I believe she said some lobbyists and wasn't referring to every single lobbyist. It's more than a little disingenuous to say that Clinton thinks Haliburton represents the same "real Americans" as teacher, environmental or child lobbyists. Which was the point of what she was trying to say.

"``I have a bunch of friends who were state lobbyists. The fact of the matter is ... I played poker with them, so I don't think that lobbyists are evil,'' said the first-term Illinois senator. ``I just think they've got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don't.''

``Why else are they getting hired and making all this money unless they're actually getting something done?'' "

So the state lobbyists obama does admit to taking cash from wouldn't be "getting hired and making all this money unless they're actually getting something done?" Would those same state lobbyists be giving cash to a pol unless that pol was helping them get things done?

The artilce is by fournier who has spent about the last 20 years attacking dems so it starts out ugly and continues that way:

"While Edwards does not accept money directly from lobbyists, he eagerly solicits donations from people with ties to special interests and lobbyists — particularly the trial lawyer profession, which has a stake in actions taken by the White House and Congress"

Oddly dem hater fournier doesn't mention the fact that obama bundlers are federal registered lobbyists and have ties to special interests:

Three of Obama's top fundraisers, who each have raised more than $50,000 for his campaign since January, were registered as lobbyists last year, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records...
...
All three Obama fundraisers have said they are no longer lobbyists, although the public records office has not posted contract termination reports for any of them.

Several other major Obama fundraisers also have histories of lobbying government officials for a living. Thomas Perrelli was a lobbyist for Jenner & Block as recently as 2005. Until 2003, when Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate, Peter Bynoe was a registered state lobbyist representing Boeing and other corporate interests, according to the Illinois secretary of state. They have both raised at least $50,000 for Obama's presidential bid, according to his campaign.
http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2007/08/they-talk-big-b.html

That's bad even for you.

Hillary money from PACs:

PAC contributions
$532,946
1%
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Now you want to look at bundlers "for health insurance, big drug companies, hedge funds and other such" please do:
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org

Obama seems to be a pretty good swimmer doesn't he.

This is a loser for obama. Why he keeps attacking Hillary with this really puzzling.

Just an FYI, links would be nice in the future.

To the substance of this post, however, this is what annoys the heck out of me about Obama. The Dems in Congress worked to limit the revolving door between govt workers and lobbyists. Every time he says crap like this he downplays what Dems tried to do. It's not "Washington logic" that made things so bad. It's a specific type of Washington corruption.

Perhaps if he'd been in Washington longer he'd be able to recognize what many are already doing and exactly who the people are who are axing that legislation.

Cough up the details on your little scenario, gq, or perhaps a link or even a quote.

I don't see anything crappy about Obama supporting what you admit was Dem legislation to fix this problem. Bit weird that you find his support in this area a negative, doncha think?

"It's not "Washington logic" that made things so bad. It's a specific type of Washington corruption."

You nailed it. And I wonder how obama’s framing is going over with his dem congressional colleagues.

obama accusing dems of corruption isn’t helping him. Does axelrod have polling showing something different? Really strange. Also the hubris in general approaches republican levels.

This is a good point, but I think the problem comes when you do win office as Senator using legal means, then spend a lot of time legislating against the influence of lobbyists in Washington, and then decide to run for higher office (ie the Presidency).

This is where Obama is at now: he became a Senator calling for ethics and election reform, having won that office he actively legislated in favor of both those issues, and then he decided to run for President. He can't exactly go back against his initial campaign promise and the spirit of his legislation without looking like a huge hypocrite, and nor should he.

He should run on the same platform of ethics and election reform using his past legislation and current campaign policy as evidence of his commitment.

Edwards claims in the article to have never, ever accepted any lobby or PAC $$.

Right. He just hires lobbyists to work with him on his presidential campaign to help with contributions: see HERE. Maybe that's one of those things like the Victorian gents who "sponsored" prostitutes to get them off the streets?

Reality means they all have to deal with the system as it is to get enough money to compete. None of them are not going to be as pure as they might like to be. Nitpicking about which one is the worst hypocrite on this is a waste of time. Realistically, all one can do is figure out which is more sincere about supporting reform of the problem in the future.

You know, whenever I read what Edwards or Obama say, I think, these guys have a way with words and a grasp of ideas that matter. When I read Clinton's words, I think they make ok sense, even if they don't promise much,  It's a world of difference.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

"Senator Clinton has proposed real government reforms, including ending cronyism and stopping the revolving door from government to lobbyist, and she has the strength and experience to enact them."

**Urk. Must. Suppress. Vomit reflex.**

Honest to God, I wonder whether Hillary's campaign uses has some sort of response generation software akin to the Mission Statement and Performance Review Generators on the Dilbert website.

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/games/career/bin/ms_verb.cgi

Every statement one of her spokespeople make, and 90% of the stuff that comes out of her mouth in the debates, is like this. When asked to comment about anything at anytime, its like they pull up some master list of focus group tested banalities, find one that's more or less related to the issue at hand and then shoehorn in the Official Watchwords of the Week ("Strength and Experience!").

This is exactly the kind of inside the Beltway consultant-driven dreck people are talking about when they rap her for inauthenticity.

Obama led the bipartisan effort to make IL government more transparent. He did the same in the US Senate. Those are facts and you can look them up. That's something no other candidate can brag about. He's justified in making it such a big part of his campaign.

The other more important part is he knows it's going to be very hard taking back our government after Bush auctioned off so much of it to big money interests unless we lessen their influence first. You think those big credit card banks, drug companies or big oil are just gonna roll over? No. They'll bankroll any incumbent or challenger who'll help them keep their hands in our pockets.

Don't you love how they never point to any actual legislation, too? Obama sponsered Ethics Reform in the Senate, but Hillary has some nebulous track record we are all just supposed to spot her. Right.

Hey, didn't "muddy water" O-Bomb-A do some influence peddling with that indicted developer Rezko and his slum projects and then Rezko helped little B.O. buy his million $$$$ house? Answer: YES.

Hey, didn't Michelle "She's No Jackie" O-Bomb-A get a $100,000+ annual raise at her corporate job after B.O. was elected to the Senate? Answer: YES.

Hey, let's not forget Michelle B.O.'s plum corporate board a$$ignment, again, right after B.O. was elected to the Senate. She acted to shut down a manufacturing plant so she could "get some corporate experience."

These two sleazebags and their finger to the wind campaign are becoming more transparent with their hypocrisy every day. With the extended nature of this campaign season, it's plenty of time for the general voting public to catch on - and they are. Witness O-Bomb-A tanking in all the polls.

Where's Hillary's proposal?

This issue is largely a charade.

There is no issue of more importance than corruption.

It is what has the voters in revolt against the Republicans. The Iraq war can be seen as only a grab for Iraq's oil.

It was what brought the Republicans to power in the first place.

Democrats will ignore the corruption you think immaterial at their peril.

A plutocracy is not the best form of government. Corporations aren't people like you and I.

Best, Terry

Any way you could rephrase these comments without all the sloganeering and nicknames? It's distracting, not to mention way too similar to something Limbaugh or Malkin would say.

There's more than one way to test sincerity. Let's look at the records in terms of legislation and in terms of specific campaign pledges in this area.

Obama certainly has them; so does Edwards. Where are Hillary's specifics?

Poetry -- Obama was essentially doing exactly what you suggested when he ran for the US Senate: ie he played by the same rules to get elected and then once he was sworn in he worked to change the system. This is what you would like to see a candidate do, right?

Now that he is running for President, Obama has a series of accomplishments in the Senate by way of ethics and election reform, and has based his campaign in part around them, taking the next logical step in this direction by refusing donations from entities tasked with influencing his decisions---PACs and Federal Lobbyists (State Lobbyists do not lobby US Senators over federal legislation....unless they are also Federal Lobbyists).

I'm pretty sure he's doing exactly what you would suggest he do.

Dear God, you are dense.

I am not advocating here for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, fine.

If Barack Obama wins the presidency, fine.

If John Edwards wins the presidency, fine.

etc. etc. etc.

My point here is that WHOEVER is the eventual Democratic nominee will be fighting against a massively-funded Republican nominee who will have no scruples about where he gets his money; he will be awash in money. And, like it or not, it is pretty hard to get elected without at least almost as money as the Republicans will have.

If Barack Obama is the nominee and wins the general election and will do more to keep lobbyists from having too much say in Washington, D.C., that's great and I hope he wins.

I just think it is foolish to tie one's hands behind one's back when one is engaged in a pretty dirty fight, which it surely will be.

The fact that Obama will still accept money from state lobbyists will not stop the Republicans from running ads that fail to make that delicate distinction; they will call him a hypocrite and will persuade the voters that Obama really still accepts money from lobbyists and is just pretending to be more pure than they are.

