question should finally be answered:  Did Gore owe anyone any favors if he was awarded the Oval Office that he so clearly earned?

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 04:23PM | 0 recs
probably

Democrats disproportionately get money from trial attorneys.
Republicans Oil and Gas..

Gore actually took all kinds of money, same as Hillary.

Lobbyists are particularly pernicious as illustrated by DCI  above.

so yes every candidate would be somewhat beholden to one constituency or another.

by TarHeel 2007-08-05 04:25PM | 0 recs
That's Cool

I appreciate the honest and straight answer.

I disagree though.

When Al Gore received Donations from Pharmaceutical Companies in 2000, that didn't affect my opinion of him at all.  

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: What about Obama

No, but the Constitution doesn't enshrine the right of the corporation to vote either.  And that's the way it is meant to be.

How would you go proposing that corporations get blocks of votes they can use in primary and general elections?  Ridiculous?  Of course.  So is the argument that corporate finance of electoral politics is in some way good for their employees or the rest of the electorate.  Man... and you guys talk about FDR like some kind of a hero.

The US government at various times in our history has been obliged to restrain the influence of corporations for the sake of the nation, from the Teapot Dome Scandal to the present day.  The essential function of the government in respect of business is to regulate their actions for the good of the people.  The old adage what's good for <insert your favourite corporation here> is good for the country is a Hooverism.  Or was it Coolidge?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-06 02:09AM | 0 recs
Any Adage Taken

As an absolute will prove destructive.

Any Adage at all.

The only real point being made here is that there may be a subtle difference between an Anti-Coroporate message and a Populist Message.

by Edgar08 2007-08-06 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Adage Taken

I agree.  The Buddhists say a good word can be a stake to which you can tether a donkey for 10,000 years.  But aphorisms aside, all I said was that it was a Hooverism and it is and you obviously get my point.

I guess I am a real lefty when it comes to the franchise of citizens versus the influence of corporations.  Capitalism is great and necessary but I believe it must be practised in a vigilant regulatory environment created, and maintained, by a legitimate democratically elected government.  Especially at election time.

The apple-pie and motherhood framing of corporate/interest group influence, specifically lobbyist donations, is the thin edge of a big wedge and I firmly believe we have already erred on the side of incaution.  It seemed to me your comment was tending to reinforce this framing, that's all.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-06 05:05AM | 0 recs
Well if that's the case

If my point appeared to re-inforce a certain distasteful framing, then it was Obama's point too.

At least it was two years ago when he didn't rely on motivating Grassroots support to win an election.

by Edgar08 2007-08-06 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Well if that's the case

I didn't say it was distasteful, it was actually quite homey and cute, you know, my wife works for a corporation and gets paid well doing so, and we're raising our baby daughter, etc, etc.  I mean, how many of us do you think don't work for corporations, one way or the other?

But you kinda' lost me on the connection to Obama, I am guessing you are pointing out that he didn't refuse registered lobbyist donations previously, in his campaign for the Senate?  No argument there.  So what?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-06 05:45AM | 0 recs
No

I'm pointing to the quote above where he says the American People don't think Corporations are inherently evil, indeed most of them work for Corporations.

I guess I'm the folksy one.

by Edgar08 2007-08-06 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: No

I totally agree with his statement and am sympathetic to yours.  I like folksy too, I just don't necessarily see it as the appropriate 'driver,' as managers call it, for decision making when it comes to regulation of business activities or election finance reform.  Corporations are not inherently evil at all, but they aren't values based either, at least not yet.  They are basically profit driven.  

That usually works just fine, if you aren't living downwind of the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-06 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Tells Obama/Edwards

I agree that this was her first gaffe...Now , i hope Edwards could run some negatives ads against her in Iowa.

The rural folks likes Edwards so Edwards is the best to go on the air and attack Hillary's lobbyist's money.

by JaeHood 2007-08-05 04:12PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads