One person here told me he supported Barack Obama because Obama does not take money from lobbyists.

Well,in reality he does.

Obaam does not directly take money from lobbyists frist hand,but he does take second hand money from them.

And he always took money directly from lobbyists until he ran for president.

I'd call this a bigger lie than a misstatment about snipers,I'm sure he'll get a free pass again though.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/obama_edwards_and_the_lobbying.html

:violin:

To be fair TLG,you did say you didn't care about lobbyists one way or the other.

But this does make a him a [gasp]HYPOCRITE.

One person here told me he supported Barack Obama because Obama does not take money from lobbyists.

Well,in reality he does.

Obaam does not directly take money from lobbyists frist hand,but he does take second hand money from them.

And he always took money directly from lobbyists until he ran for president.

I'd call this a bigger lie than a misstatment about snipers,I'm sure he'll get a free pass again though.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/obama_edwards_and_the_lobbying.html


but you dont think its a big deal people lie. or are you now going to say you suddenly found a moral compass?

partisan hackery on your part. thats all this is.

lies are lies to me, all are bad and all are wrong, but not to you. your reply in partisan hack fashion has been to say "name an adult who doesnt" as if to say "hey, everyone else does it so its not a big deal when hillary does it"

so why is this a big deal to you now and hillary's lies still arent a big deal to you?

you are full of double standards. both are wrong for lying but lets be fair here, you're pointing this out because you support hillary AND her lies, not because you dont believe lying is bad and people shouldnt do it. at least have the balls to admit that much.

but you dont think its a big deal people lie. or are you now going to say you suddenly found a moral compass?

I don't think it is a big deal and personally I don't care who he takes money from.

This is not about me,it's about the Obamanicas who say he's pure for not taking money from lobbyists,well he's not.


partisan hackery on your part. thats all this is.


Just as supporting for Obama for not taking money from lobbyists and condemning Hillary for doing so is.


I am not the issue.:P

To be fair TLG,you did say you didn't care about lobbyists one way or the other.

But this does make a him a [gasp]HYPOCRITE.

Look, TT, I know it sucks to lose, and so the Hillary campaign and its supporters are willing to throw whatever bullshit non-issue crap at Obama that they can as Hail Marys to see what might stick, but...no. Just...no.

One person here told me he supported Barack Obama because Obama does not take money from lobbyists.

Well,in reality he does.

Obaam does not directly take money from lobbyists frist hand,but he does take second hand money from them.

And he always took money directly from lobbyists until he ran for president.

I'd call this a bigger lie than a misstatment about snipers,I'm sure he'll get a free pass again though.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/obama_edwards_and_the_lobbying.html

I enjoyed this article, and find that Obama nailed it with the following statement:


A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBott, said that "neither Mercado, nor any registered federal lobbyist, is a staff member of the Obama campaign." He declined to say whether Mercado would join the campaign at at later date or is an unpaid adviser. He said that the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists was not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

A spokesman for Edwards, Eric Schultz, said that there was a "clear distinction" between refusing to take money from lobbyists and taking money from the people who employ them. "Either you lobby the federal government or you don't. Either you are paid to influence legislation and the people who write it or you're not. The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."

Obama gets points for acknowledging that the line he is attempting to draw is a vague one, and that all presidential candidates are tainted by their frantic efforts to raise money. "The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water [as the other candidates]," he told reporters in Iowa, back in August. "The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up."


The American electoral landscape is what it is. Obama has declared he wants to change it. He can only change it if he gets elected, and to get elected, he has to swim in the current 'muddy waters'. He can't disadvantage his fundraising campaign with crippling, all-out principles, but he does want America to know there is a problem that he is willing to start working on now - before he is even elected.

Lastly, as a comment to that blog post said so well:


Do I detect the Clinton machine springing into action?

Employees are not lobbyists. Under your rationale, if an autoworker contributes to a candidate, Big Auto has.

John Edwards has correctly identified that this is a rigged system. Furthermore, he never has taken money from a federal lobbyist.

Seems pretty simple to me.


Thank you, and good night.

