home

3 Obama Campaign Staffers Were Lobbyists While On Obama's Payroll

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:31:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I always thought that the Obama (and Edwards) moralizing on lobbyists was utter nonsense. Now we see just how nonsensical it was for Obama:

Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents. The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).

Of course Obama accepted money from lobbyists, but not from current lobbyists (just past and future lobbyists) and the clients of current lobbyists. It was all hypocritical nonsense. And this makes it absolutely clear it was nonsense.

This is a bad development for Obama.

< Former S.C. Executioners Sue Prison Officials | Three Unindicted Duke Lacrosse Players File Massive Civil Lawsuit >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    3 Obama Campaign Staffers Were Lobbyists While On Obama's Payroll | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Seriously if i had free rain over the titles (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:28:32 PM EST
    mine would be

    BTD discovers more evidence Obama isn't the second comming of Jesus Christ.
     

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    Now can you convince the Obama Cult that that is so?

    Because you HIT on EXACTLY what this post is about.


    Parent

    I dont think (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    that is an accurate characterization of Obama supporters.  It's just that Hillary supporters are so drunk off her kool-aid, the only logical way they can fathom someone not supporting her is that they are following good ole JC.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:38:33 PM EST
    I have never seen such a bad case of cult like behavior than Obama supporters.

    Hillary supporters can be as nasty as anyone, but they are more realistic about who these folks are.

    Parent

    I don't see it that way. Hepoints out (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:32:06 PM EST
    where the candidates contradict themselves and, especially areas where a candidate attempts to discredit another candidate but isn't clean on the issue himself (or herself).  Its a public service, really.  

    Parent
    I can think of lots of Hillary (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    contradiction that have not made it up here,
    How about when she promised not to attack other candidates.
    How about when she said that comparing democrats to bush is below the belt, and now her stump speach says voting for Barack is like voting for bush.

    How about some in depth examining about how she says Kyle Lieberman was a vote for diplomacy.

    how about when Edwards said he has been fighting against the war since the beginning.  Or his ridiculous claims that people are stealing his ideas, because he has been running for president the longest.

    Parent

    how about (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    how she exaggerates her role in the Clinton white house, so she can sounds credible when she claims Barack is "too inexperienced"

    Parent
    That's a fair criticism (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:42:02 PM EST
    I have to be respectful of the site to soem degree.

    But I do point out problems with Clinton, including and especially when she attacks personally.

    As for Edwards, I have been quite tough on him.

    But you are right I have focused on Obama the most, but my reasons for that are pretty clear - I think he is the most compelling figure in the race.

    Parent

    he is the (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    most compelling figure in politics at the moment.

    Parent
    TNR comparing Obama to Bush, credibility problem (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:01:53 PM EST
    I just read through this article over at TNR by Sean Wilentz The Delusional Style in American Punditry which basically compares the kind of emotional and instinctual response many people have when they see Obama, to the current President George W. Bush and his similar appeal.  It's an interesting piece that makes some seemingly plausible arguments about the media's reaction to Obama, similar to those that were mentioned here in an earlier post, though I don't necessarily agree with it.

    But what Prof. Wilentz fails to mention is that he is a personal friend of the Clintons, and I think this is indicative of many of the criticisms I see directed at Obama.  They're coming from people who appear to be making logical arguments, but in reality their motivations often lie elsewhere, in the realm of emotional response and personal feelings.  There's a real problem when someone tries to make an objective argument in a political campaign, and they are personal friend of that candidate's opponent.  As any journalist will tell you.

    I think that Wilentz could've gone a long way to defusing this criticism if he had mentioned it somewhere in his article, I saw no mention of this in the piece, and I think is deceptive, in a very real sense. Much like the criticisms I see here in regard to Obama, when it's apparent to me that Armando and Jeralyn will be voting for Clinton when the time comes.  

    Professor Wilentz is a PUBLIC endorser of Clinton (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:05:38 PM EST
    Please take your smearing of people elsewhere.

    Aaron, get a hold of yourself  or I will delete your comments like the one above.

    Parent

    Easy big fella (none / 0) (#77)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:11:04 PM EST
    Is there anything that I wrote in that comment that was untrue, or that violates the rules of this blog?

    Sean Wilentz writes a piece that appears to be objective journalism, with no mention of him being a Clinton supporter, that is deceptive in my opinion.