As long as it remains legal to accept money from lobbyists, the Democrats should take the money and then work to clean up the problem of lobbyists having too much influence. I understand that at this point it would next to impossible for Obama to walk back his vow not to accept federal lobbyists' money, but I do believe it will be a real problem for him if he gets to be the Democratic nominee.

Thanks. Your answer was a lot more diplomatic that the one that popped into my head about sleazeball language.

Disagree with you there, Poetry. Obama can sum it up just as he did with this quote. Then the GOP candidate can cough up a record--Obama certainly has one.

Best not to be so fearful when the candidate is absolutely correct on the issue.

to DavidBAnimal

I have written more on this above.

The problem comes when it turns out Obama is still accepting state lobbyists' money and is also accepting money from the executives and other employees of corporations. While you may see a slight distinction between getting the money from a corporation's lobbyists or from its top executives, the public may not.

And, surely, the rightwing lie-machine will work overtime to make sure the public thinks Obama is still taking lobbyists' money (even though it is state lobbyists), and still taking corporate money, however it comes in (front door or back door).

I may see a difference and you may see a difference, but the Republicans are very good at confusing the public and turning heroes into "cowards" and shirkers (the chickenhawks) into "patriots."

Just don't underestimate the lies that will be told by the rightwing smear machine, and Obama will need all the resources he can muster to fight back.

I'll reply to both of you.

Ethics and corruption are a good issue. It was a darned good one against the GOP in the 2006 midterms. Obama and Edwards have both taken stands that are correct--pledges, not taking money, and legislation are good things for Dems to present. Obama has even given the Dems effective imagery and a brief way to state the case for the Dems.

Yet...Poetry and DavidB say "no, no, the GOP might use this against us" and point out alleged bits of hypocrisy.

Being a Dem who has been on the field operations side as recently as the midterm 2006 campaign, this is a very good issue. I relish going bare knuckles against ANY GOP candidate in 2008 on this one.

So why all of the fear and caution and wringing of hands from you two? There are at least two probable reasons that I can think of.

Hillary is in a bad position on this one so perhaps you are Hillary supporters. I can hear the "Take this issue off the table right now" echoing in the background.

OR

The GOP certainly had losses in the 2006 midterms on this very issue and wouldn't like to see it EVER again. Where is Ney? What's going on with Ted S. in Alaska? Yeah, they would like this issue to disappear.

Other readers can choose or come up with other probable reasons for FEARING a bare-knuckles fight with the GOP on an extremely good issue. I certainly don't fear it.

Just to be clear, though I said "this is a good point" I didn't mean to suggest I agree with the point, just that I think it was made well and is a worthwhile concern to be raised. I actually disagree with Poetry pretty definitively here, and really think Obama should continue on this platform, as it is, as you say, a really good one to run on.

I'm not sure why I'm being lumped in here with the "you two..." comments just because I value the point Poetry made while still disagreeing with it.

Oh, and I'd vote for a third term of George W. Bush before I ever voted for Hillary Clinton. : )

Just kidding. Although....

Poor reading comprehension on my part. I apologize.

--Nick

If it's a "loser for Obama" it's a loser for the nation. Hillary is about big money influence, and Obama is about trying to change the system. Of course Obama is going to be attacked from every angle, big money wants Hillary or the GOP to win the election to protect the status quo.

Nothing like a little rank slander derived from a lot of innuendo filled nothing to raise the tone of a discussion. Usually one must go to Politico.com to find such elevated discourse.

Honestly, is up with all this blind rage from Hillaristas?

Anyone who opposes the Hillary machine-of- inevitability is labled by that machine as part of the "vast right wing conspiracy", silly, dillusional, an "attacker" or "hater." Never would they listen to an honest critic in hopes of improving their shaky shaky "platform." It is simply not plausable to the Hillary crowd that thinking, progressive-minded people who love their country would be intensly opposed to her. hmmmmm The terms "head in the sand" and "rude awakening" come quickly to mind.

1. Hillary takes federal lobbyist money
2. Hillary on record as lobbyists are "just Americans"
3. Hillary has no legislative record, no pledges to seek legislation to fix, nada
4. Hillary doesn't even see this as a problem
5. 2006 midterms showed the issue of ethics and corruption has legs with voters; exit polls verify this; even Rove blamed GOP losses on ethics and corruption
6. Winning issue for Dems in 2008 general; good ole bare knuckles fight where the Dems can emerge the clear winners

A really excellent image of the issue vis-a-vis all candidates and a very short descriptive of the issue that would be easy to present in radio ads, TV/video ads, in print, and by phone or personal conversation at the door during campaign field operations.  This is a very clear winner in the general (and possibly the primary) BUT only if the candidate has what Hillary does not have--a history, legislation and pledges. 

