Common sense would say he's not pure. I don't know about all this lobbyist business, but it would seem to be contradictory for him to denounce Edwards and be guilty of the same thing. However, if that is all Hillary has against him, then she's sucking fumes and the Inevitably Express is going to come to a screeching halt.

Walk the walk, let the fellows go. On the other hand this being Clinton's biggest stick is good for Obama.

It is hypocrisy, stupid! No one says Obama should be pure, after all he smoked crack when he was young and unbound. But denouncing lobbist, making a difference between federal and state lobbyist, only only to find a federally-registered lobbbyist on the next stop of compaign, that's hypocrisy! I guess next time they would be arguing "we distinguish federal lobbyist with one federal client from many federal clients!"

btw, this last ditch effort to smear Obama and give Republicans talking points, reeks of desperation.

It's exactly the kind of Karl Rove crap people are sick of. Over the last 8 years it's been tempting to be nostalgic about the Clintons, despite NAFTA, botched health care, deregulation, and everything else.

Wish they would have left it that way.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 11:12 PM: What's interesting is the REASON Obama makes a distinction between state and federal lobbyists. I think that reason is that Obama was took lobbyists' money and worked with and for them in IL. Nothing else makes sense.

Ummm, how 'bout the fact that he's the holder of a federal office, seeking another federal office which, if he wins, would put him in authority over other federal agencies, but, and here's the part that requires just a tiny bit of civics knowledge, would not put him into authority over any state legislature or agency.

See, if you were registered to lobby with a state government or two, but not with the federal governement, that would mean you couldn't lobby someone in the federal government, like Obama, but, instead could only lobby people in the state governments, so there's no conflict of interest.

Kind of like if I as a lawyer am representing a client, I can't also work fo the guy who's suing my client but I'm free to work for other people who don't have anything at all to do with either my client or the guy who's suing him.

But, I'm probably just making one of those fine legal distinctions that no one else gets.

No, I get it NCSteve. John Edwards makes that same distinction. It's an important one to make.

What Hillary is doing is dishonest.

Hillary's problem is that this is just the sort of politics as usual gotcha crap that everyone hates. The more negative she goes, the bigger the backfire.

Just watched the Mark Halperin vid clip (linked above) and apparently this Jim Demers guy is actually a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry (a.k.a., "Big Pharma").

Ouch.

Please provide link showing registration as federal lobbyist. Thanks.

Somehow I just find it hard to believe that this sort of accusation will gain much traction among undecided voters. I guess we will see on Tues. I am still predicting a blow-out victory for Obama.

At least Obama's largest fundraisers aren't in jail.

Off topic, but why the Matt Blunt for Governor ad on the home page? I threw up in my mouth when I saw that.

StLouNick (et al),

Sorry I got my Jims confused.

Jim Demers, Obama's NH co-chair is a lobbyist, possibly only in the state, and apparently for the pharmaceutical industry.

Jim Hodges who joined the Obama campaign earlier this week as a national co-chair according to MSNBC, is a state and federal lobbyist. His registration form lists his lobbying issues as Banking, Housing and Financial Institutions/Investments/Securities.

Apologies for any confusion. With so many lobbyists named Jim running around the Obama campaign, it was an easy mistake to make.

RonK, Seattle wrote: "Nobody's pure, and there's no bright line as to who is or isn't a lobbyist. (Much of this I learned from having to vet long lists of folks on the "is you is or is you ain't?" side of this question."

For the record, I agree. If Obama and Edwards hadn't both been so damned self-righteous in attacking Hillary Clinton over some equally minor stuff just to score a few cheap points, then I would have to think that making a big deal out of this this was very uncalled for.

As it is though, there's been way too much holier-than-thou handed down to Mrs. Clinton from on high by both of them for me to even feel the least bit sorry for Mr. Obama. Serves him right for setting the bar too high to get over himself. He certainly hasn't been the least bit bashful about doing this same thing to other people so turn-about is fair play.

Funny. This is the best ammo they have (besides the misrepresentation of his record). Bodes well for the general election.

Just another thought that occurred to me--this is a double-edged sword. If she believes that the presence of lobbyist is evidence that Obama is not committed to change, what does it mean that she's taken more money from federal lobbyists in this campaign? Is she making an argument for Edwards?

The recent polls, according to RCP, show a clear indication that Obama is going to take NH.

The Clinton campaign's strategy has been pretty awful. The pseudo-incumbent, non-answering candidate, who flies seperate from her press corps can't rectify the situation in the next day or so.

Sen. Clinton will probably be 0 for 2.

What happened to the Clinton machine?

More thoughts on the subject...

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/is-the-clinton-machine-running-on-all-cylinders/

Who dipped Clinton's pigtails in the ink well? Oh, you mean the voters of Iowa. It's their fault she's out making outlandish charges and misrepresenting Obama's record. Bad Iowans!

I guess some of you guys don't get much news under that rock you must live under. No problem. I'll can fill you in.

Both Obama and Edwards have been sanctimoniously attacking Clinton for months for accepting some personal contributions from people who are registered as lobbyists. Obama also made a big deal out of proclaiming recently that no one who had worked as a lobbyist in some number of years would work for his administration...

...he just makes them state and national co-chairs for his campaign. This is sometimes referred to as "shooting one's self in the foot." Oops.

Has anyone asked Norman Hsu what he thinks about all of this?

CalD-

Yeah, I posted that before the other note.

Anyway, barring lobbyists from campaigns is ludicrous. Hodges, in question, is a former governor of South Carolina (albeit, probably not so great).

Then again, Mark Penn is a union busting prick.

I'd rather take a lobbyist who is working to improve "liquidity in community banks," per the article quoted on Hodges being a lobbyist. That motive seems to jibe pretty tightly with Obama's penchant for grassroots and community organization.

Personally, I am not blind enough to think that "all lobbyists are bad." What about the AARP? NEA? Various labor unions?

What would be more accurate is certain corporate lobbyists are bad. See the crazy lobby organizations develop by various Pharmas, Oil, Tobacco, etc. etc.

So Obama has kind of shot himself in the foot by hiring a lobbyist. I'll concede that, because it takes more than a 5 word explanation to make the problem go away.

However, it certainly doesn't lessen my support for him in any way.

All good, all ahead full.

But while Clinton was good -- smart and appealing and exuding competence -- she did not inspire, at least not compared with Obama.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/clinton_and_obama.html

Make sure to check this analysis of Clinton's downward spiral, as she clearly looks to be in very big trouble especially as her own advisers are now quoted as saying that South Carolina is lost for good.

Angry Vet,

The media thing is certainly a valid concern, If there's one thing the MSM loves more than building someone up, it's tearing them down again.

I'd point out that there's still a lot of racism in the world too, right along with sexism. But I don't believe we should reward either of those things by letting the fear of them influence our choice for our party's nomination. So let's just pretend for a moment that we live in a perfect world, do what we need to do, then deal with the consequences as best we can when it's done.

Whether we nominate Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, there's a shitstorm in store for them. But we're going to nominate one of them I think, and either way, I say it's high time. Black men couldn't even vote in this country until the 1870s and for women (of any shade) it was the 1920s. Now, we've got one of each and they're both pretty good candidates. I say let's have that fight. Time to tear down that last wall.

The culture wars didn't begin with the Clinton's and the Bushes though, and they're certainly are not going to end with the election of Barack Obama. That's just wishful thinking. There has never been a time in human history when the future was not at war with the past.

First sentence of my last comment is missing an "and," as in:

The media thing is certainly a valid concern, and if there's one thing the MSM loves more than building someone up, it's tearing them down again.

angry vet- again, you have to remember that the right-wing is NOT going to be inspired by the messages of Hope and Change; they are realists, and they want someone who will win against the terrorist - Republicans unlike Democrats will not be impressed with a one-term Senator who after only 120 days in the U.S. Senate started running for President, and while chairing the Senate Subcomittee on Foreign Relations has made no official trips to Europe, and has had no official hearings. Get a grip - the GOP will kill him in the Elections.

BBLN-

I'll pose the same questions to you that I posed to CalD:

Given Sen. Obama secures the Democratic nomination, will you vote for him in the General Election? Would you vote, in that situation, instead for a Bloomberg candidacy?

Were Hillary to win the nomination, I would vote for her in the GE. In fact, I would also probably rally to her cause as well.

Angry Vet - watch this video of JFK (who so many compare Obama to) and you see that you have to be a Partisan Fighter to beat those who will throw hatred at you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGyT-z9SlA

Re: my vote - I would have to see between Bloomberg and Obama who will be more electable, and I will have to believe that whomever I vote for will make the right choices for the Supreme Court because I truly believe that Obama will make a very very mediocre President because he's already compromised before he's fought in the Senate, because he spins his record to avoid the truth, like talking about passing the harshest lobbyist law that doesn't allow the congress to eat with lobbyist (while alloing the lobbyists to eat so long as they are standing up - this is true!) and sadly, as someone who fights every day for gay/lesbian equality, I know the political reality of an untried, unexperienced president will mean my equality will take a back-seat to on-the-job training.

BBLN-

So be it. I am very sorry life has beaten the idealism out of you. Best of luck to you, and good night.

Hillary doesn't have the "vision thing"? Here she was in 1995, speaking to an international women's Congress, before Obama was even in the legislature - was he preaching microcredit back then? She was.
-----------------------------------
I would like to thank the Secretary General of the United Nations for inviting me to be a part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference of Women. This is truly a celebration -- a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in their communities, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens and leaders.

It is also a coming together, much of the way women come together ever day in every country.

We come together in fields and in factories. We come together in village markets and supermarkets. We come together in living rooms and board rooms.

Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concern. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future, and are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world. By doing this, we bring new strength and stability to families as well.

By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in the political life of their countries.

There are some who question the reason for this conference.

Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces.

There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe.

Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou -- the homemakers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and women who run their own businesses.

It is conferences like this that compel governments and people everywhere to listen, look and face the world’s most pressing problems.

Wasn’t it after the women’s conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?

Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum, where government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working on ways to address the health problems of women and girls.

Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local -- and highly successful -- programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.

What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish.

And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish.

That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on our planet has a stake in the discussion that takes place here.

Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families. Over the past two-and-a half years, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.

I have met new mothers in Jojakarta and Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care.

I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in creative, safe, and nurturing after-school centers.

I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping build a new democracy.

I have met with the leading women of the Western Hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for the children of their countries.

I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, rickshaws, thread and other materials to create a livelihood for themselves and their families.

I have met doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

The great challenge of this Conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard.

Women comprise more than half the word’s population. Women are 70% of the world’s poor, and two-thirds of those are not taught to read and write.

Women are the primary caretakers for most of the world’s children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued -- not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.

At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries.

Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated. They are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation. They are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers. They are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the band lending office and banned from the ballot box.

Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not.

As an American, I want to speak up for those women in my own country—women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can’t afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.

I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air, and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who have raised their families and now find their skills and life experiences are not valued in the workplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, and fast food cooks so that they can be at home during the day with their kids; and for women everywhere who simply don’t have time to do everything they are called upon to do each day.

Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.

We need to understand that there is no formula for how women should lead their lives.

That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her own God-given potential.

We also must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.

Our goals for this Conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments -- here and around the world -- accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights.

The international community has long acknowledged -- and recently affirmed at Vienna -- that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear.

No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture.

Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated.

Even in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world’s refugees. When women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse.

I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break our silence. It is time for us to say here in Bejing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.

These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loud and clear:

It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.

It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.

It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women’s rights -- and women’s rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard.

Women must enjoy the right to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure.

It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend -- or have been prohibited from fully taking part.

Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing they, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.

In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of women’s suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote.

It took 72 years of organized struggle on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America’s most divisive philosophical wars. But it was also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.

We have also been reminded, in V-J Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and build a better world.

We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war.

But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world’s population.

Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere.

If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too.

Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely on women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.

As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around the world -- as long as girls and women are valued less, red less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of their homes -- the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

Let this Conference be our -- and the world’s -- call to action.

And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future.

Thank you very much.

May God bless you, your work and all who will benefit from it.

All lobbyist are not the same . Some represent greedy scum and some represent decent causes and clients .

Not surprised at all here. This is par for the course for Hillary's campaign machine. When Hillary's campaign is flailing, Hillary comes out with the desperate and disingenuous attacks. Of course she knows that there is nothing here, and she knows it, but she is desperate and so her smears come without any context whatsoever. She knows if she actually gave context with any of this misinformation the people would see it for what it is. She is just relying on voters not knowing the whole picture, so they will go ahead and believe her. That is a typical Republican nasty trick, and it disgusts me.

Seriously, attacking him trying to find any slight slip in his high ethical standard when that bar is so much higher than your own, with or without slips? Pathetic. Clean up your own house Hillary, you have lobbyists all over the place and you've said that they have a right to be there and whisper in your ear.

I'm tired of this, I can't wait until it blows up in her face, again.

24 hours to the New Hampshire primary. From the news reports it looks like New Hampshire is going crazy for obama and nobody is taking the time to show up for mr. bill's speeches. The front page of the times has an interesting story for non-clinton people about what little impact mr. bill is having.

Josh's piece on the front page about the downward spiral of the clinton campaign is very informative and good journalism. Thank you.