M

Ooh, another nice comment I must post before sleep:




While it's a small step, at least Obama and Edwards are moving in the right direction. The $500,000 that Clinton scooped up that could have gone to the other candidates isn't chump change.

Obama's pledge to reject money from federal lobbyists and PACs--while largely symbolic--is a piece of a broader effort to reform our system of campaign finance. He's been instrumental in pushing legislative reform on this front in the Senate--and passed the first ethics reform bill in Illinois in 25 years as a state senator.

As Ruth Marcus (WaPo) wrote in August, Obama leads the pack on these issues. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101420.html?nav=rss_opinions


Some Americans aren't being fooled by the filthy wanting to hold the merely grimy to higher standards of cleanliness than themselves.

M.

malcolm, throughout the course of your embracing of obama as the man for the job, you have gone from someone who seemed to be somewhat independent-minded politically, and that i simply frequently but respectfully disagreed with, to an obama shill. now you go as far as to advocate a man's corrupt behaviour, simply because he 'acknowledges' that he 'must' swim in the same waters as everyone else, play the same vile games, to get to the point where he can change things. W.O.W.!!!!! you have been duped. if he had an ounce of integrity, he wouldn't play the game at all. he's a power and influence broker, just like the rest. you WILL see the depths of his lies and corruption the further he gets, and especially if he is elected, but i assume you'll have some carefully, slithery-worded excuse for every unsavoury bit that comes down the road.

our political system is broken, and those that participate in it are most often as vile as people come. you don't fix things by participating in swimming in the muck, and no matter who you are, you shouldn't get a pass just for acknowledging that stuff is rotten, including yourself. the only way for americans to send a real message at this point, would be for the large majority of us to refuse to vote, period. if 70-75% of americans loudly abstained, it would cause quite a shake-up. i myself, refuse to be part of the problem, part of the sickness, and i will not vote for any of these people. i invite everyone to join in, and any who are interested can hold me accountable in regard to my claim.

Look, TT, I know it sucks to lose, and so the Hillary campaign and its supporters are willing to throw whatever bullshit non-issue crap at Obama that they can as Hail Marys to see what might stick, but...no. Just...no.


I know you don't care if Obama is a hypocrite ,some people might though.

malcolm, throughout the course of your embracing of obama as the man for the job, you have gone from someone who seemed to be somewhat independent-minded politically, and that i simply frequently but respectfully disagreed with, to an obama shill.


Agreed.

I've been critical of Hillary voting for the war,I was critical of Ferrao for her remarks.

Malclom and TLG are critical of Obama over nothing.

I am partisan,but I can be objective.

Malclom and TLG are partisan and have no objectivity whatsoever.





now you go as far as to advocate a man's corrupt behaviour, simply because he 'acknowledges' that he 'must' swim in the same waters as everyone else, play the same vile games, to get to the point where he can change things.


When I say that all politicans have to lie,I get slagged by these self-righteous phonies.:nonono:

When their canidate is shown to be a hypocrite,they are in denial about it.



W.O.W.!!!!! you have been duped. if he had an ounce of integrity, he wouldn't play the game at all. he's a power and influence broker, just like the rest. you WILL see the depths of his lies and corruption the further he gets, and especially if he is elected, but i assume you'll have some carefully, slithery-worded excuse for every unsavoury bit that comes down the road.


I think everybody right or left,Republican or Democrat has to play that game because that is the way the system is,you can't win outside the system.

But I'm not a hypocrite about it,Obama and some of his supporters are hypocrites.


the only way for americans to send a real message at this point, would be for the large majority of us to refuse to vote, period.

They already do.

Half the country isn't registered,half of those who are registered don't vote.

That doesn't change anything.

We are all interconencted in one way or another.

First off, some of the article's insinuations are closer to lie than spin. Saying that he took donations from individuals that work in the pharma industry and that this should be considered the same as taking money from big pharma is a bit absurd. If I give money to a campaign that doesn't equate the security lobby meeting in a hotel room and handing over a check along with a list of concerns to a given candidate. The problem with lobbyists is not so much the money that they raise, but that they get face time with the candidate or blocks of time with the candidate's staff that the rest of us don't. To that end, it seems as though Obama is doing a little something, although clearly he's not out of the weeds completely.

malcolm, throughout the course of your embracing of obama as the man for the job, you have gone from someone who seemed to be somewhat independent-minded politically, and that i simply frequently but respectfully disagreed with, to an obama shill. now you go as far as to advocate a man's corrupt behaviour, simply because he 'acknowledges' that he 'must' swim in the same waters as everyone else, play the same vile games, to get to the point where he can change things. W.O.W.!!!!! you have been duped. if he had an ounce of integrity, he wouldn't play the game at all. he's a power and influence broker, just like the rest. you WILL see the depths of his lies and corruption the further he gets, and especially if he is elected, but i assume you'll have some carefully, slithery-worded excuse for every unsavoury bit that comes down the road.

our political system is broken, and those that participate in it are most often as vile as people come. you don't fix things by participating in swimming in the muck, and no matter who you are, you shouldn't get a pass just for acknowledging that stuff is rotten, including yourself. the only way for americans to send a real message at this point, would be for the large majority of us to refuse to vote, period. if 70-75% of americans loudly abstained, it would cause quite a shake-up. i myself, refuse to be part of the problem, part of the sickness, and i will not vote for any of these people. i invite everyone to join in, and any who are interested can hold me accountable in regard to my claim.

Oh no, Vindex.
That is not an objective take at all.

Obama wanted to send a message to the American people: that he stood for change - change even concerning the electoral process that has had us stuck electing the same puppets over and over again. He went as far as to handicap his own fund-raising efforts in order to demonstrate this will.

He CANNOT, however, refuse all corporate monies (and he did not say he was going to) - otherwise he will probably lose, and the change he represents - and has handicapped his campaign to prove it - never see the light of day.

Its that simple.

I am certainly open to you demonstrating something more sinister at work here, but until you do, I'm going to have to marvel at your desire to drag Obama through the mud.

It is a saddening aspect of some people's human nature that when someone shows the will and the potential to hold himself to higher standards for the good of all, some of us shoot him down for not achieving sainthood on day one. That is precisely what you are doing.

Your analysis is far too simplistic: you clearly believe that either a candidate is a saint, or he is exactly the same as all the corrupt politicians we have been accustomed to... That's just no good enough.

M.

First off, some of the article's insinuations are closer to lie than spin. Saying that he took donations from individuals that work in the pharma industry and that this should be considered the same as taking money from big pharma is a bit absurd. If I give money to a campaign that doesn't equate the security lobby meeting in a hotel room and handing over a check along with a list of concerns to a given candidate. The problem with lobbyists is not so much the money that they raise, but that they get face time with the candidate or blocks of time with the candidate's staff that the rest of us don't. To that end, it seems as though Obama is doing a little something, although clearly he's not out of the weeds completely.


I don't see the difference between talking "second hand" money from special interests and taking "first hand" money from special interests.:scratch: :shrug:

The fact is the only politician in recent years who wasn't beholden to "special interests" was Ross Perot and that's only because he himself was the special interest.

I don't see the difference between talking "second hand" money from special interests and taking "first hand" money from special interests.:scratch: :shrug:

The fact is the only politician in recent years who wasn't beholden to "special interests" was Ross Perot and that's only because he himself was the special interest.

You don't see the difference between an individual donating to a campaign and an organization of businesses grouping together and putting their money in a pool for the candidate that comes and gives them time to list their demands? This "first hand/second hand" nonsense is trying to pretend that me giving money to a candidate on their website is the same as my industry getting together as a coordinated interest group and getting face time with the candidate to air their position and wave a giant carrot. That dog don't hunt. There is a huge difference between a company making a contribution, an industry lobby making a contribution, and an individual making a contribution. That difference is interests and the amount of direct interaction and power they have over the candidate. A lobby group's interests are the group versus the public. A company's are the company versus its competitors. An individual's isn't important because we won't get to ask the candidate about them anyways. The writer tried to lump a few thousand dollars tossed in by an individual at a company as the same as an industry lobby tossing in millions. These are, to paraphrase Pulp Fiction, hardly the same sport, let alone the same game or ballpark.

You don't see the difference between an individual donating to a campaign and an organization of businesses grouping together and putting their money in a pool for the candidate that comes and gives them time to list their demands? This "first hand/second hand" nonsense is trying to pretend that me giving money to a candidate on their website is the same as my industry getting together as a coordinated interest group and getting face time with the candidate to air their position and wave a giant carrot. That dog don't hunt. There is a huge difference between a company making a contribution, an industry lobby making a contribution, and an individual making a contribution. That difference is interests and the amount of direct interaction and power they have over the candidate. A lobby group's interests are the group versus the public. A company's are the company versus its competitors. An individual's isn't important because we won't get to ask the candidate about them anyways. The writer tried to lump a few thousand dollars tossed in by an individual at a company as the same as an industry lobby tossing in millions. These are, to paraphrase Pulp Fiction, hardly the same sport, let alone the same game or ballpark.



Sounds like spin to me.:nonono:

Money from special interests is money from special interests be it upfront or thorugh the backdoor.

I'd even argue that through the backdoor is more disengenious.

Sounds like spin to me.:nonono:

Money from special interests is money from special interests be it upfront or thorugh the backdoor.

I'd even argue that through the backdoor is more disengenious.

So if you contribute to Hillary than she is taking money from AIPAC?

So if you contribute to Hillary than she is taking money from AIPAC?



I have nothing to do with AIPAC or with any other lobby.:scratch:

Her taking money from any lobby does not bother me,it does not bother me that Obama is taking lobby money through the backdoor.

What does bother me is the mantra of "She takes lobby money and Obama does not" when does does indeed do that.

She's honest about it,he isn't.

Sounds like spin to me.:nonono:

Money from special interests is money from special interests be it upfront or thorugh the backdoor.

I'd even argue that through the backdoor is more disengenious.

Well why don't you try to be practical and actually try to think of a better solution then?
How would you go about preventing this sort of thing from happening, without spending half your campaign money investigating each donation?

The thing you refuse to admit is that Obama did what he could to take a step in the right direction: something none of the other candidates have done. He can't check that every donation doesn't have a corporation lurking in the background, TT. This is the real world, and there are real logistical impossibilities to take into consideration.

I imagine your better solution would be something along the lines of Obama not allowing himself ANY campaign contributions to prove his point? You'd probably like that.

M.

I have nothing to do with AIPAC or with any other lobby.:scratch:

Her taking money from any lobby does not bother me,it does not bother me that Obama is taking lobby money through the backdoor.

What does bother me is the mantra of "She takes lobby money and Obama does not" when does does indeed do that.

She's honest about it,he isn't.

You often take the same position as AIPAC. Your "back door" argument is based solely on the fact that some of the people who have donated to his campaign work in companies that belong to lobbies. Your connection of the dots is no less ridiculous than mine. The basis of your argument is that taking money from the employee of a company is the exact same thing as taking money from a lobby that the company belongs to and/or supports. This is an absurd argument. You might as well say that every candidate takes money from the environmental lobby since all Americans drink water.

There is no solution.

This is the way the two-party system is set up.

The only possible solution to everyting would be a multi-party system like in Europe.

That would insure compromise and respect for each other.

Until that day happens, all canidates in both parties will have to do it this way.

I atually do think politics are evil,but they are a necessary evil.

You often take the same position as AIPAC.


1.I'm glad you said "often" instead of "always".

2.I have no affiliation with any group [excepting the ACLU and MDUSA,sometimes].


Your "back door" argument is based solely on the fact that some of the people who have donated to his campaign work in companies that belong to lobbies.


You think that is a coincidence?

You think that is a coincidence?

I think that the amounts are small and that everyone works for someone. So, yes, I think most of it is related to something other than a mysterious cabal conspiracy. What would be really amazing is if a candidate for President didn't get a single contribution from a person that worked at a company that had an affiliation with a lobby group.