    I don't see anything that smears anyone in anyway.  I had no idea he was a friend of the Clintons until I looked him up, and I had no idea that he endorsed the Clintons until you told me.

    Parent

    It was an opinion piece (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    by someone who has NOTORIOUSLY endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

    There was no deception whatsoever.

    His endorsement piece on Clinton was covered extensively.

    Your attack on Wilentz was a false smear.

    Parent

    Wilentz (none / 0) (#94)
    by diogenes on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:30:40 PM EST
    Did this particular article by Wilentz state that he was an notorious endorser and/or personal friend of the Clintons?  
    If it did, fine.  If it didn't, then the question of whether it should have is one of journal rules and not quite a "false smear".

    Parent
    With weak supporters such as you, does (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    Obama need enemies?

    Waiting for that definitive essay summoning up the reasons you currently support him, albeit not whole-heartedly.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:43:56 PM EST
    Mostly I support him because I think he is a progressive in his heart, has immense political talent and is a Media darling.

    Is that not good enough?

    On THIS issue I was perfectrly clear at the time it was a BS attack on Clinton by Edwards and Obama.

    Parent

    I'm afraid you are following that pretty face and (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:46:33 PM EST
    electable suit instead of hammering on getting out of Iraq now, leading now, FISA, Constitution, all those issues you write so strongly about--until Obama turned your head.  Don't forget though, I voted for McGovern!

    Parent
    Ture as to THIS issue. Got to give you credit. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:47:36 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm Shocked! (none / 0) (#5)
    by BDB on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    Shocked!

    Heh.

    I figure about 90% of the things that Obama has attacked Clinton on, he's done himself.  Because, you know, they're both politicians.  It's just that only one of them admits it.  

    Obama is a progressive in his heart (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:24:03 PM EST
    Sure. And the proof is right here:
    -Partial health care coverage
    -Supports Bush on social security
    -Is for vouchers

    And final proof: has two arms and two legs. Do we need more?

    Media darling would worry me more than anything else. If they like something, I don't. And he also very courageous; he skips all important vote.

    Not ALL Important Votes (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:37:36 PM EST
    To be fair to Obama, he doesn't skip every important vote.  He's been there for plenty.  He has a decent legislative record.

    Which isn't to say his present votes aren't telling.  I think they're particularly telling in light of his pilloring Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman, a vote he missed.  It takes chutzpah to accuse Clinton of triangulating as you bash her for taking an unpopular stand on a vote you missed.  And then to try to claim that your present votes on guns and abortion were actually about political courage?  I honestly can't believe his pants haven't burst into flames on this one.

    It doesn't help that Illinois Planned Parenthood is trying to cover his ass and that so many progressives seem to think their B-S story should end the matter.  It makes no sense for Obama, who was in a solid, democratic district, to vote "present" on abortion bills.  It's the people like Obama you need to vote up or down so that folks who are in more conservative districts can vote present. When guys like Obama vote present, it makes other State Senators carry the risk and narrows the vote count, making it look like a smaller percentage of the legislature support abortion rights.  

    With the leadership Illinois Planned Parenthood is showing, no wonder abortion rights are under attack.  

    Parent

    Re skipping votes: apparently (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    Biden, Edwards, and Clinton decided to follow him by being absent on Feingold's amendment to impose a deadline on Iraq.  

    Parent
    Oh wait, Edwards doesn't get to vote anymore. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:40:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Sadly, Irrelevant (none / 0) (#20)
    by BDB on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:54:15 PM EST
    I'd be upset if I thought those votes on Feingold would've mattered.  Sadly, it was never going to be that close.

    Dodd is the only one, IMO, who has shown leadership in the Senate this year.  I liked Clinton's speech against the horrendous Military Commissions Act last year and, while not in the same league as Dodd's threatened filibuster, I think it was important because she does get more attention than your average Senator and the media was swooning over the McCain-led compromise, ignorning how awful it was.  Having her speak out against it in an election year, knowing she would probably run for President, was a good thing.  And it was a good speech.

    It's just too bad that Clinton and all of the other sitting Senators, particularly Obama, haven't used their public profile to do more to end the Iraq War.  It's very disappointing.

    Parent

    Yes, sadly irrelevant, but, if I am to (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:17:47 PM EST
    vote for a candidate whose actions I applaud, . . .

    Parent
    Your tittle makes your story false (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    It should read:
    3 Obama Campaign Staffers WERE Registered Lobbyists

    maybe you should take a deep breath before you try and trash candidates, wouldn't want you to pull a digby.

    This IS BTD's candidate. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:44:11 PM EST


    Parent
    yes i know (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:45:31 PM EST
    but does that make it ok to publish false stories

    Parent
    Were Lobbyist While On the Payroll (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    And will be again when the campaign ends.

    Parent
    And he took money from folks (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:50:55 PM EST
    who WERe registered lobbyists and will be again.

    IT is complete BS from Obama.

    Parent

    like i said (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:53:45 PM EST
    this may be true, but it doesn't morph were to are as in were at one point, and are currently.

    Parent
    I see (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    Well, just for you, I'll change it.

    Now, about the sanctimonious hypocrisy from Obama on this . . .

    Parent

    ok that may be true (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    write that but your headline is still wrong.

    Parent
    Not clear if that is true (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    And frankly, these folsk ARE lobbyists who are taking a sabbatical.

    They will be lobbyists agains when the campaign ends.

    Parent

    not the same (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    well if you want to write:

    3 Obama Campaign Staffers Are Registered Lobbyists Who Are Taking a Sabbatical

    then you can make an argument that is correct, but

    3 Obama Campaign Staffers Are Registered Lobbyists

    is not correct pure and simple.

    Parent

    Surely you can;t complan about the current title (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:10:56 PM EST


    Parent
    like i said (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    It made me laugh...  putting it that way makes him seem slimier.  

    Parent
    you should delete (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:07:27 PM EST
    this entire chain.  might i say the changes actually make him seem like more of a douche.  i laughed when i read them.

    Parent
    "Tittle"? (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:12:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Reality (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    is that lobbyist and money party of business in Washington, clearly they have to work within the system to get elected.  I don't understand what is wrong with making efforts to reduce the influence of money in the election.  Of course it wont be perfect, but at least its an attempt.  Compare that to Clinton who defends lobbyists and money in the system.

    Seriously your views on campaign reform are like bush's foreign policy, you only understand it in terms of black and white.

    Excuse me?????? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:52:07 PM EST
    I was NOT the person MORALIZING about all this.

    That would be Obama.

    Now it bites him on the butt.

    HE should have been HONEST about it. He was not.

    Parent

    he said (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:59:06 PM EST
    money and lobbyist in the system is bad, and that he would make an effort to reduce their influence, which is why he is not accepting money from registered lobbyists.

    I don't get how finding out that effort isn't exactly perfect is this horrible thing.  Not accepting money from registered lobbyists is a big difference from the HRC campaign.  He pointed that out, and YOU have decided that he can't ever have come within 100 feet of a lobbyist for doing it.

    Parent

    He would make an EFFORT? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    He made a HUGE show about supposedly not taking FEDERAL lobbyist money, which was incredibly disingenuous, as he DID take money from folks who lobby and their clients.

    How hard would it have been to NOT have lobbyists on his payroll?

    Parent

    Well ask (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:05:09 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton apparently she can't even ask them to take a sabbatical.

    Parent
    When Hillary makes a big stink about lobbyists (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:10:18 PM EST
    I will.

    this was some bad stuff from Obama. Can you explain why he did this?

    Parent

    do you need me too (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:19:29 PM EST
    Um lets see Hillary had her little i heart lobbyist gaffe, so to capitalize off it, he made some a gesture towards eliminating lobbyists from the system.

    seriously i get accused of claiming he is saint Obama all the damn time, if this really disturbs i tihnk maybe you have St. Obama syndrome.

    Parent

    Wait a sec (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    Are you saying all of Obama's talk about lobbyists was merely a POLITCAL ploy?

    I'm shocked!!!

    Parent

    you are having way too much fun here. (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:22:51 PM EST


    Parent
    In a way (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    Look, what JGarza is cadidly admitting is what I have been saying, Obama is a pol. They are all pols.

    Let's stop pretending he is something different.

    He is a potentially GREAT POL. Maybe even another FDR.

    But still a pol.

    Parent

    Symbolic gestures, like (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    announcing his candidacy on the steps of the old capital in Springfield and invoking Lincoln.  Seems to be working.  

    Parent
    ohh come on (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:23:31 PM EST
    just like John Edwards, but jeez atleast they admit that they are a problem and make symbolic gestures, rather then ms. "they represent people like you and me"

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:26:00 PM EST
    And they tried to hammer Hillary with it.

    It so happens that I think the ONLY way to reform the money problem is COMPLETELY publically financed elections.

    All the rest of it is BS.

    And I BET Obama and Edwards agree with me.

    What do you think?

    Parent

    Didn't Obama lash out a Clinton in an (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:21:11 PM EST
    early debate, saying she accepted money from Washington lobbyists and he didn't?  Surely my memory hasn't dimmed that much; it wasn't that long ago.  

    Parent
    and rightly so (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    she deserved it after he "they are people like you and me" lobbyist have your best interest at heart crap

    Parent
    She sd. it at the debate and afterwards in (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    response to Obama's holier-than-though accusation.

    Parent
    So these Obama staffers (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    they are not there on principle? Is that what you are telling me?

    They think they'll get something from Obama for it?

    I am SHOCKED!


    Parent

    Now i never said that (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:29:50 PM EST
    i don't know who they are i cant give you their motivations.

    Parent
    But but but (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:31:27 PM EST
    you just said Hillary was wrong to say "lobbyists are people too."

    I am not following you  here.

    Parent

    I'd imagine (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:30:41 PM EST
    if he wins, they won't go back to being lobbyists. :P

    Parent
    Oh, I imagine differently (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:32:26 PM EST


    Parent
    not immediately. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:34:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Congratulations! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    Finally Armando has found a substantive issue, worthy of criticism, I congratulate you. Let's see more of this, because these are the things that America needs to know about our political candidates, and how campaigns are run.

    Of course no one thought that the Obama campaign was virginal or pure, not by any stretch of the imagination.  If that were the case, he would now be in sixth place with Dennis Kucinich. I don't think anybody has any illusions about that.

    I urge you to keep on digging, because we want the real ugly dirt, I'm sure it's out there, you just have to keep looking for it.  Let's find it and get it out before the Republicans have a chance to spring it in the national election.

    Really? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    I'd prefer critiquing our candidates, and their wifes/husbands dress and appearance.

    Parent
    speaking of which (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:30:02 PM EST
    Michelle would mos def be the most fashionable first lady since Jackie O HSe may even surpass her stylishness.
    Her outfits are awesome.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:22:14 PM EST
    As I SAID AND WROTE when Obama made it an issue, it is BS.

    But go drink your kool aid Aaron.

    Your man walks on water.

    Nothing I detest more than candidate cultists like you.

    Parent

    My new Phrase: Creepy Candidate Cultism (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:31:12 PM EST


    Parent
    ok come on (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:28:10 PM EST
    You know the logical reasoning part of your brain says he isn't the second coming of Jesus, but the truthiness portion of your brain makes it feel like he is the second coming of Jesus, so when logical reasoning gets proved right.. it is a big deal!

    Parent
    Can;t say (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    that I can follow that comment.

    Aaron is a perfect example of the cultist candidate supporter I was discussing before.

    I have no use for him during the primaries.

    I am sure he is a very nice and intelligent person normally.


    Parent

    Armando, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:58:29 PM EST
    That sure does sound like a personal attack, one you keep repeating, isn't that a violation of the site rules?  :-)

    You sure it's not this article that I posted yesterday that is making smoke come out of your ears, perhaps touching upon a nerve?

    Hillary Clinton's Firewall: Will Barack Obama's anemic standing among Latinos be his undoing?

    For the record, I bear you no personal animosity, though I will admit I find your positions rather laughable at times, and if you want to mischaracterizes me on your blog, that surely is your right, but all it really does is make you look childish and churlish.  Perhaps you should stick to addressing the topic at hand, as opposed to trying to obfuscate the issues and impugn my character.

    Come on let's kiss and make up :-)

    Parent

    Oh go away Aaron (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:01:59 PM EST
    you accused me of making substanceless attacks on Obama.

    Let me let you in on a little secret, just because Obama is a Media darling does not make you a darling.

    You attacked me personally and I gave it back to you.

    I am not Hillary. There is no need for me to take the high road when I am personally attacked.

    Parent

    Seriously sincerely (none / 0) (#83)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:18:40 PM EST
    For the record, I don't take this stuff personally, and if my comments have crossed the line, I apologize.

    I'm passionate in my writing, and try to make my points forcefully.  I don't wish to do anyone any harm, and if I didn't think you were worthy of engaging, honestly and intelligently, I would come here to post comments.

    So I will resolve from this point on to try and stick to the issues and away from personal remarks.  But just so you know, when I post a little :-) after my comment it means that I'm making it in a lighthearted manner, and that it shouldn't be taken too seriously.  So please don't.