Last point, for those who have been on this site, they know one of my beefs has been the experience issue with clinton. She has tried to demean the other candidates by claiming so much more experience when by and large her experience is no different than obama's, maybe a little more than edwards, and much less than the other candidates.

Well now the clinton campaign is whining about the lack of media coverage on obama's record. The clinton campaign dug into 4000 votes in the illinois state senate by obama and didn't find any issues and fed it to the times. That's telling.

The funny thing is that by her pressing the media to delve into obama's experience, it is coming back at her. It was too funny this morning on npr. She was bagging obama's experience and low and behold a freaking reporter asked her about hers. The response was tooooo funny. She took credit as a senator for marshalling schip through the senate, but wait, schip was passed by the republican congress in the 90's. Soooooo, she obviously didn't have anything to do with it. Also, she took credit for a veteran's health care bill, which is a good thing obviously. Buttttt, if this is it and this is all her legislative accomplishments, it says there's no basis for her claim of over whelming experience vis a vis the other candidates. I was laughing my a** off. She finally gets asked about her 35 years of change and what does she have? Nothing.

Can't wait until this is over. Bring on the republicans. They are running so scared at obama's popularity and inspiration. I can feel a filabuster proof majority in the senate. Look out washington, change is coming FINALLY.

I still don't understand this bowing at the alter of our front-running corporate
Democrat and how they behave on the web and if I don't recognize there is not God but Obama I must be some crazy troll supporting Hillary who is battling Obama for the title of most corporate Democrat. Change, schmange, how did the left finally make a grass roots effort to nominate someone but those chose for it not to be a progressive, they choose a rank and file corporate Democrat who is unvetted and will most certainly not make change. Can you imagine Obama sitting down at the table to ask the Republicans please don't steal this election from me? It makes sense it wasn't Hillary, it makes no sense that it is Obama.

Desider wrote on January 7, 2008 4:43 AM:
Hillary doesn't have the "vision thing"? Here she was in 1995, speaking to an international women's Congress, before Obama was even in the legislature - was he preaching microcredit back then? She was.

Let's go back to 1995. Brutal sanctions were imposed upon Iraq by the UN.

Some even called it genocide.

When reports began to surface of the hundreds of thousands of children who died, or were diseased, of elderly suffering disease or death, attempts to lift the sanctions by the UN were blocked by Bill Clinton.
They continued and ended with the famous statement by Madeline Albright that it was "worth it"

Hillary has her self imposed brag about being a "co-president" and that brings legitimacy to her vast experience claim. If so, how is it she did not come forth to help those children, their mothers, the elderly then?

She says in her speech:

"...Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere.

If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too.

Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely on women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.

As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around the world -- as long as girls and women are valued less, red less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of their homes -- the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

Let this Conference be our -- and the world’s -- call to action.

And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future."

Does it sound as if she were applying all that feel good stuff to the women and children in Iraq?

Let's then go on to her war vote. S
he voted to hand Bush the keys to the car and invade Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of women and children were outright bombed and killed and who knows how many maimed and wounded and hurting. Families were put out of their homes, or had to flee their homeland. She voted to let it happen.

Do you think she can apply that feel good stuff to the innocent children and women and families of Iraq? She would rather you forget about that vote.

So in reading that speech, I find myself just more disgusted at Hillary Clinton, who enjoys the reputation of being a phoney and a flip flopper. She now resorts to outright lies in screeching attacks on her competitorse because she lost in Iowa badly and is losing in New Hampshire.

I cannot ever vote for her. I will not subject myself to the humiliation of having to hold my nose in the polling booth.

FUCKING FINALLY(!) something Clinton can speak with authority on and you folk are doubting her.

Slime knows slime.

It's not a sexist decision for many people to flee from Hillary Clinton for Edwards or Obama. It's because she deploys the same Karl Rove tactics against members of her own party in her party. Republicans are free game because they deserve to fry in Hell. Also, Obama isn't running around saying a vote for him because of his race. Hillary promotes the fact I should vote for her because putting a woman in the white house is owed to women. The problem I see is that the civil rights movement and the feminist movement wasn't about filling a quota (affirmative action aside), it was about accepting that all humans are inherently equal regardless of ethnic identity or gender, and should be judge by the content of their character. Iowa proved that gender and race doesn't matter; this is a damning revelation in a country where a black man would have been lynched just for walking down the same side of the street as a white woman.

Patchwork, did those supposed Iraqi children deaths in 1995 actually happen? Just like the Lancet's 600,000 civilian deaths in the war? Exaggerated unbelievable poorly researched statistics do nothing to help liberal causes, do they?