Of the three front-runners, Obama comes in best; Edwards second and Hillary dead last on this particular issue.  Hillary supporters know it--hence the blind rage.

Those comments weren't directed in any way at Hillary Clinton but said in response to discussion about how great a father Barack is.

I would also hope anyone who insists a candidate's wife "go fuck herself" would get banned from this forum.

I would also hope anyone who insists a candidate's wife "go fuck herself" would get banned from this forum.

The fans of Hillary are getting pretty rank all right.

I despise censorship generally but this stuff is way over the top.

What is rather comical is these same folk talk about all the other candidates being acceptable and often that they have not made up their minds to even vote for Hillary in the primaries.

Best, Terry

I would hope that anyone who suggests that anyone be banned from this forum should be banned from this forum.

Wait a minute...

Poetry says: "...the Democrats should take the money and then work to clean up the problem of lobbyists having too much influence." That's what Bill Clinton promised to do in the 1990s. The Clintons sell influence to win power. Their record is clear. They aren't going to clean up the system they helped to create and that has put and kept them in office. Get real.

Obama is honestly trying to "change", which means doing things differently in the future than was done in the past. As far as national politicians go, Obama's record on minimizing the effect of lobbyists on a campaign is significant.

Prove that statement to the likes of you. Impossible.

Would the party that controls the house and senate be considered establishment washington? Now if obama doesn't mean dems why doesn't he say so?

Wow!

"He did the same in the US Senate."

There must be some evidence of a "bipartisan effort" led by obama. I can't find any how about you? There is an amendment co-sponsored by obama. And we haven't already been around the sponsor vs. co-sponsor horn enough?

Ironically the amendment co-sponsored by obama and others is in regards to lobbyists bundling cash. The major bill was s-1 trumpeted by dems, as a party, as cleaning up Washington. Certainly each senator will claim they had a big part in it. Fine. obama claims he is cleaning up Washington while he rides along on a party platform that helped get dems majorities in the house and senate. Again senators will a claim they ‘pushed through’ legislation. Fine. But to then turn around and beat up your colleagues with the party wide platform? Hubris doesn’t come close to describing that.

Here is what makes that ironic:
In fact, at least five of Obama's disclosed bundlers have registered in the past with the Senate Office of Public Records. Three of them hadn't filed the normal paperwork indicating termination of their lobbying contracts, though Alan Solomont, Tom Reed and Scott Harris all told they Hill they had stopped lobbying.
...
The article went on to point out that some fundraisers for Obama are corporate officers of companies that hire lobbyists. At least 10 other major bundlers work for companies that have lobbied the federal government, including Bill Kennard of the Carlyle Group.

And late last week, the Los Angeles Times noted that Obama has taken in more than $1.4 million from firms with partners registered to lobby the federal government.

That total likely includes money brought in by two federal lobbyists who don't appear on Obama's "official" fundraising list. John Corrigan and Sanford Stein both had their personal donations to Obama returned, the LA Times reported. They also were asked not to help with fundraising, but not until after they had sent out emails for a fundraiser that helped Obama bring in $190,000 from Illinois donors between June 6 and June 11th. Did Obama return the money Corrigan and Stein helped to bring in? He hasn't said.
http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2007/08/they-talk-big-b.html

Some more irony:
Obama’s K Street project

Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: “I would imagine that it’s as large as the Clinton list,” in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.

He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give “policy” and “campaign support.” Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.

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

That’s a pretty damning article. So the first thing I did was like up the writer. See if it was an aei fellow or heritage foundation member. Nope. Before The Hill he worked for Corn at the nation. Is the article full of senior obama advisors speaking only as anonymous sources? If so pay no attention. Nope. Plenty of names. Big names. Then I look up names mentioned in the article. Are they for real. The names mentioned certainly are. And they are big names.

Ironically the real reformer, the one throwing his party under the bus, is a big fat liar.

see below

1. Remember the McCain/Obama dust-up over bi-partisan ethics legislation?  It happened because Obama didn't think McCain's idea of a bipartisan joint commission to "study" ethics reform, yet again, was needed.  Obama teamed up with Coburn (R) in legislation to make contracts and earmarks more transparent, BTW. Are you disagreeing with these pieces of legislation? 
2. Washington Post Editorial, January 20, 2007"The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package.  Senate Dems apparently don't have a problem with Obama pointing out his record on ethics.
3. In reference to the Hill article dating from March, from the article: 
   "Obama's spokesman Bill Burton said the senator knows that it is impossible to completely escape the influence of Washington's establishment, but that rejecting lobbyists' money is an important gesture.  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."

Since I want ethics, good government and an end to corruption in Washington, I am puzzled by your apparent view that Obama is trashing "Dems in Washington" since it implies that there are elected Democrats in Washington who oppose these goals.  I find that supposition extremely unlikely.  But, in the interests of  furthering my understanding, I'm sure you will point all of us to public statements by elected Democrats in Washington to support your position.

"BTW. Are you disagreeing with these pieces of legislation? "

When did you stop beating your wife. Ok now let’s get serious:

"OBAMA'S NEW ROLE

McCain's letter, publicly released by his office, was triggered by a letter Obama sent him last Thursday, the day after a meeting of a small working group of Democratic and Republican senators on ethics legislation. Obama was invited to the meeting in his new role as the Democratic spokesman on ethics."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060207/ai_n16046857

1. and 2.:
Ethics reform was a party wide effort for the dems. So when your pal says 'I' and the 'establishment' he leaves a lot out. Now maybe it was a mistake letting obama head up that amendment. Who knew obama would be a blowhard’s blowhard. Who knew obama would step on his colleagues as he raced to the bottom. I won’t blame the dem leadership for picking obama. The dem leadership put obama in a position to push for change. When obama says 'I' he leaves out a lot. Pols like to pump it up. Fine. But to then attack the 'establishment', the same establishment that put obama in the position to head up an amendment to the party's 06 platform, while beating up on that same establishment is shameful.

3.
Because obama lies and say his not taking lobbyists money that makes everything OK. OK. Not with me but I'm sure that's more than good enough for obamaists. Me, I like to go with facts. Fact is obama is a liar.

"Since I want ethics, good government and an end to corruption in Washington, I am puzzled by your apparent view that Obama is trashing "Dems in Washington" since it implies that there are elected Democrats in Washington who oppose these goals. "

Try to focus. Is the party that controls both the house and senate part of the 'establishment?' Honestly now, yes or no?

And you may want 'ethics, good government and an end to corruption in Washington' but you ain't get'n it from your snake oil salesman.

Please, let's not pretend obama is telling the truth. It only hurts him and you. He is a bold faced liar [See my comment above].

There are facts. There are paper trails. obama and his spokesmen ignoring that doesn't make it OK.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

All I can is provide links to the facts. If choose to ignore them that's up to you.

In fact, at least five of Obama's disclosed bundlers have registered in the past with the Senate Office of Public Records. Three of them hadn't filed the normal paperwork indicating termination of their lobbying contracts, though Alan Solomont, Tom Reed and Scott Harris all told they Hill they had stopped lobbying.
...
http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2007/08/they-talk- big-b.html

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

Obama was invited to the meeting in his new role as the Democratic spokesman on ethics."

Harry Reid appointed Obama as the Dem spokesman on ethics because A. Obama is very well versed on ethics reform from his successful efforts in the Il Senate and B. he's the most qualified member of the Senate to be spokesman.

McCain was desperately trying to reclaim some respectability on the issue because his days as the indy golden boy were over after sucking up to the fundy right, the meltdown of his third rail immigration reform plan, and his support for Bush's fiasco in Iraq.

Obama didn't think McCain's ideas went far enough and saw no reason to throw him a political lifeline. McCain figured if he couldn't get his way (welcome to the minority John) he'd have a temper tantrum and hope the media would spin things his way. We've seen how well attacking Obama on ethics worked for McCain. You'll notice none of the other Dems including Hillary are making his or your arguments.

Why do you think that is? I'll tell you why that is because some think Obama's right and some like Hillary, depend on big money from Wall St. to help finance their campaigns. Fact is people who make well into 6 and 7 figures are the people who can afford to max out contributions. All candidates have to get some of that money if they expect to win.

Hadeneough you're not doing your candidate Hillary any favors using Rove's tactics. You're just making our suspicions about Clinton look like a reality.

Ya gotta love those wingnuts that troll-rate without reason, doncha? (No comment about the need to give oneself a macho name. What's wrong Puissant, was "WellHung" taken?)

Spoken with your usual insight.

Thank you.

Name calling and cut and paste smear jobs are all you have. Pretty pathetic.

You typed in your fantasy. What you call “cut and paste smear jobs” are facts. Your fantasy is your fantasy.