    Again I apologize, I respect you, though I disagree with you adamantly at times.

    Sincerely

    Aaron

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    Then don't play the victim when you are responded to "forcefully" when you make a personal attack, as you did to me.

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:35:25 PM EST
    but really
    This is a bad development for Obama.

    Do you really thing this is going to be a big deal?   In light of the hail of attacks coming from Hillaryland, i cant really see anything sticking.

    BTW the criticism i NEVER got was why it was so horrible that he says SS Crisis, I get that it isn't, and i get the whole framing argument.. still doesn't strike me as a huge deal.

    Obama to the Democratic base: (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:38:11 PM EST
    "I don't need you, agree with you, or like you as much as I do the beltway establishment"

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:55:13 PM EST
    Obama is a republican, he hates liberals.  evidence of this being that he says crisis and SS in the same sentence, and has stood on stood on stage with some intolerant evangelicals.  Oh and lets not forget one of his friends ended up being a crook.

    seriously get a new line.

    Parent

    As someone (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:00:46 PM EST
    who too the McClurkin episode as a personal affront, I think I'll be keeping my "line," thanks--your strawmen notwithstanding.

    Parent
    Then i'm sure you will (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:16:34 PM EST
    think its an affront when he meets with Iranians, since most of the leadership there are Holocaust deniers.  Seriously the idea that you have to banish people you don't agree with is ridiculous.

    Do i like Mclurkin NO
    but why am i going to complain if he supports a candidate who is for civil unions.

    Parent

    Of course you know that is NOt the problem (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    When Obama has Holocaust deniers appear for him in his sanctioned campaign events, then your argument will make sense.

    Come now JGarza, you are much better than this.

    Parent

    seriously (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    if a group of evangelicals are going to vote for a pro civil union candidate?  why am i going to be upset?

    Parent
    Why doesn't he invite (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    David Duke to host a fundraiser and call it even. Who doesn't want the public support of white supremacists?!

    Parent
    so know you are (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:54:53 AM EST
    comparing evangelicals to white supremacists? that is a good strategy to get dems in power

    Parent
    Evangelical? Try anti-gay bigot. (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:12:11 AM EST


    Parent
    If he lets Mahmoud Ahmadinejad headline (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:24:05 PM EST
    a fundraiser, I will be upset.

    Parent
    Are you a sock puppet for Shaheen? (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:08:45 AM EST


    Parent
    This is a bizarre comment (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:03:59 PM EST
    But I have seen this as the new Obama supporter strategy, pretend a legitimate criticism is some over the top accusation of being a Republican.

    That works well at daily kos. Not so much here.

    Take your cue from Geek, he is a different person here than at daily kos.

    Parent

    So your saying that (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:12:59 PM EST
    the made up quote is accurate?  It is a baseless statement just thrown out there.  What is being said there?  How has Obama turned on the Democratic base.  It is an absolutely ridiculous statement

    Parent
    Are you REALLY arguing that andgarden (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    was presenting that as an ACTUAL quote from Obama?

    Please.

    you want to scold him for misusing quotations, fine.

    But that is not what you did.

    Parent

    Let me rewrite that (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:21:27 PM EST
    so you are saying that the made up quote is accurate description of Obama?  It is a baseless statement just thrown out there.  What is being said there?  How has Obama turned on the Democratic base.  It is an absolutely ridiculous statement

    It is as ridiculous as my Obama is a republican line, it is just some dumb baseless claim.  Tell me how has he turned on the Democratic base?

    It has nothing to do with anything that has been written here, just a random insult.

    Parent

    It is an opinion (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:26:42 PM EST
    One I disagree with mostly.

    That said, Obama has turned on the Dem base on a number of occasions. From his statements on Dems and faith, to playing chicken with our troops, to attacking bloggers for criticizing those of us who ripped Dems who voted for John Roberts.

    andgarden also felt personally betrayed by the McClurkin incident. I am not one to belittle his feelings in that regard. I think you are not one to do that either.

    Parent

    Hey thats great (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    I'm personally offended by the racist attacks the Clinton campaign has waged against Obama (Shaheen Kerrey) and by the fact that bill signed Doma into law, ohh and that Hillary had the nerve to say it was for mine and Melissa Ethridges own good that he did it.

    So then i guess we are even and now i have the privilege of making equally ridiculous claims about Hillary Clinton?

