Obama: Leads in Hypocrisy Too

[Morgana LaFey]

I never have liked the guy all that much, but THIS makes me want to get busy campaiging against him. And fast.

Sirota pointed to it in his blog, also worth reading: http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=BEAA1AD7-E0C3-F084-D74FE7E45E334D6E


Basically, Obama isn't accepting MONEY from lobbyists, but he's eager to get their input, advice, etc. He'd better be careful, though. A case could be made that their consultations could be considered "in kind contributions" which should be reported to the FEC at the market value.

Obama’s K Street project
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

snip

Williams is actively building support for Obama among lobbyists and the corporate clients they represent. While other Obama supporters have described him as a leading activist, Williams demurs: “I wouldn’t want to put my position as a spearhead.” He acknowledges that the gains Obama is making among Washington’s Democratic establishment are hard to see because Obama’s K Street supporters have kept a low profile. As a result, Obama’s K Street network is a stealthy operation.

snip yeah, just what we need in Washington: more stealth and secrecy, more camouflage and obfuscation of the truth

“Senator Obama said when he set out this policy that it doesn’t solve the problem of money in politics but it is a sign and symbolic step in the right direction,” said Burton. “It’s not going to stop the sway that money has over policies or that special interests have over legislation, but it indicates the type of administration Obama would have if elected.”

snip and that is: more of the same. This is a distinction without a difference -- he's taking their "advice" but not their money. So that makes him the CHEAPEST date yet among the Dems. He's got to be their ideal candidate, a veritable wet dream for lobbyists: "Hey! Obama wants our input, but doesn't ask for any cash! Wow! What a guy!" And now, Obama in his own words:

“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.”

snip So he's turned to the page that says: they don't even have to write the damn chekcs. We'll GIVE it to them!

Other pro-Obama lobbyists are open about their plans to help him become president. “He’s like Bill Clinton with no baggage,” said Jimmy Williams, of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers. “He’s got that aura and people are talking about him. You realize you’re in the presence of something incredible. He has broad appeal.”

“He won’t take our money but we can go out and campaign for him,” he said. “I’m more than happy to campaign for the guy because the country is in dire need of honest leadership.”

snip and if Obama and his stealth lobbyist project is your idea of "honest leadership," it demonstrates vividly what the hell is wrong with Washington and politics in general. REAL wrong. Bah on Obama!




Oh -- and from the Sirota blog:

Frankly, other than Republican partisans, Clinton doesn't seem to have many ideological enemies. Same thing for Obama, and not just because he has a magnetic personality. Though he was a community organizer, Obama's Senate M.O. has been to avoid confrontation at all costs - and in my interview with him, he insinuated that such a posture is a deliberate goal.


and, worst of all IMO:

This isn't to say that Clinton or Obama are bad candidates. Obviously, they are way better than the Republican field, and Obama in particular has potential to grow into more of a leader - if he has the spine to shun the ruling-class sensibilities of the people he's surrounded himself with (as an aside - I sincerely hope this happens, though am not optimistic, considering Obama's top strategist is bragging to reporters that he is crafting a campaign aimed at shunning all ideology and issue-based stands in order to present a pure personality story).

[xultar]

1. Instead of campaigning for a candidate you like...you'd rather campaign against one you don't.

:rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

32. That was kind of what happened to Dean in 04 as I recall.

[xultar]

45. And Clark...and just about everyone else. We do more damage to our own

than we do to the right.

[Laurab]

2. Thanks so much - who is YOUR candidate? n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. lemme guess. hrc might fit?

except an honest comparison is just too painful for those folks.
especially, when 100k vs. 50k numbers are simply a taste of things to come.

[Laurab]

7. Nah I don't think so - I think there's a naughty sentence

about her in there, too!

On edit, here it is:

"Frankly, other than Republican partisans, Clinton doesn't seem to have many ideological enemies. Same thing for Obama, and not just because he has a magnetic personality."

[beyurslf]

8. I;m an HRD fan and I don't bash any Dem on this board (well maybe Lieberman)

but he doesn't count.

[Spiffarino]

37. Lieberman is in the Lieberman for Lieberman party.

The Publicans' symbol is the elephant, the Dems' is the donkey.

Lieberman's is the weather vane.

[orleans]

40. (lieberman is not a dem--he's an independent. don't forget it

even when cnn puts up a D after his name) (smile)

[Morgana LaFey]

11. I'm not overly fond of any of them.

Ahh, I forgot. There is one I like a lot: Gravel.

[Laurab]

15. Well, lets bash them all then

it's very productive.

:sarcasm:

[Eurobabe]

36. Well then maybe you belong on Libertarian Underground. n/t

[Spiffarino]

38. Mike Gravel?

Wasn't he a character on the Flintstones?

[mtnsnake]

3. What's so hypocritical about what he's doing?

I read your post, but I don't see the hypocrisy. Isn't he just being a powerful politician? :shrug:

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Surely you jest?

You can't see the hypocrisy?

He makes a BIG SHOW out of not accepting money from lobbyists. He makes a BIG SHOW out of how lobbyists have too much power and too much access and THE PEOPLE don't.

And then, in stealth, he creates a formal way for lobbyists to have access. He also allows his campaign people to ask for THEIR WIVES' donations. It's the biggest hypocrisy I've seen in a whie. Worthy of a Republican, in fact.

What a liar.

[mtnsnake]

19. No not at all but thanks for explaining. Just because he listens to them doesn't

mean he's going to do them any special favors, does it? What's wrong with him getting their input? I hope he listens to all the environmentalist lobbyists for example.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. That's what Cheney said about Exxon, wasn't it? What's wrong with a little input?

I don't think there are any environmentalist on K street.

That's the busness lobbies, not the do gooder lobbies.

Didn't you know that?

[mtnsnake]

43. If I knew I wouldn't be asking. lol

I don't think there are any environmentalist on K street.

That's the busness lobbies, not the do gooder lobbies.

Didn't you know that?

Hell, I don't even know what Mike Gravel looks like. I don't come here to teach, John. :dunce:

[John Q. Citizen]

98. I like Gravel. I saw him on my computer at the Nevada hoedown sponsored by the

union.

He's a good man. If we by some weird chance ended up with him as our candidate, I could support him whole heartedly.

I don't think he would be the best choice from a strategic point of view, though.

[mtnsnake]

27. One more thing. You're kind of making it sound like the "wives" thing happens all the time

And then, in stealth, he creates a formal way for lobbyists to have access. He also allows his campaign people to ask for THEIR WIVES' donations. It's the biggest hypocrisy I've seen in a whie. Worthy of a Republican, in fact.

What a liar.

Wasn't it a one-time thing where one of his fundraisers called the wife of a lobbyist and asked for a donation? Geez, maybe it was an honest mistake. Even if it wasn't, it's not like Obama condones his fundraisers soliciting lobbyists wives all the time, is it?

Anyway, I'm not trying to get on your case. I'm just trying to understand what's going on a little better, concerning this affair.

[karynnj]

53. Read some of the articles on this year's ethics bill

It was Obama who was able to put in a provision against lobbyists giving Senators bundled contributions. That is real and substanitive.

What I dislike about this is that it is ancedotal - and raises questions. In the first place, it raises the question of whether or not this was the fund raiser acting on his own.

I have not picked a candidate for 2008.

To me this looks like a case of swiftboating, turning an Obama strength into a liability. He did good work strengthening ethics bill in both the Senate and the Illinois Senate. He also (with Cantwell, Feingold, Harkni, Kerry, Lieberman, Nelson (FL), Tester and Webb) voted with the Republicans when they submitted the tougher Pelosi rules as an amendment. They saved the Democrats from political embarrasment and ultimately led to a tougher ethics bill. (Hillary put out a lame statement that some issues should be addressed in a campaign finance bill after voting to table it (thus killing it).

Those things, taken in conjunction with his no PACs and no lobbying rules, make Obama very strong on this issue - thus the attempt to smear.

[Kagemusha]

5. Waaaaaaait a second. He's not getting stock or investment advice here.

When a lobbyist goes into the office of the Majority Leader of the Senate to lobby, does the lobbying count as in-kind contributions? No!! It's protected free speech. Just because someone paid the lobbyist to speak doesn't mean that the lobbyist speaking is a FINANCIAL benefit to the elected official being spoken to. You are up the wrong tree.

[Morgana LaFey]

10. when a lobbyist goes into the office of the Majority Leader, he's

going there to LOBBY, not to give campaign advice.

Get it?

YOU are up the wrong tree -- or, more accurately, can't seem to find a tree.

[Kagemusha]

21. Lobbying is not an in-kind contribution.

You can call it lots of other things, but that, it is simply not.

[Morgana LaFey]

66. Advising on policy issues IS nt

[johncoby2]

6. Do us all a favor and campaign for Guillini

[TwilightGardener]

9. He takes no money from lobbyists--thus he is not beholden to them.

He DOES listen to their concerns. WTF is wrong with that?

[Colobo]

13. Interesting that after Obama's superb fundraising success

some people are coming out of the woods to talk trash about the guy...

Fear, anyone? GOBAMA!

[Laurab]

16. I do believe you're right

I hate the fact that I'm adding more to this thread, but I do think you've got it!

[Morgana LaFey]

67. Perhaps you should take it up with Sirota

[Laurab]

93. Sirota didn't post it on DU nor did he supply you the title

for your OP. "Leads in hypocrisy"?

I wouldn't have read his ode to John Edwards had it not been for your OP.

[cliss]

14. You're right.

It didn't take me long to figure out, this gentleman is a treacherous, lying turncoat.

His "principles" probably lasted about 30 minutes, once he arrived in Washington.

[Tellurian]

22. Well, heres hoping donors don't start asking for "refunds"

when they discover their candidate isn't what they thought he was..

Imagine the pandemonium crediting back $26mil..

[Colobo]

23. Yep, it would be terrible for Hillary if her donors do that.

[Laurab]

25. LOL - thank you! n/t

[Tellurian]

26. Everything Hillary is doing is on the up & up..

Obama has created a STEALTH system of not having to report lobbyist contributions. This is done by asking for and taking contributions from lobbyists wives. The Hill article is quite damning of Obama's camp actually employing political operatives who are lobbyists themselves. I think Obama is having an integrity challenged moment.

"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.

“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.”

you can read the entire article here:

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

[karynnj]

54. Where does Hillary stand on this?

Does she take money from lobbyists (obviously with no quid pro quo)?

Does she take PAC money?

[rinsd]

80. I do not think Clinton has a ban on such contributions.

Therefore I assume she will accept them.

[Connie_Corleone]

17. Sirota is an Edwards' supporter.

I really don't give a damn what he thinks about the other candidates. The sun doesn't rise and set at the sound of Sirota's musings.

Obama is a hypocrite because he listens to lobbyists but doesn't take their money. Uh, okay. Whatever.

:eyes:

[Colobo]

20. Sirota and others are feeling one thing:

FEAR! :)

[mtnsnake]

24. I noticed taht, too. Spanks Obama & Clinton & then follows up by blessing Edwards.

[AtomicKitten]

28. feh

Seriously and correct me if I'm wrong, but Sirota is not the designated Messiah; I couldn't care less what he has to say. It's really repulsive the way people here fawn over blog chatter like it's gospel, and then are surprised to wake up and find Jesus H. Blogger hitting a sour note. Our heads are not just hat racks.

[mtnsnake]

29. No, Sirota is not the designated Messiah. I like what rinsd had to say about him

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3200227#3200526

[PassingFair]

56. So Sirota is "whiny" because Obama campaigned for Lieberman.

I like whining about Lieberman, too.

You want I should send you a FRAME for this.

It'll look nice on your desk.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

79. You can keep that picture of your brother right there on your own desk where it belongs

Hope that helps...

[ebayfool]

18. What? ... you only want politicians that TAKE their cash?

I always kinda thought that when a pol came around & turned down the bucks from the big boys that I'd hear 'HUZZAHS!' instead of snide innuendo! When was the last time anyone's heard of lobbyists willing & eager to work to help elect ANY candidate w/out a money commitment? Talking is to be expected - I like a Dem that gets all the info they can on a subject. Makes for a better informed 'decider' don't ya think? Talking-advice-input doesn't equal agreement ... just an open mind. More peeps should try it!

But thanks ... you've brought ME a few steps closer to deciding that he just might well be MY candidate. :evilgrin:

Feel better? :spray:

[Clarkie1]

35. My thoughts exactly!

:thumbsup:

[Morgana LaFey]

68. Whatever floats your boat. If hypocrisy is okay with you, who am I

to try to persuade you otherwise?

[ebayfool]

95. Hyperbole & breathless panting @ stealthy, liar candidates isn't okay.

But thanks for your concern!

Should I take it that your answer to my question is that you only support the Dem that takes the cash? Sad ... but hey, whatever floats YOUR dinghy!

I have no problem w/the guys statement that you snipped ... I just don't see that it lends the sinister aura that it seems you wanted to find:

snip/
“He won’t take our money but we can go out and campaign for him,” he said. “I’m more than happy to campaign for the guy because the country is in dire need of honest leadership.”

He's right @ that, honest leadership IS a needed quality. Maybe turning down the $$$ helped to convince the guy?

and snip/
Williams, a former aide to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said he was in contact with Durbin’s office to plot out ways to get more young voters interested in Obama.

What an evvviiiilllll man! He actually admitted he was PLOTTING! Oooooooh!


Look, I like Edwards. I like Obama. I like most of our candidates. I'll even admit I loves me some Al Gore. But my support isn't predicated on the amount of mud that's slung - it's gonna be based on the candidate's strengths & what they can do for us. ALL of us. Including the red voter dumasses that I don't agree with 99% of the time! Obama turning down cash & STILL generating support from those who are used to selling thier loyalty strikes me as a strength, not some sinister backroom plot. You would to better by pointing out the stuff that you DO like @ the other candidates, rather than this garbage.

Or to put it in short, simple terms: Don't piss on my leg & tell me it's raining. NOT taking money is NOT being bought - even a 'ho has to have the cash change hands to get busted.

[grannylib]

30. Frankly, I'd prefer a candidate who listens to everyone, even lobbyists...

and there are actually those who lobby for progressive causes as well...
Much better than an imbecile who listens ONLY to those who will agree with him and nod their noggins like bobbleheads in the back window.

[mtnsnake]

31. especially if he's listening to environmental lobbyists. nt

[Clarkie1]

34. Yes, and Obama strikes me as that kind of person.

He seems to have a very open mind beholden to no one. Kudos to him!

[Morgana LaFey]

69. So it's okay with you that he listens to lobbyists -- PROACTIVELY

seeks them out in order to "listen" to them -- and keeps it a stealth operation while he tells people in his stump speeches that lobbyists have had too much say, and it's time to change things. I see.

I imagine you want him to listen to Lieberman more, and Republicans including Bush? You did say "EVERYONE."

Yours is the kind of post that just makes me want to say: Wake the fuck up, people.

[Spiffarino]

39. I like Sirota. He's so clean and articulate.

Seriously, David. You're a smart guy and a great strategist, but this kind of bullshit does not help.

WTF is it about us Dems that we have to start fighting as soon as we win one? Small wonder an abomination like W. Bush can get into office while we're busy cutting our own damn throats.

:nuke:

[Morgana LaFey]

72. I just don't get this line of thinking

WTF is it about us Dems that we have to start fighting as soon as we win one?

It doesn't strengthen us to refuse to talk about the faults and failures of our elected Dems or our candidates. It doesn't help us in ANY positive way to sweep criticism under the rug, pretend everything is perfect when it's clearly not. The "value" being served in such a pursuit is not a value at all but a sickness, a dysfunctionality. In some circles it's referred to keeping the family secrets. The "family secrets" become more important than truth and honesty and facing problems and faults and failings, and it's THE prescription for a sick, dysfunctional family -- or organization.

The one thing this world and especially this nation needs now more than ever before in our history is THE TRUTH -- about everything, EVERYTHING. If you advocate keeping anything secret or unspoken for ANY reason, you put yourself in a position diamaterically opposed to the welfare of this nation.

[Spiffarino]

91. You make a good point, but my belief is...

...that it's way too early in the game to be dumping on one another. Bush and his Republican brownshirts have not been defeated, only severely damaged. I am not one who believes we should follow in lock-step with anybody, and certainly not my party's leaders. However, at this critical time it's absolutely imperative that we stand united until the Republican government is overthrown and scourged.

Once that is accomplished, I will relish the usual intraparty rivalry. For now, it is simply a luxury we cannot afford.

[saltpoint]

41. Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston

was sensational. It was dynamic and sensational and spellbinding.

Nearly as good was his announcement speech a short while back in Springfield, Illinois.

This is at once a man of our history and a man of the future. You'll notice I'm supporting another Democrat in the primary; however that does not preclude my acknowledging the strengths and virtues of other Democrats in the race, of which strengths and virtues Barack Obama has many.

Quite a few Democrats are in very sharp disagreement with your assessment of the junior Senator from Illinois.

I'm one of them.

[ebayfool]

60. Now THAT'S the way to support your candidate ...

And I think it's the best post I've seen in GD-P for a good, long time! TY!

"... You'll notice I'm supporting another Democrat in the primary; however that does not preclude my acknowledging the strengths and virtues of other Democrats in the race, of which strengths and virtues Barack Obama has many."

I 'like' a lot of the candidates & a couple that haven't jumped in - when I do settle on one to back in the primary, it will be because of w/their strengths. The flagrantly manipulative supporters of some of the runners do more harm to their picks than they realize when they try to twist & spin 'the other guy'. Fair or not, good & bad ... it reflects on the candidate. Your statement above reflects well on your selection & is a breath of fresh air.

Thank you for that.

[saltpoint]

62. Hello, djmaddox1, and a happy Friday to ye.

I'm as human as the next person and would love to take your compliment but it doesn't belong to me.

It belongs to my aunt and uncle, now long deceased. They were both very political. My uncle was a white-knuckled Republican. My aunt was a cradle-to-grave Democrat. They were 2 of 7 farm kids, but of the 7, they were the closest by far.

They were diametrically opposed in their political views but were the closest of all the 7. What a great present to give to kids (as my cousins and I were growing up watching and learning) -- to be in complete disagreement and yet be bonded by many other essential things. A "loyal opposition" if ever there was any.

Obama's announcement speech last month was just a knockout. I think even the thickest, crustiest Republican would have to admit that this guy is for real.

And whoever we nominate on our ticket in 2008, we're going to kick us some red Republican hindend!

[ebayfool]

63. Come from a long line of 'rock farmers' myself ...

squabble, fight & feud 'till days end, but let someone threaten or hurt one & you had the whole bunch lined up like the Hatfields going after the McCoys! Literally. Gramma squared up against gramma, teens facing teeners, all the way down to the little ones thumbing noses at the same agers ... on the street, opposite sides, ready to rumble! Couldn't happen in today's world, but it reinforced the notion back then that you don't let someone mess w/family.

And yes, we were an uncivilized lot!

I just wish that more Dems could stand together to 'rumble' instead of picking each other off for the opposition.

(the ONLY time I ever saw my grampa cry was when he came home from shaking Ronny Raygun's hand at a photo op here ... he was horrified to see his face was orange w/makeup base! :rofl: We're talking when Raygun was 1st running for governor - back when pols didn't go out in public prepared for cameras. Broke old papa's heart, broke him away from the GOP, & thrilled gramma to death - she was a dyed in the wool Dem! In spite of the differences, they managed to agree often enough to have 10 kids together! AND we grew up using 'ye' instead of 'you' - kewl! :toast:)

Agreed most heartily: whoever we nominate on our ticket in 2008, we're going to kick us some red Republican hindend!

[saltpoint]

64. Whoa. I love your family. Haven't met a one of 'em but I love 'em anyway.

I bet your family reunion dinners are a major event, and I bet the tales are wild and many.

Despite all kinds of differences in temperament, people can pull together when they have to, and if they want to.

I think both criteria are met in being Democrats. Bush has been so incredibly damaging to people's hopes and connectedness to their country that it has escaped notice that his handlers are dark masters at turning whole segments of the population against each other.

My strong partisan feeling aside, I really do not believe that dark spirit, that divisive bitterness, would have characterized the United States under a President Gore or a President Kerry. I just don't. The line-up of Democrats asking for our vote this time is an impressive one, but despite differences in approach, our candidates are likely to stress the commonality of Americans and not use one group to isolate or scorn another.

And just this week, American voters got to see our president cowering behind his big desk while Nancy Pelosi got on a plane and went to talk with the bad guys. And it won't escape notice that Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat.

I'm ready to start the Iowa caucus tomorrow morning -- at the latest! Let's get these losers out of the White House!

[bling bling]

94. Seconded. Old Crusoe is an established credible resource, in my book.

People like that are the reason I come here. Those who succumb to the temptation of manipulating information in order to sway people AGAINST certain Democrats lose my respect as well my interest. It shouldn't be that rare to see a Dem here who is able and willing to acknowledge the positives and/or at least give credit where credit is due to the people on our own team. It's insane that I can count on my two hands (probably 1 hand even) all the people here who I can reliably count on to always offer and share an honest opinion about a Dem sans an ulterior motive.

[Pachamama]

42. There will always be lobbyists & there will always be a President...Whenever there is an outbound &

an incoming President, the lobbyists try to all gather round and shape their tactics around who they think will be the President and how to best push their cause.

It's an old game and it doesn't matter which candidate there is, there will always be lobbyists lurking around on how they will be attempting to influence and promote.

Until the lobbyists and lobbying is banned, we are all vulnerable and so is every candidate for the Presidency.

I like David Sirota and respect his reporting....but none of this changes my mind about Obama and his qualification for becoming our next President. I'd be far more worried about President Clinton being influenced personally.

[mtnsnake]

44. No kidding. Geez, by the sound of it here, one would think he accepted a bribe or something

"Senator Obama, I hereby summon you to court for accepting bribes from lobbyists."

"What bribe? I didn't take any bribe. I didn't even accept any money!"

"Senator, you listened. You accepted their thoughts. THAT is against the rules. You might as well relinquish your Senatorship right this minute, young man."

[skipos]

46. It will take a lot more than this to make me think Hillary should be our nominee. nt

[mtnsnake]

49. Morgana never implied that she was doing this on behalf of Hillary

Get real.

[skipos]

51. I never implied that was what she was doing.

Get real yourself.

[Morgana LaFey]

73. Then your post was every bit the non sequitor it seemed like

get real YOURself. :evilgrin:

[SaveElmer]

55. I'm not sure who Morgana is supporting...

But I am fairly certain it is NOT Hillary...judging by some of the responses I have received from her...

[Vickers]

47. "I never have liked the guy all that much"

Garsh, REALLY?!?!?!?!?!

[Adelante]

48. At least point out that Sirota is an Edwards supporter

In any case, the "I don't take contributions from lobbyists/PACs" is always bullshit. For example, a pharmaceutical executive or hedge fund operator or trial lawyer who bundles donations from employees may not be a PAC, but it's still a "pac," still a lobby - if you see what I mean, still buying political influence. The statement is hypocritical in itself and without meaning. Not very unlike what you are objecting to in this case. Nobody's "shunning ruling class sensibilities" among the top candidates, nobody, say what they will.

[mtnsnake]

50. Actually, the very first link in her OP provides that information

I didn't see it myself at first, either, but that's not her fault.

[Adelante]

52. OK, thanks, mtnsnake nt

[Morgana LaFey]

75. Sirota makes that clear -- people are supposed to read the

material not just the limited amount allowed in the OP.

Good points otherwise EXCEPT that Sirota became an Edwards supporter as a result of his analysis -- the analysis wasn't because he's an Edward supporter.

[Adelante]

96. Yeah, right

Actually I had already read the analysis on his other site so I did not click through to read it again. In any case, I still think you could have provided the information in your OP as a matter of fairness.

[yodermon]

57. Can someone explain this thread to me please?

I am a bit of a dunce when it comes to inside-the-beltway politics, lobbying, etc.

To wit, a quote from the OP:

This is a distinction without a difference -- he's taking their "advice" but not their money. So that makes him the CHEAPEST date yet among the Dems. He's got to be their ideal candidate, a veritable wet dream for lobbyists: "Hey! Obama wants our input, but doesn't ask for any cash! Wow! What a guy!"

The reason I'm confused is that I thought that that's how lobbying is supposed to work. An interest group gives "advice" to a legislator, trying to influence legislation, etc, but without paying for it (duh) because that would be bribery (e.g. Abramoff/Ney/Delay et. al.)

But the OP is criticizing the fact that Obama is not taking money. Apparently. Can someone explain this to me please?

:shrug: :dunce:

[WI_DEM]

58. ho-hum, why not a positive post about somebody you like?

[Morgana LaFey]

76. I haven't found anyone I like

not really. I did mention Gravel upthread, and I really do like him, but his chances are worse than Kucinich's, frankly.

[mtnsnake]

82. Dont give up hope just yet. Im thinking of throwing my hat in the ring!

:evilgrin:

[Morgana LaFey]

86. then wouldn't you have to

put me back on your buddy list?

:evilgrin:

[mtnsnake]

89. lol you were never off

...even though I was put in my proper place a couple times, and deservedly so. :evilgrin:

Besides, I don't even know how to work those things...out buddy lists, that is. When I figure it out, though, you're back on...or on, I should say. ;)

[Morgana LaFey]

90. Oh, you

flatterer, you.

LOL.

[Clark2008]

59. Sounds like all the front-runners to me.

That's why I'm less than thrilled with the current crop.

If my two guys don't jump it, I am going to have a HARD time picking a horse to back.

Sigh.

[rinsd]

61. Fuck Sirota and his scorched earth policy towards Democrats who haven't obeyed his bellows (nt)

[PassingFair]

74. Wow.

You lot are really frightened by Sirota, aren't you?

Good.

[rinsd]

81. Where did this insanity start?

That when someone objects to another its somehow fear of them?

Are our negative comments about Republicans in relation to our fear of them?

Are Sirota's screechings against Democrats and indication of his fear of them?

[PassingFair]

83. Insanity started with the language in your subject line.

You're out of control.

Take one of these:

[mtnsnake]

84. aah shaaaaaaaaaaadup

[zulchzulu]

70. OMFG! Gee, let's attack the Founding Fathers! They had lobbyists!!!!

Name an issue you like. I'll link you up with a lobbyist for that cause.

As for Sirota's bug up his ass, he opines:

"...he insinuated that such a posture is a deliberate goal."

Nice one, Sirota. So is that what Obama said?

Obama: "Yes, being positive and being seen as positive is, ahem...a deliberate goal!"

Sirota, write about Edwards and how great he is (also about how the campaign isn't about him (WTF) and that all the others are just "about them"...). I won't buy it, been there, done that...but hey...

Better yet, stick to Media Matters. You do that really well. Being a Beltway pundit...you ain't.

[snowbear]

71. I love DU, but if you changed the name Obama for Hillary in this thread, it would have been LOCKED

This is nothing but 100% flamebait

And yet it is allowed to continue.

Sad.

[Morgana LaFey]

77. Sorry, larissa

It wasn't intended as flamebait. If you're so freakin' OFFENDED by it, though, why haven't you alerted on it to GET it locked?

Do you also find the articles cited flamebait? Are you suggesting they shouldn't have been posted here at DU at all? Or perhaps -- gasp! -- not even written?

[RacingBobbie]

87. That is what

I was thinking.

[zulchzulu]

88. Agreed...

The thread is off base on two fronts.

First, there is the assumption that Obama is "leading". He is not...financially, in polls, whatever. He's coming up just behind Senator Clinton in polls, funds, etc., but is not leading. I detect the title by the OP was to somehow show Obama in a bad light with "leading by..."

Second, using Sirota (an Edwards supporter with a weak-legged argument about how it's not about Edwards that makes Edwards appealing to him) as a source to trash Obama on the subject of lobbyists and advice is predictable pap.

The title should be something like "Why does Sirota think Obama's funding success is tied to lobbyists" or something... Actually, the Sirota blog was discussed earlier on DU and most saw it correctly that Sirota still has his panties in a bunch because Obama's initial nod to Lieberman before he lost was somehow seen as something he shouldn't have done, although Obama DID endorse Lamont over Lieberman in the primary...something Sirota doesn't have the jewels to admit...

[SaveElmer]

78. You've accomplished something amazing...uniting Obama and Hillary supporters..

Against you...at least here...

Very impressive...

[Radical Activist]

85. Every time I read a Sirota article about Obama

I come away thinking Sirota is full of shit.
I'm glad Obama will have support of at least some of the Washington establishment if he gets into office. It will help him pass his agenda.

[Spiffarino]

92. Sirota is a polemicist, and a damn good one

But polemicists don't usually make good politicians. Ideological purity and politics don't mix well. Obama would probably make a wonderful president but he will not satisfy liberals and progressives all or even most of the time because he's a pragmatist. Bill Clinton didn't either, but he did far more good than any modern-day Publican.

Sirota wants a real progressive to get the nomination and God bless him for it. The reality is that the Dems will try to nominate somebody who can beat any Republic party candidate they throw at them, and I will vote for that person. And then I'll bitch when everything doesn't go my way. That's what's great about being an American!

[Radical Activist]

97. The problem is that Obama is a progressive

much more so than Edwards and I think Sirota's attempts to paint Obama as something else are far-fetched and dishonest. Obama would be the most liberal President this nation has ever elected. Its a shame that a progressive can't speak about progressive values in terms that appeal to moderate swing voters without getting accused of being a conservative. Sirota doesn't get it.