    Parent

    I think those are all legitmate topics to criticze (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:37:11 PM EST
    The Shaheen example is troublesome for you howeever in that Clinton got rid of Shaheeen but Obama did not get rid of McClurkin.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:43:19 PM EST
    Tweety had it right on this one.  Shaheen went on sabbatical, he will be back.  Actually Mclurkin is probably closer to Kerrey, who is a supporter not part of her campaign.  Hillary has made no effort to distance her self from him.  She even defended what he said.  Obama never defended what Mclurkin said, and his articulated position is the polar opposite.

    Parent
    The "just a supporter" line is absurd (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:54:04 PM EST
    No one who headlines a fundraiser is "just a supporter."

    Obama knew who McClurkin was at least a week before the scheduled event. He should have cancelled and apologized for even considering it.

    Parent

    I dont think (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:52:34 AM EST
    Kerrey is just a supporter, he is a headline supporter.  

    As for Mclurkin, sure i will hold Obama to that standard when i get an apology letter from the Clintons for pushing Doma, and for screwing up gays in the military and getting us DADT.

    Consider this DOMA was in his 2nd term, as in he didn't face relection.  he could have vetoed it .

    ohh and JE can send me the same apology letter since he voted for it too.

    Parent

    You keep prattling on about Clinton (none / 0) (#104)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:11:29 AM EST
    It's very revealing.

    Parent
    D-Punjab (none / 0) (#98)
    by BDB on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:54:31 AM EST
    I thought Bill Shaheen's remarks were inappropriate and I was glad to see him step down from Clinton's campaign.  

    Did Obama fire the staffer who wrote the memo with the racist attack on Indian-Americans?  My recollection is no.  Although I'd love to be proven wrong on that one.  Seriously.  

    I don't think Obama is worse than Clinton in terms of the crap they pull.  I just don't think he's any better, either.  They are both ambitious politicians and they both act like it.   That's not always something that's pretty to watch.

    Parent

    He apologized (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:48:30 AM EST
    and it wasn't a high level campaign staffer, you know like an intern, and i know Clintons have an unorthodox way of treating interns, but really i don't think firing over eager kids is a great solution.

    Parent
    I think it is going to be a huge deal (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    politically.

    I really do.

    I think it may very well cost him Iowa.

    This is a much bigger deal to me than this present business that the Clinton camp is trying to sell.

    I was on that telephone press conference this afternoon that has gotten some attention.

    I saw the point politically but substantively it seemed like much ado about nothing and politicallly not much more than that.

    As you can see, I chose not to write about it.

    Parent

    the reason why is (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    first, it undermines Obama's I am different message.

    second, it undermines Obama's I am not part of the Establishment message.

    third, and most important, it undermines Obama's you can trust me message.

    I really think this is a big deal.

    Frankly, I was surprised by it.  

    Parent

    In my opinion, the lobbyist language (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Geekesque on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    is just red meat to throw people who really don't pay all that much attention in the first place.

    Lobbyists are a symptom, not the problem.

    Parent

    Just "politics"? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:35:32 AM EST
    Tell that to the Cult Geek.

    Parent
    Naw (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jgarza on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:50:57 PM EST
    He will give it a canned answer about who know current lobbyist work for him, and no current lobbyist ever gave him money, and brush it off as desperate Clinton.  It will probably work too since she has those dumb websites about voting present.  Kerrey had to apologize, Shaheen still fresh in everyone memory, and then there is mailer the union sent out trying to make it look like JE was attacking Obama.

    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    Unforutnately, I think that this is pretty haqrd to fob off as you suggest.

    It is rank hypocrisy.

    It is a lack of candor writ large.

    Parent

    A Staffer Did It (none / 0) (#97)
    by BDB on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:51:19 AM EST
    I'm sure Obama will blame a staffer for his staffers and that will settle the matter.  If the problem is staffers, then it must be a staffer problem, no?  

    If I honestly thought he'd get away with this stuff through the general election, I might vote for him.

    Parent

    beltway m-turbation (none / 0) (#95)
    by diogenes on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:39:01 PM EST
    94 comments about this is just beltway m-turbation.  If the campaign gets really dirty about "3 lobbyists", people will get more fed up with the same old polarizing politics of the past 15 years, and that will only hurt Hillary since people won't want eight more years of the same.

    3 Obama Campaign Staffers Were Lobbyists While On Obama's Payroll | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment