Obama, What Drugs Are You Using?
It has to be drugs. How else do we explain Senator Obama decrying the influence of lobbyists–health care lobbyists in particular–and then putting one of those very lobbyists in as his New Hampshire campaign chair? Are all Obama supporters just a bunch of Jim Jones kool aid drinkers or does this blatant hypocrisy cause you to question the commitment of Senator Obama to produce real change in Washington?
There is no way to spin this. The facts are simple. Here’s what the good Senator said in August about those dastardly pharmaceutical and healthcare lobbyists:Take health care. The drug and insurance industries spent $1 billion in lobbying over the last decade. They got what they paid for when their friends in Congress broke the rules and twisted arms to push through a prescription drug bill that actually made it illegal for our own government to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for cheaper drug prices.
And because reform has been blocked up to now, there are parents and grandparents in this country who are walking into a drugstore and wondering how their Social Security check is going to cover a prescription that’s more expensive than it was a month ago; those who are being forced to choose between their medicine and their groceries because they can no longer afford both.
Let me be clear, I do not begrudge businesses for trying to make a profit, and I do not begrudge them for hiring lobbyists to plead their case before Congress. It is protected political speech, and we appreciate that there are many lobbyists who represent their clients well and fairly. But it’s time we had a Congress that tells the drug companies and the oil companies and the insurance industry that while they may get a seat at the table in Washington, they don’t get to buy every chair.
Okay, just as long as they buy a chair in a state with an early primary. That shit is ok. Right? If Barack is sincere and to be trusted, then how in the name of consistency and logic can he justify appointing a healthcare lobbyist as his campaign chair in New Hampshire? Did someone put a gun to his head?
James “Jim” Demers is a lobbyist. The Nashua Telegraph provided this nifty summary last summer of lobbyist activity in New Hampshire (but said nothing about Demers ties to that lobbyist hating Barack Obama):
Here is a brief summary of the top-ranking firms:
• Demers Group: $279,213.
President James Demers, a former Democratic congressional candidate and political operative, did exceedingly well with a varied stable of about 20 clients.
He got Southern Wine and Spirits on the map and into premier shelf locations at state liquor stores (for a $15,000 fee) and blocked any attempt to apply the 28-cent-per-pack increase on the cigarette tax to smokeless tobacco ($27,500).
Demers convinced the Legislature to approve a major change in legal liability for his New Hampshire Trial Lawyers ($25,000), although Lynch vetoed the bill (HB 143).
Twenty firms? Now that’s not huge in terms of Washington, D.C. terms, but heavens, are these groups paying Demers for his good looks? Doubt it. Check out Demers’ clients: (source, Lobbyists in the State of New Hampshire):
| JAMES M. DEMERS 72 N MAIN ST STE 301 CONCORD,NH 03301- (603) 228-1498 | INTERNATIONAL BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION 1700 DIAGONAL RD STE 650 ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314- | 12/28/2007 |
And to make matters worse, Obama denied that Demers is a lobbyist. Jesus!! He can’t even lie with panache or creativity. No, wait. He’s looking up the meaning of “no”.
You cannot campaign against lobbyists and then take their money and still expect voters to believe your “honesty” in government bullshit. If Obama really believed his own bullshit, he would have insisted that Demers get rid of the pharmaceutical companies as clients. In fact, he should have insisted that Demers close his business. If you are going to clean up government and eliminate lobbyist influence then you start by closing down lobbyist businesses.
But Obama did not do that. He kept him in place. If that is a “new way of doing business” then give me a call, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Suckers.
i was disappointed that the 'moderator' allowed obama to mutter 'that's not true' when clinton called him out on demers without actually making him respond. whatever the facts may be.
January 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give it a rest dude!
I'm no fan of Barack Obama, but your one note hectoring is as tiresome as Rosenberg's one note panegyrics.
The both of you ought to retreat to your respective corners and shut up whilst the sane people get on with a careful evaluation of the guy.
January 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that's a really a childish criticism.
It's called an ad hominem. Heard of it?
How about dealing with the question on its merits?
Would you say that people who criticize Bush over and over again shouldn't be listened to because it's "one note hectoring"? That, of course, is what the Republicans have been trying to argue; I'm guessing you must be agreeing that they are right?
Nobody is or should be immune from criticism, Democrats included, St. Obama included, and especially not when we are trying to determine who our next Presidential candidate might be. Either figure out a way to refute the particular argument or leave it to those who can.
January 6, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's okay, Larry had a childish post. I'm just keeping up the tone.
Well.... DUH!!!
What merits would that be, Mr. Sockpuppet? Seriously. Johnson comes up with a superficial, one sided, hectoring ad hominem attack on Obama. His thesis being "Obama is a poopyhead!" What merits should I be responding to.
Well, as long as there's some actual relevance to the criticism, est fun. But seriously, you can't compare Bush-esque hit man style slagging to reasoned criticism.
Childish smear jobs from paid political operatives don't actually help.
Certainly. "Obama is not a poopyhead!" There you go, sockpuppet!
January 6, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, I gotta say I simply assumed you would turn out a tad more capable than this.
My bad! Won't happen again!
January 6, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
For someone who complains of ad homs and hypocrisy, you could try making a post that wasn't both.
If you think you're helping the Hillary campaign... well, us Obama supporters want to thank you for your help.
January 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't have much to work with in Larry's post.
January 6, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
how about working with this for starters:
obama's NH co-chair is a lobbyist.
obama denied it.
January 6, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That disqualifies the man to be prez? I don't think so.
This is a mini-marshmellow attack job irrelevant to the real issues. It's a Red Herring mini-marshmellow, and its burnt beyond recognition as a timely, relevant topic on a coat hanger on which Hillary's campaign is hanging-up to dry.
January 6, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
i really don't think anyone is making the argument that because obama's campaign chair is a lobbyist that it disqualifies him from being president. that would be a straw man that you've just made up.
my point was that valdron addressed neither the substance nor the relevance of the issue but instead resorted to ad hominen attacks on larry. when the proper response would have been: 'yes, obama's NH co-chair is a lobbyist', and 'i'm not sure why obama said that wasn't true, but here's why i don't think it's important....'
January 7, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it doesn't disqualify him, then why pursue it? To discredit him so that folks will disqualify them in their minds?
January 7, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
discrediting is not the same as disqualifying.
if i choose to vote for one candidate over others it is not because the others were disqualified necessarily but that i simply preferred the one candidate over the others.
the intent is, as you correctly put it, to discredit obama's fairy tale about his purity. that this fairy tale needs discrediting is evident in the pattern of arguments in his defense that played out here in this ugly thread. the first line of defense was to deny the substance of the charge, to protest that obama's NH co-chair could not possibly be a lobbyist as hillary charged. then the defense shifted to 'well, he's a state lobbyist not a federal lobbyist'. then when it's pointed out that obama's national co-chair is a federal lobbyist, the argument became 'but that doesn't mean he's actually accepted any campaign contributions from lobbyists'. and 'just because his campaign chairs were lobbyists...' (even though there is nothing past tense about their lobbying businesses)...
this isn't to say that those were the arguments or the pattern of defense of all or even most of obama's supporters but it is clear that a large number of obama supporters thought/think that obama is much more pure and perfect than he really is. particularly on the issue of lobbying reform.
i don't have a problem with people voting for a candidate based on the facts. i do have a serious problem with people voting for a candidate based on fantasies. and i think there are too many obama supporters whose support for obama is based too much on fantasy.
which is too bad because because i think there are plenty of facts on which folks can base their support for obama. just as there are plenty of facts on which folks can base their support on any of the three leading candidates. even, i'm sad to say, hillary.
January 8, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
that obama's NH co-chair is a lobbyist, contrary to obama's denial is very far from being an ad hominen attack.
January 6, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But how relevant is the co-chair's status? Shall we subject every campaign operative for every campaign to this level of scrutiny?
The fact that he's a Co-Chair means that he's only half the head of the organizational team. Does this translate to real authority, significance? I don't know.
Does this reach the threshold of a real issue, or is it simply a sleazy little hit.
Strikes me that if you wanted to make for a real issue, you would demonstrate a series of material facts - the recurrent presence of lobbyists at key and critical strategic points in Obama's organization. The apparent influence of lobbyists in Obama's policy formulation. Close connections between Obama's funding and lobbyists and their clients.
So far as I can see, none of this is apparent.
Instead, we've got Larry, running around like a maniac waving the bloody shirt. Gee whiz. Colour me unimpressed.
January 6, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like a t-shirt that may, or may not, have once been wet, with bottled water.
It's pathetic the desperation coming out of the Hillary campaign.
How about real issues?
NAFTA? The DLC and their ways. Hillary sitting on WALMART's board, surrounded by some of the biggest assholes and religious wingnuts in business, who have enourmous influence and clout, and her actually taking a paycheck from them. How about the Clinton's deregulation of energy markets which led to ENRON during the late 90's, and her good pal Paul Krugman being a cheerleader for ENRON and taking a $45K paycheck for "consulting."
How about Hillary eating her words on Pakistan the other night in the debate, and once again falling on her own sword, after Larry praised her as a great FP expert. What a joke.
What's the next smear these people will jump on? How much does he spend on haircuts? It's just pathetic.
January 6, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with this. I'm going out to buy a lottery ticket right now!!!
January 6, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel any better about it than you do.
January 7, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you come up with some synonyms for "sockpuppet" and keep it clean? Can he do it?
Here's a Commonweal song for ya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InOjdeQqQFA
January 7, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all fun and games when someone loses an eye, Mike.
January 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I was making reference with the link to "Madman Across the Water" to that very thought. That's what the song's about, kicking someone who is down and enjoying the superiority.
And this conversation is definitely kicking a dead horse. See you at a Canadian rattlesnake fair, counsel.
January 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best time to kick someone is when they're down, Mike. I was always happy to play by the Marqis de Queensberry rules. But then someone colours outside the lines, and then its all red, red, glorious red.
January 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bernie Taupin had it right in the spirit of the song, whatever you may say. Marqis de Queensberry rules is what motivated the formation of the United States, where the rule is generally, you don't kick someone when they're down with the exception of the person pointing a gun at you from down there. Those breaking that rule aren't Americans to me. Isn't that the Canadian rule too? Declaration of Independence spells it out pretty good. No doubt they felt the same way about the Romans in England once.
January 8, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might have resisted the urge to punish our captures, but we did not play nice in the actual shooting, employing feints, guerilla actions, and clandestine movements.
And when it comes to dangerous pests, one does not scruple to shoot them in the head while they are pinned to the ground. Would apply figuratively to some current administration members.
January 9, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFL. Love it. And I thought you had no sense of humour.
January 9, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I do.
Do you follow Canadian politics as much as American?
January 10, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, that would qualify as addressing the content and substance of larry's post. guess there larry gave you more to work with than you gave him (or yourself) credit for. thank you for proving my point.
January 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear zkosmo, sometimes my cat shits on the floor. Sometimes when I encounter this, I will have strong words for the cat, and address her behaviour in no uncertain terms. The fact that I can address the cat in coherent and logical fashion is not in itself proof that the cat has produced anything with intellectual content and substance.
So it goes with Larry's post. The fact that I can address and speak to it critically and in a thoughtful and meaningful sense, does not mean that Larry's post has, in itself and on its own terms, any thought, meaning or sense attached to it.
Sadly, Larry's post is altogether indistinguishable from the steaming, moist, soft brown product of my cat's bowels. The difference being, apparently, that Larry did not have to catch and eat his own bird to produce it.
If you want a more detailed criticism of Larry's approach and methods from me, and of the flaw in what passes for his argument, then feel free to scroll down. Sadly, I regard it as unwarranted effort.
January 7, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Larry, the wheels are coming off the Hillary bandwagon and he is now reduced to sputtering Obama libel. You post this stuff as if you were the author but it is obvious on its face that this stuff is coming directly from Hillary's hit team. And you have the audacity to call us suckers for believing in Obama while pushing this snake oil.
January 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drafted and researched by me with no help from any one on the Clinton campaign. How about discussing the facts?
What is frightening is the level of denial the Obama supporters are engaging in. And if you folks think it is going to get easier in the General Election then I suspect you are indulging in some recreational drug use.
If the Republicans can dismantle John Kerry, a guy who actually served in Vietnam and actually earned his purple heart, what do you think they are going to do to a guy who has zero Admnistrative experience, who decries lobbyists in one breath and puts them in charge of his campaign in another, and who avoids controversial votes by voting present? My Republican friends are salivating at facing him. He ain't RFK.
January 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, maybe the guy Obama has working for him is a repentant lobbyist who can help Obama disarm the near criminal and criminal lobbies. If as you say, Obama has less experience with dishonest, relativistic, unprincipled faux Americans clogging our screwed up political system, it might help to have one on staff to know how to finesse the augur.
Besides that, your emphasis lately makes you appear to have a possible appointment at stake in a future Clinton Administration.
January 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
or maybe he's just a lobbyist.
lobbying in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing but obama said that he wasn't a lobbyist.
and when your state co-chair is a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, maybe your rhetoric doesn't match your record.
January 6, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe the entire question is a Red Herring, a distractor.
You say his state co-chair is a "lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry," and I say the entire pharmaceutical industry? Really? That would mean his lobbying firm has been retained by every pharma company out there. So already we see a tendency to over-generalize about what was a Red Herring fact to begin with.
The "gotcha" contradiction element here is not much more than a typo in ghost of campaign tricks past. And Clinton's campaign is a ghostly thing, beginning to disappear. And it is not a friendly ghost.
January 6, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You argue clearly enough. And that's appreciated.
A state campaign chair being a lobbyist does not make Obama a "regular politician" any more than a Republican serving in the WJ Clinton administration made Clinton a Republican.
January 7, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Mikey7Woodson has GOT to be kidding, right? A "repentant lobbyist"!?
January 7, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lol. Larry is really getting desperate. Come on Larry. Is this really the best you've got?
On bottled water, think about it... spring water.... Vichy water... Vichy France... NAZIS!
Btw, how did you like watching Hillary, your "FP expert" eating her own words on Pakistan last night, being forced to agree that Obama was right all along. Doh!
"My Republican friends"
Don't you mean your Republican self?
***
btw, it looks like Artappraiser has a pal in Larry and the Hillary shills. No surprise there.
January 6, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
.
Let me lend Larry a hand here. Check out the following from the Boston Globe, via beachwoodreporter:
.
BOSTON GLOBE: When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the "Health Care Justice Act," they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system. ("Obama's Lobbyist Relationships Questioned.")
Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.
The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.
Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy - the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access. In the same amendment, Obama also sought to give insurers a voice in how the task force developed its plan.
Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry's concerns into consideration.
"Barack is a very reasonable person who clearly recognized the various roles involved in the healthcare system," said Phil Lackman, a lobbyist for insurance agents and brokers. Obama "understood our concern that we didn't want a predetermined outcome."
In one attempt at a deal, Obama approached the Campaign for Better Health Care with insurers' concerns, asking if the group would consider a less stringent mandate than requiring the state to come up with a universal healthcare plan. The coalition decided not to bend, said Jim Duffett, the group's executive director.
"In this situation, Obama was being a conduit from the insurance industry to us," Duffett said.
During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had "worked diligently with the insurance industry," as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation's reach and noted that the bill had undergone a "complete restructuring" after industry representatives "legitimately" raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.
"The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry," Obama said, according to the session transcript.
January 7, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lol. Sure. it's just a coincidence Larry has been shilling for Hillary for weeks, and this is exactly the latest smear and oppo research coming out on Hillary's web site as we speak, to attempt to switch away from real issues, and slow her plummet in the polls.
And FYI, Larry is a Republican, and was not only a Bush supporter, but also a Bush donor.
From the News Hour:
I remind people of this, for a little perspective on where Larry is coming from ideologically. The main reason Larry is here is becasue he was an insider for the Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson scandal.
Just so there's no confusion, he's not a progressive, or liberal, a Democrat, or even a moderate. He's a conservative Republican Bush supporter and hawk, who criticized the Bush Admin becasue his friends got personally burned.
So people should be aware of those facts, and factor them in as they may.
January 6, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, in British prisons, the word for forcible sodomy is 'turnabout.'
Turnabout is fair play.
January 6, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look we all know that you are a Hillary shill, please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that you 'independently' researched this piece on Obama's campaign manager. Wow. What a coincidence, just 24 hours after Hillary used it in the debate.
BTW I do not really care that Obama's campaign manager was once employed as a lobbyist. I happen to be very active in Northern Cal politics and have met many people who have been employed at one time or another as a lobbyist. In fact, it would be very difficult to put together a serious campaign in these parts if people with that on their resume's were excluded. In fact a very progressive Democrat that I am currently supporting for local office happens to be a lobbyist for LA county police departments in Sacramento.
This is just a pathetic counter attack by the Hillary campaign -- why can't you simply admit your role as a shill. Maybe you spent too many years in the CIA where deception is a virtue, but out here we really do not appreciate it.
January 6, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Larry's drafting and research were conducted at his own blog No Quarter, where his blogging partner, the redoubtable Susan UnPC, posted on exactly the same subject as Larry, but did so three hours earlier. Susan UnPC's post contains a link to the Mark Halperin pieces in The Page that have been the chief distribution point for this material, and link to the same State of New Hampshire website that Larry's own crack independent research discovered.
I think some of the discourse over this and earlier Clinton campaign messages perhaps illustrates one of the inherent weaknesses of the Clinton campaign, and inherent strengths of the Obama campaign. The Clinton campaign appears very much a top down affair, with organized rapid response teams and a message distribution network whose nodes pick up whichever latest line the campaign is pushing and all sing that line in unison for a few hours, until they move on to the next directive from on high. There is not a lot of independent thinking associated with team Clinton, and it is governed by old-fashioned 90's-style conceptions of message discipline, hierarchy and attempts at secrecy and manufactured independence that are laughably transparent. It's all rather inflexible and not very organic. And the messages have a kind of phony, manufactured veneer that make the messengers seem inauthentic and untrustworthy.
The Obama campaign seems to rely more on general themes and inspiration, and then counts on its supporters to defend their candidate and respond to attacks in whatever way seems fit to them.
January 6, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
What syvanen forgets is that Obama is supposed to be the candidate of change, change, CHANGE!
.
No. 1 priority if you're the CHANGE candidate: Drop all links to lobbyists. Doesn't matter whether they're good, bad or indifferent. The American people (so we're told) are fed up to the teeth with electing pols who go to statehouses or Washington and are immediately swarmed by great gooey gobs of 6-figure and 7-figure lobbyists.
.
Whether Hillary or any of the others are cheek-by-jowl with lobbyists is immaterial. They're not the candidates of change. Obama is.
.
Except he isn't.
January 7, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your no niceties approach gets under the skin of the Obama folk Larry.
Nonetheless, I would hope they take a long look before jumping off the cliff with Obama. As a practical matter his election to the Senate was a gimme and his Presidential campaign thus far has been smiled upon by an almost completely uncritical media champing at the bit to write stories about the first viable black candidate for President. If and when Obama either becomes the nominee or gets close to it, the media will do their traditional turn on the Democratic candidate and relentless hound him over every minor item that arises. They will pillory him for trivial things and hang him for inconsequential matters on a daily basis.
Remember the bullshit the Republicans rolled out against Clinton in 92? He had to "prove" he didn't go to Russia while a college student to consort with the enemy! It was absurd, but it kept the Clinton campaign off balance and off message. God only knows what they'll do to Obama, but one thing is for certain, he doesn't have a clue about how hard they will be on him and his followers all seem to have suffered a common strain of amnesia about all such things.
Keep tellin it like it is Larry--even if some folks don't like hearing it.
January 6, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb please keep in mind that Larry is basically a republican. He only came over here because the Bush administration betrayed one of his colleagues in the CIA. He is hoping, I suppose, to help turn the Democratic Party into the party of his youth. Maybe the party of reagan, ford or even nixon.
But do not accuse us of being naive about the attacks that the Republicans will throw at Obama if he is nominated. I was hesitant to support obama for that reason and if he becomes the nominee it will be up to us to fight back when the inevitable Republican attack comes. They are a party without any ideas at this point, their racism is the only thing they have. We will have to move beyond the progressive blogs in his defense.
January 7, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not "basically" a Republican. He's a Republican, and a hawk.
He supported GW Bush and was a donor. The only reason he turned on Bush is becasue his friends got burned. Maybe he had his own problems too, who knows. But he's a Republican hawk, no doubt about that.
January 7, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry's party affiliation past or present is kind of irrelevant (unless you believe he has a partisan agenda)and has nothing to do with whether or not his points are valid. I think they are valid. He could put them less bluntly but, but that isn't his style (which I like even when I disagree with him as it's so impolitic of him).
You can impute any motive you wish to of course, but based on his past comments I don't think Larry's sharp criticisms are coming from the perspective of a someone who's backing a different candidate and sniping for that reason. I think he would come down on a candidate he prefers just as harshly if he felt they were doing something dumb.
Personally, I think the Obama crowd is, by and large, incredibly naive and simply refusing to acknowledge a great deal of political reality. It doesn't mean he can't win, but it's going to be a whole helluva lot harder than people think and I don't believe he'll be unable to lose. His vulnerabilities as a candidate are huge and mostly haven't even been mentioned in large part because Democrats aren't the kind of scum that would exploit the sort of vulnerabilites Obama has that would be most damaging. Republicans, on the other hand, are a much different lot and there's nothing they won't do, no place they won't go in their attempts to win the 08 election.
January 7, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your contention that Larry's affiliations past and present are irrelevant, precisely because it is evidence of a partisan agenda. There's nothing inherently wrong with partisanship, except where it crosses lines of integrity and honesty.
Looking through the thread, during which Larry's approach is reviewed, its clear that Larry crosses those lines easily and without reservation.
In particular, Larry has been utterly dishonest about his affiliation with the Clinton campaign, and he's been dishonest with respect to the origins of his arguments and information.
It seems clear that Larry is a point man for the Clinton campaign. His 'original' research is not original, but can be traced back, in this case, quickly and easily to the Clinton campaign, and to a strategic attack by the Clinton campaign.
If Larry is lying about who he is and where his lines of attack are coming from... then why should we put any credibility in his attacks at all. Why should we take anything he says at face value?
I have to wonder.
There's legitimate criticism and legitimate concerns with the Obama campaign. But I don't think its legitimate to call them naive when they fail to be swayed by such a clumsy and inept provocateur.
January 7, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also put of by the disingenuousness of it all. Larry hasn't posted anything recently that wasn't flying around the web the very same day among the usual cast of pro-Clinton characters - Taylor Marsh, Halperin, his own colleague Susan Hu etc. Either it's coordinated, or else Clinton's supporters suffer from an amazing degree of group think, where each day they are many minds with but a single thought. We're to believe that Larry, whose posts have almost all been on national security policy, just happened to develop an interest in Illinois sex offender laws on the very same day when that topic was the Attack-of-the-Hour among the Clintonites? And that he then lost interest just as quickly?
There really are substantive issues to bring up in a challenge to Obama. Perhaps Larry might want to stick to the national security stuff he actually knows something about instead of this mindless and lowbrow campaign hackery which erodes his reputation further with each post.
January 7, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I'd like to hear about the still-pending intel issues, which are both numerous and important. Suddenly next year's almost-certain Democratic President is more important than torture, than unwarranted surveillance, than casually trashing a CIA identity, than squashing dissent inside CIA, than four thousand dead soldiers and three thousand dead American civilians, than tens of thousands of injured soldiers, than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis...
Please offer us your expertise, Mr. Johnson, not this kind of rant.
January 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, let's assume your belief about Larry's motive is true. Does that invalidate the criticism? I think not.
Regardless of motive or anything else, I think the man has made a point that is legit. It either is or is not legitmate and if it is, it can't be discounted based upon motivation of the critic.
For some of those who support Obama (and Clinton quite often too), I think there seems some offsetting logic at play that allows them to believe if a criticism is made it has no validity if it comes from a supporter of an opponent. Come to think of it, the Clinton folks have been famous for decrying any and all critism as Hillary Hate. I don't think most people buy that logic from her camp and won't from Obama's either----if they believe the criticism is valid. If there is no validity in the point being made then people will see it as just one more attack for the sake of attacking.
January 7, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
[blockquote]Okay, let's assume your belief about Larry's motive is true. Does that invalidate the criticism?[/blockquote]
Potentially it does. Consider that if we are correct in our assessment of Larry's motives, then clearly, he has lied to us about material matters. What if any credibility can be attached to a man who lies about one thing? He may be lying or misrepresenting about other aspects. There may be any number of ways in which he is being dishonest and deceptive, including employing half truths, exaggerations, evasions, misrepresentations and any number of other rhetorical devices. The point is that his argument is untrustworthy and cannot be taken at face value.
[blockquote]Regardless of motive or anything else, I think the man has made a point that is legit. It either is or is not legitmate and if it is, it can't be discounted based upon motivation of the critic.[/blockquote]
My argument is that there is no reason to assume the legitimacy of either the factual assertions or the resulting argument. Given that the source is dishonest, it may be that one or both is equally dishonest. Poisoned fruit from a poisoned tree.
At the very least, we would be required to first assess the factual truth of his allegations. If that factual truth is lacking, then it fails. If there is some form of factual truth, then look to the contextual truth - where does this factoid fit into the larger picture. Only after going through this exercise can we then examine his argument and determine whether there is any integrity to it. I'm sorry, but whether you feel something with your gut, that just doesn't cover it.
[blockquote]For some of those who support Obama (and Clinton quite often too), I think there seems some offsetting logic at play that allows them to believe if a criticism is made it has no validity if it comes from a supporter of an opponent.[/blockquote]
That offsetting logic would normally be erroneous. An opposing debater whose positions and arguments are clear and straightforward must be taken on his own merits. This is not the case with Larry, who has claimed nonpartisanship, independence of thought and originality of commentary, but whom the record shows is partisan, non-independent, unoriginal and a shill for campaign talking points. Part of Larry's argument is his integrity as an independent party. He's got a problem there.
It's one thing to deal with an argument from an honest opponent. It's another thing to consider the position of a dishonest opponent. Certainly a degree of skepticism must be accommodated.
January 7, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You claim the man is lying but show no evidence to support the claim. But that's beside the point to me and doesn't really impact the central question.
Even if he lied on one thing it doesn't mean anything else he has to say is invalidated. This isn't a court room. It's a place where people post their opinions.
I have seen reporting outside the Hillarysphere on this issue that validates the claims and criticisms Larry is making. I don't think anyone actually disputes the basic information about the guy being a lobbyist.
Larry's central point is the hypocrisy of saying on the one hand you will reign in the lobbyists in DC while having a lobbyist be your co-chair in a critical early state primary. You really cannot have it both ways on something like this. It is a valid point unless either a) the man is not a lobbyist or b) Obama has not said he will reign in the lobbyists in Washington. Thus, in my opinion, the criticism is legit and it is the sort of thing the Republicans will crucify Obama for and relentlessly attack him for in the general.
Why do Republicans do this even though it may be a stretch? It is a strategic manuever they conduct in all Federal and most other statewide elections. If not this particular issue then it will be another. They may well invent one, but it only makes sense not to hand them one like this on an issue that is central to your message. The strategic point is, they do all they can to muddy the waters and give the public the impression that the good guys are just as dirty as the bad guys. They do all they can--not to improve their own image--only to tarnish the image of the opponent. Only when the Democrats are on the same putrid level of deceit and hypocrisy with the Republicans do conditions begin to become favorable for them. If the public has a clear view of what the truth is, the Republicans don't stand a chance and they are well aware of that.
They try to play up the widespread but plainly false belief that when it comes to politics, politicians and the two parties: "they're all the same". You know that isn't true and so do I, but the average American still believes it to be true. The average American is far too busy living his/her life to bother with the nuances and details of politics as people who visit this site do.
Because they believe it to be true that they are all the same, it is in the Republican Party's best interest to demonstrate to the public that "they're all the same" by giving the impression that for example, a John Edwards is a fake, or that Obama is a hypocrite, or that Hillary is an ice queen who killed Vince Foster and got away with it. Once the Republicans have thrown enough dust in the air to make things unclear as to who is good and who is bad in the minds of the typically ill-informed citizen they suddenly become competitive nationally. Aided and abetted by a brain dead national media controlled by a handful of huge corporations, the Republicans literally get away with murder every election year in terms of their lies and deceptions.
We have seen this time and again played out on a quadrennial basis--Republicans are waaaaay behind in the summer and between the Democratic convention and Labor Day the noise machine starts up, the rumors and accusations begin to circulate, the off the wall, clearly false bullshit is stirred up and the corporate media's talking heads do their stenography act and find themsleves unable to tell the difference between obvious lies and the truth and refuse to inform the public about what is going on. Instead, they do the "he said/she said" reporting of all of it as though they have no ability to detect whether or not one side of the debate is unfarily smearing the other or not.
As soon as the noise machine starts up, the Democratic nominees campaign team ignores the peril and vacations for a week or two. They celebrate their hard won victory while the Republican snipers take aim and place the red dot on their foreheads. By the time the inexperienced and naive campaign team realizes they have to do something to stop the bleeding, it's too late and the playing field has been leveled. Then, in the final stretch Democrats are back on their heels the entire time trying to explain why they slept through "an historic", "vicious", "unprecdented" assault by the Republicans, the Swift Boat Liars, the "Democrats for Nixon" and so on.
So you see, whether Larry is a shill for Hillary or not... I'm afraid the point he is making, however inartfully, is legitimate.
January 7, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rather amusing. There are a number of posts here that lay Larry's credibility problems bare, as you are well aware. So your claim that I provide no evidence is ingenuous.
Of course, you know that it is ingenuous, and that if pushed, I'd just quote or reference all manner of posts on this thread, and cross reference to others of Larry's own posts to demonstrate it. You have no faith in and no ability to demonstrate his integrity.
So, after making your token whimper, you depart the field, claiming it doesn't matter at all.
I'm laughing.
But on the other hand, you must admit that if Larry's integrity is found wanting, that certainly does not validate anything he says. I don't think you could seriously argue that his lying is a reason to take anything else he says as gospel, or to take it at face value.
It may not call for it to be rejected out of hand. This is not, after all, ROTFL, a court of law. But on the other hand, its not a congregation of fools. A certain skepticism and caution is warranted.
Indeed, this is his central point, but it doesn't follow logically. The logic is slipshod.
Larry's central point is essentially that all cats have four legs. Dogs have four legs. Therefore, according to Larry, dogs are cats.
I don't know, but I think there's a flaw in there somewhere.
Obama argues against the influence of lobbyists. Obama would be a hypocrite if he gave undue influence to lobbyists. Is having a single person in a co-chair position evidence of giving undue influence to lobbyists? It seems to me that if you're going to make that argument, something more is needed. And it seems to me that only in catering to to this narrowly framed goofy argument would we be catering to the Republicans. I don't think Democrats should legitimize moronic attacks.
Its an interesting question as to how Democrats should respond to the Republican noise machine. But as near as I can tell, your approaches are to emulate them or run from them. Neither seems successful.
January 7, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your response is childish, needlessly antagonistic and just plain wrong. And for the record, I'm not whining at all. I'm just pointing out that your objections really are emotional based upon support for Obama and dislike of Clinton. I don't support either of them and I find Larry's comments legit. You just don't like what he's saying and create numerous diversionary arguments to satisfy your emotional response.
You have not demonstrated Larry has lied about anything. You and others make the claim, but do not demonstrate it beyond an association between other things on the net and what he says. That is not proof, that's guilt by association.
You don't address the point which is the hypocritical postion Obama has put himself in. You are more interested in trying to attack Larry than in anything else. That's fine, but don't blame me when they eviscerate Obama who is approaching this campaign as a local or statewide candidate would, by saying one thing and doing another expecting that detail to get swept under the rug. It won't be.
Your nuanced argument about the fine point of how much influence lobbyists will have is the typical kind of response Democratic campaigns offer up to fight Republicans. How many citizens do you think will conclude "Aha! This is flawed logic therefore I will continue to believe Obama will reduce the influence of lobbyists?" LOL!!!!!
It is consistently the Republicans who win those fights in campaigns don't ya see? They win because the details and nuance don't matter or even amount to a hill of beans in the public mind. You lose this argument politically. The nuance makes no difference. That's why Larry's criticism is legit and you and others refuse to acknowledge this reality at your peril.
Have you notcied the way Republicans argue with flawed logic and kick the Democrats ass every time? Get a clue friend. You have to play to win campaigns under the real rules, not the ones that work in debate class.
January 8, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could have fooled me. So if its not whining, what exactly do you call your particular brand of passive/aggressive, dishonest snivelling? I'll jot it down for future reference.
But actually, I don't really support Obama, and I kind of like Clinton. You have a problem in that you are projecting.
Larry makes untruthful statements in the context of his own article. For instance, he asserts that Obama takes money from lobbyists. Go, look and see.
"You cannot campaign against lobbyists and then take their money and still expect voters to believe your “honesty” in government bullshit"
The trouble is that's not what he's pillorying Obama for. His complaint is that Obama has a lobbyist as a chair in New Hampshire, not that the lobbyist is funding him. It's a real and not particularly subtle distinction. He accuses Obama of one thing, which he backs up, in order to accuse him of another thing, which is untrue. Hardly chock full o'integrity is our Larry.
But how about this:
"...putting one of those very lobbyists in as his New Hampshire campaign chair?..."
"can he justify appointing a healthcare lobbyist as his campaign chair in New Hampshire?"
What's wrong with that? Well nothing, except that it's not exactly true. Demers is Co-Chair, he's not the chair.
I suppose its a judgement call. Is Larry simply being slippery with a few details, or is he engaging in a pattern of dishonesty? I suppose you'd have to look at the whole thing.
Here's another nugget from Larryville:
Okay, just as long as they buy a chair in a state with an early primary. That shit is ok. Right?
Now this, to my untutored eye, reads very much like Larry is alleging that Demers paid money for his chairmanship on Obama's team for the New Hampshire primary.
Wow! That's a hell of an allegation! If its true, then Obama's sunk. I mean, if you're auctioning off committee chairmanships at this early stage, well, that's just a major level of corruption... and also of greed and incompetence. Obama might as well change his name to Dubya II.
Except of course, that its not true. Good thing too, because it makes no sense at all. Larry makes the allegation, but he never bothers to provide any evidence for it. Indeed, the only evidence he provides suggests the opposite. His Nassau paper quote refers to Demers as a longtime Democratic political operative and a Democratic congressional candidate. Is that the sort of person who needs to buy a chairmanship? Excuse me, co-chairmanship?
So, right there in Larry's initial post, we have two incidents where he clearly misrepresents or misstates a fact. And we have two more incidents where he morphs his argument into brand new and much more dramatic allegations which he fails to support with any sort of proof.
Now if Larry was just sloppy, his errors would be every which way. But he's consistently making negative errors on Obama in consistent ways. This looks like a pattern of bad behaviour to me. Looks like lying to me.
It's Larry's words. He's pretty free with them, so I'm entitled to hold him to them.
On the larger front of Larry's 'meta-honesty' we have this passage, in his follow up notation:
Drafted and researched by me with no help from any one on the Clinton campaign.
True? Doubtful. Well, Larry's argument is appearing in Hillary's speeches (although framed in more civil terms). A number of people on this thread have noted it:
Many thanks to the various writers and posters whose observations I have quoted from this thread.
The point is that it seems pretty obvious on a factual basis that Larry has lied. The information does not come from Larry's own research. In fact, Susan UnPC gets there first, and Larry provably has contact and access with her, since she's his blog partner. Susan UnPC gets it from Mark Halperin, based on the links cited. In short, there's a chain of continuity showing us Larry has lied once again.
Moreover, it is clear that this particular attack of Larry's is part of a pattern of coordinated or disseminated attacks. So much for the image of Larry as the righteous lone wolf, fearlessly doing his original research and hewing his way forward.
So, here's Larry: He lies about where he's coming from, he's lying about who he works for, how he works, he lies about it being his own work, he lies about the actual status of the Lobbyist, and he lies about Obama taking money from Lobbyists and lies about Lobbyists buying chairs. You got all that? Good.
After all that, you sit there in your bovine insouciance and suggest that we should ignore this pattern of lies and invective and just concentrate on the fact that some part of Larry's childish rant might be true... which somehow legitimises the rest of an argument that, even without the lies and invective, really is superficial bullshit.
Earlier you whined that this isn't a court of law. Now you've whined about guilt by association. Well, too bad for you, bucko, but you got it right the first time. This isn't a court of law. So I'm not bound by technical legal standards, and bullshit whimpers like 'guilt by association' don't count for nothing. Larry's not on trial, this isn't a court, the sole issue is whether Larry is a liar and the test is common sense and Larry's own words and history. Well, blammo, case closed my friend, consider yourself schooled.
I've addressed that point numerous times throughout this thread. Get over it.
What is the hypocritical position that Obama has put himself in? That he's taking money from Lobbyists? Larry said it, but you don't have the guts to go there. That he's selling committee chairmanships to lobbyists? Larry said that too, but again, you're not going there. Too bad, because those would be serious and damaging charges if there was a shred of proof.
So what's the hypocrisy? That a single lobbyist who is a former Democrat congressional candidate and longtime Democrat lobbyist holds a co-chair position. Well, it might be something, but it ain't very much. Certainly it ain't worth the fire breathing lunacy that Larry has come up with. Hysteria ain't helpful, perspective is.
Now as to the rest of your argument, you seem to be suggesting that the only way to deal with half baked attacks like Larry's is to surrender to them. Well, good for you. Let me know how that works out.
You seemed to think I'm too nuanced. I'm not nuanced, I'm a guy with a knife. Where I come from, it's all fun and games when someone loses an eye, and evisceration is just good clean fun.
So here's my rejoinder. Larry's a liar and a shill, his attack is obvious bull, and I don't cater to hysteria. Oh, and I just kicked your ass. Is that nuance?
January 8, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The kool aid must be tasting pretty good.
Let me know when you graduate from 3rd grade.
K?
January 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFL! Is that all you got left? That pathetic little whimper? Feeling thoroughly whipped are you? Schooled? Pwned?
Too bad. This is how the game is played, and you should have known that when you stepped onto the field. Now go away and lick your wounds.
January 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Schoolyard taunting eh? That really, really hurts. How very adult of you.
You can spare me and the universe any further tantrum or not. It's your choice, but you're only embarassing yourself. For your information, that is how the game is played by sophomoric, emotionally driven children who don't like what they hear. It isn't how it is played by grown ups.
It's too bad you do play that way, but that is what you've been doing since your first post and gee, I don't seem to have a scratch on me, nor am I bothered in the least that you are saying "waaaa, waaaa, waaaaa" and stamping your little feet and holding your breath. You're position is fundamentally wrong and naive, you can't defend your position without childish namecalling. Admirable.
Let me know when you become a grown up and we can review your immature outbursts.
January 8, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wounded outrage is so amusing. ;D
So, you want to play with the grown ups. Good enough. I think I've made a very good case demonstrating that Larry's a liar. In part, I've done this by actually quoting lies and misrepresentations of the truth.
You haven't responded to that at all. Or to be fair, you haven't responded in a material way. "Nah nah nah I can't hear you" isn't a response, it's a childish whine. You haven't addressed the issue in any substantive way.
Let me help you: Either Larry is dishonest or he is not.
Choose.
If you argue that he is not dishonest, then the onus is on you to rebut the arguments and proofs I've put forward. So far you've refused to do this. I infer that you are unwillingly conceding the point. But if you are not conceding the point, then you gotta either fight for it or surrender.
Choose.
If you accept that he is dishonest, but argue that his arguments are credible anyway, then once again, the onus is on you to justify why and how the argument should be seen as credible. Given the presumption of dishonesty on Larry's part, you've got to do more to demonstrate hypocrisy on Obama's part, than simply point to a lobbyist. You have to actively demonstrate how that is proof of hypocrisy. So far, you haven't done that. Your 'logic' such as it is, is at the level of 'therefore all dogs must be cats.' Conceding Larry's dishonesty, there is a positive burden upon you to demonstrate the relevance of his argument. If you don't do it, then once again, your argument fails.
Choose.
In the meantime, stop whining. No one cares about your wounded dignity.
January 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, just thought you might want to re-read your very own words.
On Larry:
Even if he lied on one thing it doesn't mean anything else he has to say is invalidated.
Ok, and this is how you justify it:
This isn't a court room. It's a place where people post their opinions.
Opinions are opinions. Are you saying he LIED about his opinions but that doesn't matter?
Larry's central point is the hypocrisy of saying on the one hand you will reign in the lobbyists in DC while having a lobbyist be your co-chair in a critical early state primary.
You really cannot have it both ways on something like this.
Let's go back up to oleeb's standard of validation vs invalidation:
Even if he lied on one thing it doesn't mean anything else he has to say is invalidated.
Well, that is true for Larry, but not for anyone else.
Jan
January 8, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the substance, I think this "Scandal" is ridiculous. The most likely career choice for any retiring Senator or Congressman at the local or federal level is … wait for it … is Lobbying.
Obama has said that Lobbying money should not dictate American policy. The PEOPLE need a stronger voice at the table. He has not taken any money from federal lobbies, and IMO that is the WHOLE story.
Now, to extend this practice and belief of Obama’s, to mean that he can never have access to any Democratic Lobbying “Talent” is another story entirely. This reminds me of the worst kind of Republican smear tactic. Where words like Liberal, Patriot or Terrorist get stretched, pulled, and bent until the word means nothing at all. Today, Larry Johnson is trying to do that with the word Lobbyist.
Lets not forget that there are Civil Rights Lobbyists, Union Lobbyists, Human Rights Lobbyists.
Substance of Obama’s position: TAKE LESS MONEY FROM LOBBIESTS! Get it?
He hasn’t. Hillary, is swimming in Lobbyist money. Oh, but Larry wants to talk about Obama using a Democratic Lobbyist in his campaign organization. He’s not Lobbying Obama for anything. No, he’s trying to get Obama elected. What is the real sin Larry is all pissy about? Obama is trying to beat Hillary.
I think that speaks for itself.
Something comes to mind in all this, Rove’s favorite smear tactic. Attack your opponent at their strongest Point.
Can I ask you Larry, “Why is Hillary in Bed with Rove?”
PS: Larry, I have to tell you, you aren’t really doing Hillary any service being a slavering attack dog. Three weeks ago, I had a lot of respect for Hillary and her history, even if I thought she was not the right candidate for this election. Now, I’m starting to hate her. Hate her like George Bush. I cringe when I watch her speak on TV. And I have to admit. It is not because of her. It is the vileness of Democrats behaving like Rove towards each other.
You should realize, the tone of Politics, is a MAJOR part of what Obama backers want from Obama. Your tone, is exactly what they hate about Modern Politics. And this piece is why Hillary is part of the past, not part of the Democratic Party’s future. Keep watching national poles if you don’t believe me.
Anyway, Oleeb. Regarding Larry's motives. They are ugly and mostly dishonest. Regarding the substance of the charges? It is a minor pot shot at Obama with little substance, but it sounds kind of reasonable as a sound bite, until you think about it at all.
January 8, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Johnson wrote: If the Republicans can dismantle John Kerry, a guy who actually served in Vietnam and actually earned his purple heart,
Let's not forget Kerry is a member of Skull and Bones and allowed himself to be "swift-boated" for their cause. While that may not mean much to some, the white elites of the world (the Bilderberg group, the Council on Foreign Relations, et. al.) have no interest in sharing power with the vast majority of the "rabble."
And for as long as you guys fail to realize that there is a recession on with a major world-wide depression in the offing, and the implications on yourselves of the coming energy crisis, and the impact of ecological changes already underway, this country is going down hard.
There is NOTHING the national political establishment is going to do about any of these except continue to blow sunshine up your asses and hope like hell nobody notices that we are already a totalitarian state.
********
- We do not act rightly because we have virture, we have virtue because we act rightly.
January 7, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What, pray tell, is "their cause"?
I'm interested to know exactly the nature of this cryptic reference. Enlighten us please.
January 7, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people have objected to my language and suggested that instead of dealing with the substance of Larry's substance-free, originality-free, Clinton talking point, I indulged in an ad hominem attack.
Let's take another look at Larry's choice of words, shall we?
So Larry opens up with both barrels in an ugly display of childish invective directed not just at Obama but Obama supporters (Jim Jones kool-aid drinkers/suckers) in order to avoid the translucent thinness of his argument. If that's not ad hominem, I don't know what is.
But the fainting goat set among us insist that any broader discussion is verboten and an ad hominem attack, and that the only proper way to look at this is to assess the truth of Larry's narrowest claim, while blindly swallowing the invective that goes with that claim.
And if we don't... well, the Republicans attack machine will?
Uh huh.
January 8, 2008 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Say what?
Is this suppose to be a satire on the Clinton smears against Obama??
January 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
anyone going to defend obama on the facts?
he said it wasn't true that his NH co-chair is a lobbyist.
any of you care to take on the issue?
or are you all just satisfied with ad hominen attacks against larry for taking hillary's side?
January 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the truth is that he was a former lobbyist. No? Just as Fred Thompson was a fomer lobbyist and is now a Presidential candidate and the guy running 527 attack ads for Edwards was his former campaign manager.
January 6, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How relevant is it that his NH co-chair is a lobbyist. I'd say that the personal affiliations are secondary to where his money comes from, and beyond that, I'm more interested in what his political... his actual political stances are.
I dunno. I think that we've seen the politics of witch huntery taken to an extreme.
January 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama said 'that's not true'. he didn't say 'that's not relevant'.
we can have the argument about the relevance of obama's relationship with lobbyists compared to his rhetoric about lobbyists, but we should first start with what the facts are (and why obama seems to be denying them).
January 6, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're obviously here to slag Obama, and have been all along. You're latching onto anything. Whatever smear the Hillary campaign puts out, you're going to jump on it 10 seconds later.
People like you are ruining our national politics with invective and smears you don't have the intellectual integrity or decency to care about the truth of. For people like you, politics seem to be a kind of blood sport you get off on.
I don't need to dig up some unsubstantiated tabloid controversy du jour to support my candidate. Obama has a record of progressive work, and has proven himself to be a coalition leader and winner throughout his life and now.
The Clintons built the DLC on liberal social tokenism mixed with Reaganomics-lite laissez faire economics. They'll always be for another NAFTA, deregulation, telecoms and media consolidation, hawkish, and the same ideology which has screwed the middle-class for decades.
Edwards is a populist but hasn't been able to build a broad coalition or get the nomination despite trying for 5 years now.
So, let's not pretend you're interested in "debating the facts" or capable of the honesty to do so. You've changed your reason for being against Obama several times, and keep changing it as one after another argument gets shot down. I'm sure tomorrow the Hillary campaign will come out with a new reason for you to be against Obama, and another one after that.
January 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
who is smearing whom?
to wit:
unsubstantiated??? tabloid???
nice to see you won't even bother address the substance but are still so willing to dismiss it.
i haven't changed any reasons for not supporting obama, and none of my reasons have been shot down. now who's making unsubstantiated claims?
January 6, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
and i've been here at TPM for over two years. go ahead and try smearing me as some sort of single-issue obama basher. the facts don't support your contention.
January 6, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He stated today that when he said, "that's not true" he was responding to the notion that he was contradicting his stance on lobbyists by having the guy on his campaign.
He wasn't trying to deny that the guy had been a state lobbyist.
January 6, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is advising Hilary on this one, Ken Starr?
Well, if quantum theory is correct, everything is related somehow with everything else so in that sense it is relevant. If Obama pathologically pursues an ongoing lie that costs the country millions of dollars in distraction, congressional investigation, and the like, shaking threatening fingers at those challenging him for it and so on, then give Hillary a call and she will defend him.
IF Obama mispoke, or meant the guy's not a lobbyist NOW, when he was in the past, either way, he will certainly correct himself or correct the LJs out there and this will be a moot jab.
January 6, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama responded to this today. He said Demers was a STATE lobbyist and since he, Obama, is running for FEDERAL office, he doesn't see it as being as much a conflict of interest.
He also pointed out that he stated that he was going to make this distinction at the beginning of his campaign.
January 6, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't possibly make an ad hominem attack against anybody who purveys Lady Hawk's trash talk. The scoundrel has already confessed. :-)
I gather that Demers was a lobbyist for many wretches and that some were pharmas. I think Obama denied Demers was a drug lobbyist as such.
It is a rather strange charge coming from the side that is the largest recipient of campaign funding by drug lobbyists.
As things stand the only candidate for the nomination that I am aware of that has a sane healthcare plan is Kucinich and he is not going to be nominated.
What is Larry's beef exactly? My girl is dirtier than all get out but your guy is not a virgin? What kind of sense does that make?
Best, Terry
January 6, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is Larry's beef exactly?
Er, hypocrisy?
Hard concept for an Obama supporter?
Seems like.
January 6, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. Larry is very hypocritical.
But at least Larry is honest in admitting to his hypocrisy.
Not at all. We have learned to expect it from Larry.
BTW I am an Edwards supporter.
The story is, for any that care, the guy was a state level lobbyist. Obama has said he isn't taking money from federal lobbyists not seeking their support.
Hillary knew that, of course. Larry probably did too.
Thank you for paying attention.
Best, Terry
January 6, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruh Roh,
Not only is Obama;s NH guy a state lobbyist, which according to their triangulating theory is ok, but his SC partner, former governor Hodges is in fact a federal lobbyist.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the link:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx
Thus, Obama's grand vision to exclude federal lobbyists is, in fact, a farce. So please, please, stop yelling at Mr. Johnson and lokk to clean up you own closet folks.
January 6, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This incredible revelation here is what I would call a "conflict of disinterest."
January 7, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't call her Lady Hawk. I like that film. Michele Pfieffer she's not.
January 6, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about hairy chested liberal.
January 6, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, you make it tough on a guy. I didn't want to call her poopy panties or other more generic terms.
I believe Michele was Lady Hawke.
Michele sure weren't no birdbrained conservative. Guess we don't want any remote confusion.
Done.
Best, Terry
January 7, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course this story is relevant but it should be told properly as opposed to the snarky approach of our post host Larry. Who is the alleged lobbyist and for whom does he work?
How can this story not be relevant if Obama's whole thing is about change and moving away from entrenched DC lobbyists? But if it's not true then Larry owes Obama a big big apology. Larry, hold the snark and give us the facts.
January 6, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a good point here, Larry (and Obama has worked for with industry lobbies in the past). But you're slipping with the National Enquirer titles. Shouldn't it be: "What Drug is Obama Selling?"
Anyway, I think MJ is up a couple of Obama posts on you. That said, I'm happy to see the lobbying and special interest ties being discussed in different threads.
January 6, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://thedemersgroup.com
January 6, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
from the NH secretary of state link provided by larry/hillary:
clients of james demers (with clarifications for clients whose business isn't necessarily self-evident):
INTERNATIONAL BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION
EBAY INC
USTPA (U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company)
PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF NH
FEDEX
NORTH COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC (solid waste services)
NH TRAIL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
NH COALITION FOR PROSTHETICS
PHRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)
CANNERY CASINO RESORTS
BANK OF AMERICA
COMCAST (largest cable tv company)
PFIZER (pharmaceutical giant)
PSNH ('NH's largest energy utility')
NATIONAL CARD COALITION ('the only national organization devoted solely to the credit card industry')
NH INDEPENDENT CASE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF NEW ENGLAND
NH TROOPERS ASSOCIATION
http://www.sos.nh.gov/lobname.html
January 6, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't begrudge Larry the right to call Obama on the issue of the background of Obama's campaign workers. A lot of us have noted that Clinton pretends to support unions, but hired a chief campaign adviser whose firm works on union busting. So maybe it's equally fair to point out that Obama should have taken a longer look at his state chair's list of clients.
But I do think it is weird that not only does Larry oppose Obama's candidacy, but he seems to be one of the 13 or 14 people in America who actively hate Obama, and can't refrain from lacing his criticisms with spleen, bitter contempt and vile invective. I've talked to lots of people up here in New Hampshire, supporters and opponents of Obama, and haven't met a single person - Democratic, Independent or Republican - who fits into the Larry category.
Perhaps the life of a CIA covert op is so bleak, cynical and life-denying that the mere existence of people who seem to give their countrymen hope is a cause for despair. After all, these are the guys who helped do in Mossadegh and Allende.
In any case, I could be gratified that with each post Larry helps underscore the Obama message of the meanness and lowness of the old politics Larry represents, and puts Clinton supporters in a very bad light. On the other hand, I recognize that is unfair to most of Clinton's supporters. Almost all the ones I know are classier, high road folks.
January 6, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, one of those 13 or 14 people who have clearly expressed an intense dislike of what Obama represents is Paul Krugman. It is simply remarkable that he has chosen to come out against Obama so directly and emphatically because of what Obama has been saying; it's quite completely out of character for him to weigh in like this on particular Democratic candidates. There's something the man has seen in Obama that really, really bothers him.
Krugman has a nose for bullshit like nobody else in the business. He was able to spot and describe the deceit of George W Bush while every other pundit on earth was ooh-ing and ahh-ing over W's wonderful, friendly, open personality and compassionate conservatism. I should think that if Krugman has a problem with Obama, it's something worth a think or two by anyone who presumes to describe themselves as a progressive.
But, if Krugman questions Obama to an Obama supporter, what happens? Is there even the smallest reflection on Krugman's points?
Of course not. There is nothing but the rankest sort of denial and vicious counterattack.
That's when you can easily see the Kool-Aid frothing in their mouths.
It isn't actually a pretty sight, even with all the wonderful bright colors.
January 6, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, I have addressed Krugman's substantive charges, mostly related to health care, before. I believe the flaw in Krugman's argument is that he is evaluating these proposals from an overly academic position of pure policy, and has not sufficiently reflected on the political challenges and the best overall strategy for moving the ball forward. That's my take at least.
January 6, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever.
You got an argument, go ahead and make it right here.
Otherwise you've said nothing.
January 6, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic health care debate has generated a lot of heat over relatively small points of policy detail that are going to be hashed out in the Congress anyway. Krugman's main complaint has been about the subject of mandates.
Now what Obama keeps trying to communicate is that in formulating policy his campaign tries to listen to ordinary people, not just to think-tankers and academics, and that as he has gone around the country and talked about health care, he finds there is simply not a lot of political support for mandates, which - whatever their pure policy merits - are seen by many as overly coercive.
I personally worry that an attempt to push through mandates at the start of this effort will provide the opponents of Democratic health care plans with a golden opportunity for a counter-campaign based on the specter of evil, collectivist Big Government coercion, forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and that we'll see the Clinton health care debacle all over again.
My view is that we will probably have to have mandates eventually, but that the best approach is to start smaller with something more easily achievable, and enact an initial plan without the mandates. Eventually people will see for themselves the free rider problem that the absence of mandates creates, and a clear majority will support them.
Now maybe my political calculation is right, and maybe it is wrong. I'm happy to discuss this, and we will certainly have discussion of it as the campaign goes forward. But Krugman fails to address the political dimensions of the debate entirely. Enacting a health care plan is not the same thing as drawing one up on a blackboard in an Economics class.
January 6, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have ANY idea, I mean ANY idea, how loopy your analysis is?
Man, if anybody wants to get a sense of how much more political sense Krugman has than Obama supporters, they should just read your stuff here.
Look, even you admit that "we will probably have to have mandates eventually". Now, I simply ask you, how in God's name, under an Obama Presidency, could Obama possibly argue for mandates at any stage given that he himself has chosen to demonize them? Are creatures in the ObamaBorg so clueless that they don't see the indisputable political impossibility of that, given that his very own words will be thrown right back in face by Republicans and insurance company advocates?
What Fairy Planet do you people live on where such magic is commonplace?
And you are of course right that mandates will be necessary, for the very reasons Krugman has argued -- they alone will achieve universality, they alone can stop healthy people from opting out of insurance, leaving the unhealthy ones in insurance, and raising premiums for all who stay insured. But, again, there is no way to get to mandates for Obama. Ever.
Look, Hillary Clinton may not have introduced the idea of mandates, but neither has she chosen to do what Obama has done: shit where some day he would need to eat. If Hillary needs to adopt mandates, she will not have her own words thrown in her face -- though, thanks to the narcissistic ambition of Obama, she will have those of another Democrat, namely Obama's, thrown in her face. Why didn't she trash mandates, even though she does not have them included in her plan as does Edwards? Because she, unlike Obama, was not willing to foul the waters for universal health care just so that she could score a cheap debate point against an opponent in service of a purely narcissistic ambition.
I gotta say, everytime I encounter another member of the ObamaBorg, I'm only more disappointed with their ability to do the even simplest analysis or political strategizing.
You people are just hopeless, and you're going to lead us all down a primrose path to a hopeless situation because everything important in life and politics you just can't seem to get.
This is obviously a Children's Crusade, joined by mental children of all ages.
January 6, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, even you admit that "we will probably have to have mandates eventually". Now, I simply ask you, how in God's name, under an Obama Presidency, could Obama possibly argue for mandates at any stage given that he himself has chosen to demonize them?
Oh, come on. Obama obviously hasn't "demonized" mandates. If you listened to the debate last night, you will see that he presented the issue as merely a debatable policy difference, just as he has in the past. He has a preference for mandates on children but not adults, but it's not like "no mandates" is some sort of bedrock core ideological position. He can easily modify his plan if subsequent debate points in the direction of mandates.
It really doesn't matter - from a pure policy standpoint - whether we get Obama, Edwards or Clinton when it comes to health care policy. The plans are 98% similar. It all goes on the table anyway, and there will endless back and forth, public debate, intense lobbying, negotiation and Congressional wrangling and horsetrading over these details. We will be fortunate if what comes out looks anything like what these candidates are proposing now.
You appear to be seriously misinformed about the Clinton plan. You indicate that mandates are not included in her plan, unlike with Edwards. But in fact they are a centerpiece of the plan: the plan does include individual mandates on children and adults. You might then want to say she has "demonized" the no mandates position. But in fact, that isn't true either. If Clinton is President, we might get a plan with no mandates. If Obama is President, we might get a plan with mandates. Neither of them has drawn some sort of red line here, although each has a current preference.
Like Krugman, you seem to be under the impression that Presidents enact a wonk-designed policy package through some kind of Presidential edict, and so each and every item has to be just so. In actuality, these plans are just the starting point, and all three candidates have left themselves plenty of room for future maneuver once the campaigns are over and the real work begins. You're making way too much over relatively minor strategy differences in what is actually a fairly unified general Democratic approach.
January 6, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what Krugman quotes Obama as saying about mandates, which is certainly accurate: "[Obama] suggests that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”"
In fact, if you have any honest interest in how Obama was criticizing mandates, listen to the ad he put out on the precise point.
I'd like to know how and why this ad would NOT be thrown up in Obama's face the moment he himself tried to suggest mandates as the only feasible way to achieve universality. Why would this very ad not be played and replayed each and every time Obama would attempt to correct his defective plan by introducing mandates? Do you think Republicans and insurance company executives would be so charmed by Obama's Pixie Dust that they'd refuse to do so?
And I'd like to know how putting up such an ad serves any progressive policy interest, rather than Obama's naked ambition. Anyone but a child can see that this was just a hit piece against his opponents, let the policy implications be damned.
And while you talk about how policies must often go through steps to be implemented, that is the precise difficulty that Obama has interposed in the way of introducing mandates. ONLY Obama is going to have his own words and commercials to be used against him on these points. He himself has blocked the growth path to universal care under his own Presidency.
And finally, it is amusing, but also of course disingenuous, of you that you talk as though Obama has no problem with demonizing mandates because he has spoken so reasonably about them in a recent debate.
Earth to Obama supporters: YOU don't get to choose the words your opponents use against you, THEY do. And I have absolutely no doubt that the ad I've linked to will be played and replayed ad nauseam and ad infinitum if Obama ever spoke a word to try to implement mandates. THAT is what Republicans and insurance company advocates will home in on, because there resides the motherlode of demonization that they require.
January 6, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
.> Earth to Obama supporters: YOU don't
> get to choose the words your opponents
> use against you, THEY do.
Here is where I will give Bush and Rove credit for one thing: their policy of "not negotiating with themselves" and, in fact, choosing the words their their opponents must use to disagree with them has been extraordinarily successful. I agree with you that HR Clinton would get the usual treatment and be forced to defend every word during her presidency, but I have a suspicion that Obama would be able to play the Rove game and not allow the media to define his words (disclosure: I am not an Obama supporter).
sPh
January 7, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't even begin to get your argument here.
Obama has already released his ad with the very words that will be thrown back in his face. It is a matter of public record. Republican and insurance industry advocates will have all the money in the world they will need to launch attacking ads on Obama which depict what are for all practical purposes (because they are quoted favorably in an ad he approved of) Obama's own words damning mandates as coercive and punitive.
You don't get around that by sprinkling Obama Pixie Dust, and I'm guessing Republicans are going to refuse any Obama KoolAid they may be offered. Those words don't go away just because Obama and his supporters want them to. That's why politicians who know what they are doing, and care to protect their ability to bring about policy when they govern, simply avoid the talking points of the opposite side like the plague.
January 7, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mountains our of molehills. There is nothing in that radio ad that permanently closes off a fall back position. Since the professed basis for opposition to mandates is "making people buy something they can't afford," then so long as any plan eventually sent to the Congress can be plausibly claimed to make health insurance affordable for anyone who is mandated to purchase it, the mandate component could be in there. I'm not predicting that's what's going to happen, however. Rather, I suspect the plan that is first enacted will not have adult mandates, and mandates will come later.
Again, all of this is going to be rolled out during the next administration after a process of negotiation and consensus building among the White House and key leaders in Congress. We also have a whole general election campaign to go through. Nobody is going to be held to the precise 10-point plan developed during the Democratic primary season. That goes for all of the candidates. These are just starting positions for the negotiation to come.
January 7, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think "there's nothing in that radio ad" that creates a political problem for Obama with mandates, why can't you be honest and direct, and simply quote it, demonstrating that it is so?
Answer: because you know better.
So let's do a little quoting and parsing, shall we?
Here's the ad, in full, with some of my emphasis added.
How does Obama get around the plain meaning of those words? Isn't it 100% obvious that a mandate will need to be "forced" in one fashion or another on people, so that they don't opt out, if it's going to achieve its proper effect? Won't such enforcements in any such case require "punishment" of one sort or another to enable them to work? Indeed, won't all such "punishments" be easily described as making it "illegal not to have health care"? Do you really imagine that Republicans and insurance company advocates will not focus directly on that strategy, when, from their point of view, just about everything they hold dear is at stake? How on earth will Obama respond without sounding like the worst sort of flip-flopper, who has no credibility or authority to speak on the issue?
In fact, of course, what will happen is that Obama would never introduce mandates, because he himself would have to take a major political hit if he did so. And his willingness to throw progressive policy agendas under the bus, as demonstrated by his talk about health care mandates itself, shows that we absolutely could never expect the man to take a hit for the team. To the contrary, the man expects the team to take a hit for him.
And here are Obama's own words backing up that very notion: "Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy health care. And unfortunately she hasn't told anybody how she would enforce this mandate."
How do you get around the absolutely clear implication in what Obama said, that there is something very wrong, something very much to be avoided, in "forcing" people to buy insurance? And how could he possibly have any way of making a mandate a true mandate without using some way to enforce them? Obama Pixie Dust again? Another inspiring round of "Fired up! Ready to go!", followed by a chorus of Kumbayah?
Your problem is that your man is absolutely on record deploring the essence of mandates: enforcing them, and doing so using some kind of penalty -- which, again, of necessity must be a legal one (what other kind is there, when the government is involved?).
You can try to get around that. Republicans will NEVER allow you or Obama to do so.
Playing up coercion with regard to social programs has always been a strategy from the Republican playbook. Your man has gladly chosen that tactic for no better reason than it gave him a handy-dandy political comeback against his opponents, progressive policy be damned.
There are many of us out here, Krugman included, who consider universal health care to be by a good distance the most important policy issue facing us as progressives and as a nation. Thanks to Obama, we can pretty much conclude that, if he becomes President, truly universal health care is DOA for the full duration of his Presidency.
January 7, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The text of radio ad, especially the part you yourself highlighted, only underscores what I said. So long as whatever plan that is put forward does not force those who can not afford health insurance to buy it, and punish those who don’t fall in line, then it will not run afoul of the main sentiment.
There is nothing in the ad about the "essence of mandates" or other overheated ideological bottom lines. The ad does contain the suggestion that the Clinton mandates proposal is at this point empty wind, since she has not put forward any real enforcement mechanism.
Reich might be recognizing that his home state of Massachusetts is now facing a huge mess with the enforcement of its mandates, and perhaps it is not a good idea to go down that road just yet. So Obama will introduce a plan without mandates. But if it turns out, following the broad national debate that will ensue, that a legislative consensus emerges that mandates are needed, there is plenty of wiggle room for maneuver around the "affordability" and "forcing" concepts. Everyone knows that the final bill will have many owners. Nobody expects that every single item in the winning candidate's current proposals is going to be reflected in the final product.
Krugman is promoting hysteria about this because he doesn't seem to understand how the political process actually works. If it were up to him, we would probably have the 90's Clinton health care debacle all over again: a bunch of policy wonks crafting a plan in private meetings to excruciating specifications, and then dumping the whole thing on the public in an all or nothing gambit. I would like to see some evidence from people like Krugman that they learned something from that failure, and have a long-term political strategy for getting from where we are now to the ultimate goal of cheaper, portable, more reliable, less bureaucratically complex and burdensome, and universal care. It's not going to happen in one fell swoop.
January 7, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanK,
Your defenses become ever more pathetic.
You can pretend that Obama was not in the ad decrying that it is wrong to make mandates illegal, but there's no one outside the Obama KoolAid Cabal who's going to buy that lame response. That was the precise intent of what the ad was saying, the precise criticism of the mandate approach, the precise downside being articulated.
The problem is that that is exactly what Obama would himself have to do if he were to implement mandates. There is no other way to make them work, and there is no other way than mandates to make something like Obama's plan universal.
And then you have the nerve to criticize Krugman of all people as not understanding how the political process works.
Earth to Obama supporters: politics in America involves two sides (at least): Democrats and Republicans. If you can't do your Democratic politics so that you are prepared for Republican attacks, then you are dead in the water. Pixie Dust, inspiring though it be, just don't hack it.
January 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've reached the end of productive discussion.
January 7, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we KNOW THIS must be accurate:
Here is what Krugman quotes Obama as saying about mandates, which is certainly accurate: "[Obama] suggests that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”"
Yes. That would mean Obama said:
I suggests that there is something nasty about plans....
That sure sounds like Obama to me!
Jan
January 7, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And she and Bill have been doing that stuff, consistently, for over 20 years now. The whole purpose of the DLC was to get Democrats to go with the flow and embrace trickle-down Reaganomics. Which has been a disaster.
January 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that gets me most about Obama supporters is how little they seem to get how the man is going to turn out, should he earn the Democratic nomination.
What virtually everybody understands is that candidates in partisan primaries start out mainly targeting their base, and then, when they win the nomination, start to turn their rhetoric, at minimum, toward the center or the opposite side.
What does it imply about Obama if he has even in the Democratic primaries taken on any number of Republican talking points and positions? What do his supposedly progressive supporters imagine he's going to do and say when he no longer has to answer to a basically Democratic constituency, and can "reach across the aisle" to his heart's content? Who and what else on the progressive side will he throw under the bus, when it suits his political convenience to appeal as far right as he possibly can?
January 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep up the smears "yo" you're pretty obviously just trolling at this point. What's your reason for hating Obama going to be tomorrow? Have they told you yet?
Obama has a record of progressive work and legislation for ethics reform to heathcare. He's also a proven leader, and mobilizing a broad coalition.
The Clintons built the DLC to move Democrats to the furthest rightwards edge, and are more economically conservative than many Republicans. The only thing they can claim to be liberal or progressive on are some social tokenism.
Edwards is s populist who hasn't been able to build a coalition or get the nomination after 5 years trying.
Deal with reality and real issues, not this smear du jour nonsense and oppo research crap. Or go to Free Republic or LGF where they eat it up.
January 6, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how the candidates themselves are maintaining a high tone. I noticed a cute dynamic on NPR debate coverage. One candidate will attack another by defending the third!
But here, some want blood. We're going to want to be friends real soon; does anyone agree we ought not burn any bridges?
LJ is enthusiastic for Clinton; cool, but he's succeeding in pissing off Obama supporters, and not winning the argument, as far as I can see. Tempests in teapots like this are not decisive, I hope.
January 6, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
LJ's post is, frankly, a bit embarassing in tone. It has the stench of desperation.
"Are all Obama supporters just a bunch of Jim Jones kool aid drinkers or does this blatant hypocrisy cause you to question the commitment of Senator Obama to produce real change in Washington?"
Jim Jones Kool aid drinkers? That's enlightened discourse designed to appeal to the open-minded, politically interested individual, right? Let's be candid: To some degree, the tone of the original post is going to impact the tone of the thread. That's just natural. Anyone who goes back and reads the original post will see that, if it were something that could be rated, should best be rated "unproductive." The tone completely obliterates the substance. That's not good writing.
January 6, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we can save Larry the trouble of posting his follow-up post here, since he has already posted it at No Quarter. Some of the highlights:
The fucking kid glove treatment for Barack has got to come to an end.
And if his wimpy disciples believe that their whining complaining about “unfair” references to drug use will matter a rat’s ass come the general election, then they are guilty of major LSD experimentation.
Wake the fuck up boys and girls!!
Last time I checked Karl Rove and the republican hordes are not in jail. They are building their oppo file on Obama. They would much rather run against Obama. More shit to dish. Hell, he share’s a name with an executed dictator, his first name rhymes with Osama (who murdered 3000 Americans), and he has no significant experience to point to.
They’ll beat him the old fashioned way. And all of this current feel-good, worship the Messiah nonsense will evaporate.
This messiah gig can be tough. Especially if you’re the black Jesus.
The vulgarity seems to climb with the desperation level.
January 6, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no Tom, don't tell me you too don't see much practical use for what the above brave partisan keyboard-fighting men are doing! I fondly remember member "cscs" derisively describing it something like the following in a comment on a thread on Election Central before it got moved:
I keep getting told that partisanship is healthy. The problem is the way I think of the word partisan, I guess. I think of a partisan as a rugby fan ready to riot, or more seriously, warring separatists in the woods refusing to negotiate in any way, shape or form. When others say they think less partisanship is not a good idea, I think they really mean they don't like the current Republicans in Congress and they want the Democrats to fight them in a more strenuous way, not that they want more "poopy pants" business. Can't the partisans here see that their screeds are probably looked on by most readers here as not much more than an amateur practicing their skill at the political spin ball game? And that that will hurt their credibility as commenters on other topics unless they change their user name? If a commenter can't find a single thing wrong with their favorite candidate, I'm sorry, they are not credible to me.
January 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Partisan isn't always bad---they were heroes in WW II.
It's when it smells like holding onto privilege instead of fighting the good fight that it loses appeal. But Obama is surely causing unease in both camps.
From WaPo article today, a posting at Kos: "I like my Democrats a bit more hard-edged, at least at this moment in time." And this from Republican Rep. Jeff Flake: "Partisanship is underrated. There is a time and place for it, and more time and place than we realize." And let us remember Norquist's "date rape" characterization of bipartisan process.
Still, most legislation that survives the opposition is bipartisan. The one-sided stuff gets repealed.
A truly fun, and fraught, political season, with McGovern on the WaPo op-ed page calling for impeachment, investigations galore, subpoenas pending, war continuing, nukes at risk, who could ask for more? Obama in pole position is an un-hoped-for bonus.
January 7, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is Larry is a Conservative Republican hawk, and former Bush supporter and donor, by his own admission.
He's abusing his posting privileges here, which are based on his connection to the Wilson/Plame scandal, to post Rt Wing talking points. And the Rt Wing are going to bash whoever the Dem front runner is.
Just to give an idea of how totally dishonest Larry is, he also claims to be a big Edwards supporter in addition to being a Hillary supporter. Which makes no sense, as Edwards supporters and Edwards himself can't stand Hillary or the DLC becasue they oppose all he's for.
Larry is an utter phony. He's playing provocateur at TPMC.
January 7, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I don't know anything about Jim Demers the lobbyist. But I do know about Jim Demers the progressive, who was a progressive in NH when being a progressive in NH was a lonely calling, running in races against the likes of Buffalo Bob Smith and working with groups like the Clamshell Alliance.
Sure sounds like Obama has one foot out of bounds according to his "pledge," but what it tells me is maybe we shouldn't mindlessly run down lobbyists as two dimensional caricatures. Not so concerned with whether Obama's silly pledge has been violated, just think it would be a shame if we let one of my fellow NH natives get painted as a moustache twirling fiend.
January 6, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
KevStar:
I've been meaning to reply to your comment because I think you raise an interesting point that lots of people at the Cafe don't have first-hand knowledge about. Demers has lobbied for the drug companies, the trial lawyers, etc., etc. He's making a living even though, as you say, he's a New Hampshire guy and you don't want to see him smeared because he's done progresive things.
Kev, I have no interest in smearing the guy either. But what you need to understand is that there are lots of folks all over the country, not just in quaint little New Hampshire, who mesh progressive and good deeds with other components of their lives. Lobbyists are no different. There are many lobbyists in DC and in my little town of Manhattan who are just lovely, and eminently progressive. Some even coach Little League.
But that's not the point, I hope, of the lobbying issue in this campaign. It's not the folks who lobby per se, it's the lobbying system that fosters the status quo. Whether lobbyists are nice or not is not what this issue is about, or at least that wasn't what it was about until Senator Obama' supporters were questioned about this peculiar choice of a state chairperson for the Obama campaign (given Obama's focus on the evils of lobbying and the beating his folks have been giving Hillary for Mark Penn). Of course, Larry's latest rant is hardly the optimal setting to explore this issue.
So I'd love to have a beer with Mr. Demers, and for you to join us.
Bruce S. Levine
January 7, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I think the language of your post goes way too far. That said, it does appear that Obama does have some lobbyists on his campaign staff. Here's something from an MSNBC article:
I'm not certain this is as damning as those who are against Obama are making it out to be. OTOH, if one wants to remove monied interests from government, it would seem to me that ought to apply at the state level as well. As Obama points out, he's running for Federal office, but the pharma companies really extend past state lines in their influence. So, it does raise a question in my mind.
I am undecided between Obama and Edwards, and while this is certainly something to delve into further, it's not a deal-breaker, imo.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 6, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving aside the trashy, tasteless, tawdry reference to Barak Obama "taking drugs" ...
Larry Johnson just doesn't understand a simple truth. The American people don't know all that much about Senator Barak Obama, true enough; but they do know more than they care to know about "Buffaloed Girl;" and what they don't know about him scares them much less than what they do know about her. Even worse for Senator You-Know-Her, all her harping on "experience" only reconfirms in people's minds how much they fear and loathe any more of what their "experienced" government has done to them.
Senator You-Know-Her picked her strategy and her team to implement it. Now she has to live with the consequences of that. She has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars portraying herself as "the only Democrat who can win" and the "inevitable" candidate whom no opposition could possibly challenge. Fine. She chose to campaign in this way -- and at such huge expense -- for an entire year now. But some opposition did raise as much money as she did; has indeed challenged her; and has proven convincingly that she can only come in third in her own party primaries. Not a good thing for the self-styled "unchallengable, inevitable winner." Not good at all.
Senator You-Know-Her has now demonstrated conclusively that (1) she doesn't strategize well; (2) she doesn't staff well; and (3) she hasn't a clue as to how much the American people despise anyone and everyone who had anything to do with the mindless and ruinous unforced error known atavistically as "Iraq." She apparently thinks Americans just can't conceive of doing without some pseudo Xena Warrior in the White House. Strike one. Strike two. Strike three.
In a typical American "change" environment, the voters want "someone else" other than whom they've had -- and who has had them -- and only want to know of the "someone else" that he or she doesn't seem nuts or incapable. Admittedly, this does not seem like much of a standard of excellence, but then Deputy Dubya Bush has lowered the bar on that concept to levels so insignificant that anyone can match or exceed them. No experience necessary. Such a change environment certainly prevailed for the inexperiecned ideologue Ronald Reagan against the more experienced President Jimmy Carter.
People sometimes don't like what "experience" has produced. This dynamic quite obviously operates at present; and as Senator Barak Obama seized upon it first, he has accordingly benefitted thereby. Watching the panicked and pathetic jokeying for "change agent" status by every other candidate, of both major parties, testifies to the fact that they've belatedly recognized this, too. This really looks so transparently bizarre as to qualify as Keystone Cops farce.
As a matter of universally acknowledged fact, Senator You-Know-Her curled up into a fetal ball and let a dyslexic dwarf chimpanzee like Deputy Dubya Bush make a monkey out of her, not just over the Iraq Debacle, but more recently over the nearly identical Kyl-Lieberman amendment authorizing Presidential "whatever" against Iran. Decisions this dumb do not so much indicate just a lack of judgment, but a non-existent learning curve, as well. Actually, a flat-lined EEG would probably serve as a better metaphor for Buffaloed Girl's terminal brain-lock. "Experience" like that, no sane person wants or needs.
As for Larry Johnson's ad hominem -- actually ad personam -- "arguments" launched against Senator Obama clearly on behalf of a desperate Mr. and Mrs. Clinton: Anyone wishing for others to take their opinion seriously would do well not to mention any affiliation with, much less employment by, America's "Can't Identify Anything" claque of clueless ciphers. Things have gotten so bad for our inept "intelligence" types -- reputation wise -- that a movie critic of the movie "Bourne Ultimatum" recently derided the alleged competency of the agency by saying: "These guys couldn't steam open an envelope." Bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia? Yes. Rescue American embassy hostages from the Iranian desert? No. Appoint (Bill) and re-appoint (Dubya) George "slam-dunk" Tenet as C.I.A. director? Yes and Yes! Now there you have a true example of what "experience" and "bi-partisanship" in the American "intelligence community" can do to a formerly respectable country.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but as a victim/veteran of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972) I've lived through every colossal fuck up by the "Can't Identify Anything" bunch from Francis Gary Powers getting shot down in his U/2 over the Soviet Union through the Bay of Pigs fiasco through every corrupt Saigon "government" anyone could care to name through South American death squads and deals with drug-running warlords from Burma's Golden Triangle to the Poppy Fields of warlord Afghanistan, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Larry Johnson might have an opinion worth considering, but if he insists on reminding us of his "professional" "intelligence" background in the "C.I.A.," then I submit he will encounter more raucous, disbelieving shrieks of laughter than serious consideration.
January 6, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama National Co-Chair, yep, you read that right, is a "registered federal lobbyist." Please, I implore you all to respond to this.
Here is the link. Scroll to the bottom and the lobbying disclosure forms are included.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx
Federal Lobbyist as National campaign co-chair. This is breathtaking. Its clear Obama's thirst for victory is, dare I say, greater then his convictions.
January 6, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama National Co-Chair, yep, you read that right, is a "registered federal lobbyist." Please, I implore you all to respond to this.
Here is the link. Scroll to the bottom and the lobbying disclosure forms are included.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx
Federal Lobbyist as National campaign co-chair. This is breathtaking. Its clear Obama's thirst for victory is, dare I say, greater then his convictions.
January 6, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the repeat. I guess I got excited
January 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Need me to lend you a clean pair of underpants?
January 7, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Need me to kick your ass?
January 7, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Play nice, sunshine.
January 7, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not about what Obama believes, Obama is about what is good for Obama. Even Obama's opposition to those politicians who promote the war in Iraq applies only to his enemies, not to his friends. A little (recent) historical research:
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
So much for judgement.
Obama defends his indefensibly tactless description of American policy of acting in hot pursuit -- think Mexican bandits -- think stating out loud what everybody is thinking and then claims that he will make friends with the Muslim masses by supporting their democratic aspirations while recognizing that he must negotiate with their dictators. He very publicly put Musharaff on the spot (thus markedly reducing our chances of obtaining actionable intelligence in the first place) and got himself plastered all over the Pakistani papers as the American hopeful who was going to kick Pakistan's sovereignity in the goolies. A rookie mistake? Hardly, guess what Obama majored in at Columbia -- International Relations. He should have known better but he was so focused on advancing his own political career that the impact on the Pakistani population didn't even cross his mind. He defended initially by saying -- what did I say -- everybody is saying that. When that didn't work he started claiming that was the start of his new and beautiful theory and Frank Rich fell for it.
Yes indeed everybody knew this was the policy which Clinton acknowledged but she knew-- if he did not -- that its public enunciation was going to make it much more difficult to implement.
January 6, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
Obama is not about what Obama believes, Obama is about what is good for Obama.
First of all, I suspect there is a little bit of that in anyone with a big enough ego to run for President, but if Obama was truly just a narcissist, I would need more evidence than you have supplied.
On the other hand as Hillary shows us over and over again, her decisions have been calculated and poll-driven to make her acceptable to the general electorate. Why? Is it about what she believes, or were her votes calculated so she would be considered tough enough (her war votes) so she can fulfill her dream of being the first female president?
It seems to me that if anyone (of the Democrats) is in this for themselves, it is certainly Hillary. But even I wouldn't say that she has NO beliefs that she is true to. I don't know what they are, but I'll give her the benefit of that doubt.
Jan
January 7, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This rally for Lieberman is in March 2006. Wasn't that before the Lamont campaign even started up?
It certainly was before he won the nomination.
January 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont had been exploring and had announced on March 13, 2006. Obama did send a letter in support of Lamont after the primary. The point is Obama presents himself as believing that a single vote on the war should now be a litmus test but supported a war-mongerer when he felt it was the politically advantageous thing to do. Lamont lost by 10%. That means that a 5% swing in the voters could have changed the outcome.
What does this say about Obama's ability to judge people and his judgment in general?
January 8, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't find Big Pharma on the list of Demers' clients at the link you provided:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/lobname.html
Was it between New Hampshire Legal Assistance and the New Hampshire Snowmobile Association?
The New Hampshire State Assembly is where Corporate control of Congress originates. Small-time small-state lobbyists are undermining our constitution and corrupting our tax code, and Obama has one as chair of one of his state committees. What drugs is that black man taking? What drugs are you taking Larry?
January 6, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama National Co-Chair, yep, you read that right, is a "registered federal lobbyist." Please, I implore you all to respond to this.
Here is the link. Scroll to the bottom and the lobbying disclosure forms are included.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/ 544600.aspx
Federal Lobbyist as National campaign co-chair. This is breathtaking. Its clear Obama's thirst for victory is, dare I say, greater then his convictions.
January 6, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
ummm... the left hand column lists the lobbyists alphabetically. the center column lists their clients.
demers' 'big pharma' clients on that list from the the secretary of state link are the pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers of america and pfizer.
maybe you should take another look.
January 7, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
umm, instead of being a snarky asshole, maybe you should have read the link I provided. You are referring to something else entirely. Clearly, in your self-import universe, facs are of little consequence to you. I simply provided a post with a link that proves that Obama's National Co-Chair is a federal lobbyist. Follow the link, and when your done, kiss my ass. Thanks again
January 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was only following in your footsteps.
January 7, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
ummm... i did not respond to your post k-town. my response is directly below yours and a response to the same post that you responded to.
January 7, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,you really need to stick with Taylor and her robotics.Okay I get it you want to hitch your wagon to Clinton who is the recepient of the largest donations of any candidate from either party.The militay,pharma,health ins,etc--of either party! Not to mention her cadre of advisers,pollsters,shills one and all a pack of has beens that are a large part of the problem with our politics today.So you want to hitch your wagon to this fine,but while you demean and trash a candidate,a classic Clinton poly,you might want to clean the street you are parked on first. Yours is another voice that is on its last throes and it is a good thing because you and the likes of your compadres are a gasp away from any relevancy.
January 6, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
johnson: The facts are simple. Here’s what the good Senator said in August about those dastardly pharmaceutical and healthcare lobbyists
obama: As a candidate for President, I've tried to lead by example, turning down all contributions from federal lobbyists ...
from the same speech cited by johnson: U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor in support of the Honest Government and Leadership Act. This legislation would provide increased transparency and accountability, reduce the influence of [federal] lobbyists and special interests, and bring about the concrete changes we need in Washington.
from an ap article posted at obama's website: Mr. Obama has taken money from lobbyists registered in his home state of Illinois, some of whom have federal interests. [However,] when [federal] lobbyists registered in Washington have given money to his campaign, he has returned it. Mr. Obama said he accepts that lobbyists have a legitimate role in Washington, but he said they now hold too much power.
fact: james demers is not a federal lobbyist.
fact: obama has been consistent in his position towards the pernicious, excessive influence of federal lobbyists in washington.
fact: obama has supported his position by refusing donations from federal lobbyists.
fact: obama made no claims asserting an interest or intent to interfere with state or local lobbying.
fact: clinton leads all candidates, democrat or republican, in lobbyist (federal and state) monies received.
Hillary Clinton (D) $567,950
John McCain (R) $340,365
Christopher J. Dodd (D) $233,875
Mitt Romney (R) $229,475
Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) $212,100
Bill Richardson (D) $134,950
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D) $114,460
Fred Thompson (R) $90,000
Barack Obama (D) $76,859
January 6, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"james demers is not a federal lobbyist."
So? Do you think lobbying at the state level is any different materially than lobbying at the federal level? Take my word for it brother, or don't, but things ain't just Mr. Smith goes to Albany or in this case Concord either. I don't care if the guy lobbied at the city, state or federal level. I'm not wedded to this blame the lobbyist meme. I am wedded to an aversion to hypocrisy and that's why I think that, if any of the candidates, including Obama, wants to make lobbying an issue, that it is nothing but hypocritical to try and claim that who he hires as the chairperson for his New Hampshire campaign is a non-issue. Horsefeathers.
That said, Larry's little hissy fit couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle in terms of convincing people. He's just yet another shit-stirrer at the Cafe.
January 7, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
obama has never inveighed against all lobbying or even against "all" lobbying in washington. in his plan to Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters, obama clearly sees a place for transparent, accountable lobbying that does not remuneratively, excessively or secretively influence policy in washington.
banning registered lobbyists or lobbying firms from giving gifts in any amount or any form to executive branch employees, expeding complaint mechanisms for any civil servant who believes a Hatch Act violation has occurred, asking all new hires at executive agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job based solely on political affiliation or contribution -- are just a few of the ideas obama has to rein in lobbyist-related corruption and secrecy in washington without diminishing public service lobbying on behalf of nps and others who promote issue areas such as improving the quality of life for children, preventive health, education, community well being, environmental preservation and strengthening families.
January 7, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fact: Obama's national campaign co-chair, former South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges, is a registered federal lobbyist. The campaign recently announced his contribution to much fanfare, however, they did not reveal his current work as a federal lobbyist.
--Scroll to the bottom of the link and examine the federal lobbyist disclosure form---
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx
This goes against the campaigns self created rules, and it raises serous issues to the principles of the Obama campaign. It seems their appetite for getting elected is greater than their rhetoric.
On another hand, this is the third time I have posted this information, and yet, no one has responded. I find it a bit funny considering the argument is about demers and his work as a state lobbyist. Yet, the Obama campaign just enlisted the services of a federal lobbyist and no one will acknowledge this here.
I would appreciate someone responding to this rather troubling fact. Thank you.
January 7, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I read that too. So it does appear to be a contradiction. Apparently, Hodges is influential in S.Carolina and the campaign has accepted his help despite it breaking their own rules because they didn't want to give up the advantage he could bring. Certainly, that makes it legitimate to ask what interests Hodges is going to seek to help.
But at the end of the day, what does this mean overall, big picture. It means Obama isn't perfect, but he's still taking no money from lobbyists, PACs or special interest groups. That's still quite an achievement for a politician to do that and be successful. It still means he owes alot less to various moneyed interest than others.
January 7, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
it takes a lot of hair-splitting to make that statement even approach being true.
January 7, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This goes against the campaigns self created rules, and it raises serous issues to the principles of the Obama campaign.
please elaborate. what "self-created" rule has obama violated?
obama is on the record regarding the rejection of campaign donations from federal lobbyists. hodges, according to fec data maintained at open secrets, has not contributed to obama's campaign.
January 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
don't care.
January 7, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Larry Johnson was attacking Bush and his minions I don't recall anyone saying he was going too far or attacking him personally.
Now that he, like Paul Krugman, suggest that Obama is a lot less than meet the ideas it is remarkable how little though goes into answering his points. Obama is a great speech maker who is offering policies that are often more status quo than Clinton's but in a fantasy manner that suggests it is only bad Baby Boomers who are standing in the way of unity.
I do not know if Obama is young enough to be of the generation in which everyone gets an award for participating as opposed to winning, but politics is about winning not just elections but enacting laws and keeping the nation safe. Obama is either going to have to throw the unity spiel overboard, and work either for or against lobbyists to get policies enacted or be a fairly inconsequential president, save for his race. Shutting up Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr. is a good thing by itself.
It would be nice when Larry or others post substantive points there is less time spent on Larry and an effort made to actually answer his point.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 7, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I did criticize Larry a few times in discussion table discussions under TPM Management. I think I used language like "bomb thrower" or something like that. It came up as parts of discussions about policing some of the nastiness in comments, and I pointed out that front pagers like Larry set a bad example if that is the goal.
January 7, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I criticized him when he did a post a long time back about how Karl Rove should committ suicide, or something like that. It was negative to the point of being beyond the pale.
January 7, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
But this is my point. Has Larry posted a substantive point?
I don't think that he has. A key point of Obama's campaign is that as a federal politician running for the highest federal office, he argues that federal lobbyists have too much importance in the federal government and have a toxic effect at the federal level.
Money is the currency by which these lobbyists wield influence in various ways. He has set self imposed rules to limit or reject money from this source.
Now it appears that the co-chair of one of his state campaigns is a lobbyist.
Does this speak to a palpable degree of hypocrisy? It strikes me that there is a remarkable lack of perspective applied here.
Assuming all 50 states have co-chairs, then this guy is literally one man in a hundred at his particular level. Since we can assume that there is a broader campaign strategy and organization beyond the state by state level, there's we can assume that there are at least a few levels above this. Our New Hampshire co-chair is a third or fourth or fifth tier player on the Obama team. Arguably, there may be a few hundred people at or above this person's level in Obama-land.
Is that significant? It doesn't seem to me to be so. Rather, it seems a lot like diving into a haystack in triumphant search of a needle, or perhaps more accurately, looking at a molehill and calling it a mountain.
I'm inevitably reminded of the politics of personal destruction plyed by Republicans against President Clinton, and the activities of the Mighty Wurlitzer of Hatred that the Bush administration brings to bear on anyone who steps out of line. Or for that matter, I'm reminded of the Swift Boat fiasco that struck Kerry, or the attacks on Al Gore. Indeed, the methods and approach that Larry uses is exactly the same as the Bush attacks on Valerie Plame, which Johnson found so offensive.
In all of these cases, there was an elevation of isolated, often dubious or questionable assertions, of no broader import into a kind of hysterical firestorm of invective and shrieking.
If this is what Larry is bringing to the table, then my suggestion is that Larry go f*ck himself. We don't need this bullshit. I hope he reads this and takes it.
Part of the reason that Larry's approach is so patently offensive is its fundamental dishonesty. Is it true or not? Is it a significant or meaningful truth? Irrelevant. Larry will bang the drum and rant and rave. That doesn't give us much room for reasoned discussion. Indeed, it kills discussion, replacing it with fiery empty rhetoric.
Larry proposes a level of scrutiny judgementalism which is both arbitrary and counterproductive. Some people see the forest, some people see the trees. Larry is a man screaming hysterically over a spot on a leaf. In doing so, he's quite careful to ignore the tree, the forest, and all the other forests. In his foaming fixation, he neglects to hold Clinton or Edwards to the standards he establishes for Obama, a selectivity that undercuts his argument.
Are there real issues with respect to Obama's position on lobbying and lobbyists? Yes there are. Is Obama a hypocrite for having a single lobbyist in a middle to upper level position within his organization? Not necessarily so. Should it make a difference if this Lobbyist has extensive progressive bona fides? Yes I think it should. If Obama's organization took lots of money from Lobbyists or their clients to the point where we could or should start to wonder about quid pro quo's, would that be hypocrisy? Yes it would. Has that happened? So far as we know, no. If Obama's organization was saturated with lobbyists, and tied to lobbying organizations, would that be hypocrisy? Yes it would. Has that happened? No it hasn't.
In the end, there's substance and there is hysteria. Larry's effort to emulate the right wing wurlitzer of hatred, dishonesty and invective is not a solution, and it is not helpful. The right wing machine must be confronted, but I don't think that it will be beaten in this way. If Democrats have nothing more to offer than the same mindless viciousness as Republicans, then ultimately, they will be Republicans, owned by the same interests, pledged to the same policies.
I make no objection to legitimate criticism of Obama. Indeed, I have many criticisms and concerns myself.
I am concerned that Obama's inclusiveness rhetoric and expressions of ideals of hope are not adequately supported by concrete policies and goals.
I am concerned that Obama seems all too willing to articulate and embrace right wing talking points and causes, which may result in a rather more conservative and less effectual President.
I am concerned that between his rhetoric, his lack of specificity, and his willingness to accommodate a right wing which knows only attack, that he might be doomed to be as ineffectual as Carter or as beleaguered as Clinton.
Ultimately, I wonder if Barack Obama brings anything to the table except himself, and whether that is sufficient not just to win the election, but more importantly, to be the President that America needs desperately.
Make no mistake, these are trying times ahead. Whoever becomes President will inherit nothing but wreckage on every front. Wreckage in New York and New Orleans, wreckage in Iraq, in Afghanistan, wreckage of American foreign policy, wreckage of American military power, wreckage of the American economy, and so forth.
This is the country that we'll have in 2009. Shouldn't we be talking about that, rather than whether the sub-vice assistant, deputy chairperson of Obama's regional donuts organizing campaign is someone we approve of?
I have read a great many of Larry Johnson's posts. I've found them uniformly useless, and often offensive.
Larry, it's time to man up. Sometimes you have to wake up in the morning and ask yourself "Am I making things better, or making them worse." Stop making it worse. Abandon your cheap theatrics, your thuggish and cowardly sniping. Enjoin a real discussion, or go home. As it is, you are not welcome, and you would not be missed.
January 7, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Larry and Hillary win the point that Obama's not perfect. He has a couple lobbyists on his staff, one of whom is a federal lobbyist, which violates his own rule.
It's a little hypocritical of him, but not much.
Overall, he still can fairly claim that he owes a lot less to moneyed special interests than other candidates because he hasn't accepted funding from them. Larry implies that he has based on the fact that he employs lobbyists, but he provides no evidence of this and my guess is that regardless, he has fewer lobbyists on his staff than Hillary.
Is Larry willing to tell us how many registered lobbyists Hillary employs?
The primary point Obama is making is that while lobbyists serve a role, they have too much influence and that influence needs to be reduced. He never said they were evil or needed to be eliminated. Larry is taking Obama's statement to an extreme that Obama himself doesn't support.
January 7, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Rosenberg loves Obama. Larry Johnson loves Hillary. Each write posts extolling their candidates.
MJ writes whatever he feels like. LJ writes whatever the campaign's meme is that day.
I think that Larry is the only campaign flack around here.
I'll revise my view when MJ or Reed or Todd or one of the other partisans puts out the same thing their respective campaign puts out. LJ. New technology. Old politics.
January 7, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that Josh Marshall is trying to build a news empire, not just a liberal talk site. I believe he invites people who are reasonably conservative and with differing candidate/politician preferences to post in order to be more balanced.
sPh
January 7, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
sphealey said:
CHRIST, if Josh Marshall hires William Kristol I'm outta here!
January 7, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the surface it seems Edwards is going to take a stand against the lobbyists and the corporations/corporate executives they represent. Edwards says you can't work with these people, you must fight them. I think he's right. It took the boys in the corporate boardrooms and the wealthy too long to get where they are today, they won't give anything up easily.
So, where does Edwards stand in this lobbyist issue?
January 7, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Edwards says you can't work with these people, you must fight them."
Yes, a sophisticated thinker, Edwards. This is bullshit. All industries, interest groups, and lobbyists are not created equal. By what justification do you make rules against, say, oil company lobbyists and not have the same rules apply to, say, environmental groups, or alternative energy companies?
This idea that business is evil and all lobbyists are bad is ridiculous. Edwards is seriously demagoguing this issue. Lobbyists serve a very useful function. Industry is complex and so is legislation. Explanations of the impact of legislation on industry is highly important. What they SHOULDN'T be doing is handing out big bucks jobs, gifts, and other goodies to legislators or family members. What's needed is a serious revision of the COI rules. No jobs or gifts from industry for 10 years after leaving Congress would get some attention.
But all Edwards has is, "you have to fight them" rhetoric. What are his proposals? It's really kind of pathetic, especially coming from a guy who promised his constituents in 1998 that he would "vote with Jesse [Helms] more often than not."
January 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
LongTom said:
Agreed.
Didn't you answer this question yourself when you claimed "all industries, interest groups, and lobbyists are not created equal.?"
Aren't you saying a certain situation cannot be created when in fact it has already been created?
Who does better in getting legislation passed, the Oil lobby or the Environmental lobby, and why?
January 7, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is volunteer campaign help at a high level a goodie?
January 8, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He ain't RFK."? How do you know? RFK wasn't RFK either. He was decried as "too political" in his initial senate run, as a crass opportunist after his post-LBJ-withdrawal campaign announcement, as a demagogue when he drew endless crowds of thousands of adoring supporters.
As for Obama's honorary NH campaign chair, is that all you got? How pathetic!
January 7, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
From CNBC:
The top recipients of Hedge Fund Campaign contributions
$1 million Guliani
$980,000 Clinton
$976,000 Obama
With Romney close behind. McCain is trailing by about a third. It is similar with money from venture capital with Cliton and Obama leading everyone followed by Guliani and Romney.
Lsrry Kudlow, economist, CNBC host and Republican flack, then commented that all the Democrats would hurt the markets with their tax policies but Obama's is the least damaging. Obama is an attractive campaigner and his election, as would Clitnon's, be historic. However, he is a very centrist politician.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 7, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't the hedge fund managers pay just 15% income tax while Joe Blue Collar is paying 28%??
January 7, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, One of the big issues on Wall Street is so call carryforward interest. It allows hedge fund managers to treat their income as a captial gain.
Hillary like Chuck Schumer do their best to defend the interests' of their New York constituents. Why is Obama getting all this money? Because he looks like a winner who may change the atmospherics but not the substance?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 8, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, whose wife have you been beating?
What a typical Clintonian asshole's headline. The only question is when you will get on the long line of regretful Clinton supporters to kiss Obama's ass, hoping against hope to get on the bandwagon. You suck.
January 7, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demers is not a federal lobbyist, which is plenty of reason, in the context of a presidential campaign, for Obama to deny that he is "a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry."
Demers registered as a lobbyist with the state of New Hampshire on Dec. 28, 2007. It'
s unclear how long he's been representing PHRMA and Pfizer, but it could certainly be a recent development.
The list of his clients:
USTPA
6 HIGH RIDGE PARK BLDG A
STAMPFORD,CT 06905-
PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF NH
25 NASHUA RD BOX 17
LONDONDERRY,NH 03053-
FEDEX
942 S SHADY GROVE RD
MEMPHIS,TN 38120-
NORTH COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC
2 DELTA DR
CONCORD,NH 03301-
MORTGAGE BANKERS & BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NH
PO BOX 6
WEARE,NH 03281-
NH TRAIL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
POP BOX 447
CONCORD,NH 03302-
NH COALITION FOR PROSTHETICS
155 DOW STREET STE 200
MANCHESTER,NH 03101-
PHRMA
125 WASHINGTON #1
FOXBORO,MA 02035-
CANNERY CASINO RESORTS
221 N RAMPART BLVD
LES VEGAS,NV 89145-
BANK OF AMERICA
1100 KING STREET
WILMINGTON,DE 19884-
COMCAST
72 N MAIN ST STE 301
CONCORD,NH 03301-
PFIZER
235 EAST 42ND ST
NEW YORK,NY 10017-
PSNH
PO BOX 330
MANCHESTER,NH 03105-
IGT
1085 PALMS AIRPORT DR
LAS VEGAS,NV 89119-
NATIONAL CARD COALITION
72 N MAIN ST STE 301
CONCORD,NH 03301-
NH INDEPENDENT CASE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION
1361 ELM ST STE 400
MANCEHSTER,NH 03101-
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF NEW ENGLAND
78 REGIONAL DR
CONCORD,NH 03301-
NH TROOPERS ASSOCIATION
107 N STATE ST
CONCORD,NH 03301
January 7, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
However Jim Hodges, Obama's national co-chair is a federal lobbyist. Here is his lobbyist disclosure papers.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx
January 7, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a miserable thread.
First, Johnson is completely over the top with "What drugs is he taking"? This completely obscures whatever truth there may or may not be in the substance of the criticism he is making.
But many of Obama's fans here have to get real. Criticism must be answered whether it's valid or not. Don't be fooled by the docile attitude of the press - NOW. They WILL turn up the heat soon and, surprising as it may seem to some of you, calling them trolls for the Republicans or for Hillary, is not going to cut it. Much as it outrages you to get criticism you perceive as unfair (who are Hillary and her friends to complain about lobbyist support? - and you may have a point here) there's nothing fair about this business. If you set yourself up as Mr. Clean, every skeleton in your closet will be ventilated at some point. It's an iron law of politics that the bar is higher for a self-proclaimed reformer. You'd better get used to it and learn to keep your cool. Frankly, you're as much if not more of an embarrassment to Obama as Larry Johnson is to Hillary.
And let's all remember, please, that most of us are more than likely going to support the Democrats' nominee - whoever it is.
January 7, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. The winger trolls are really popping out of the woodwork for Larry Johnson and against Obama.
Good they're self identifying though.
January 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy smokes! I was a registered lobbyist for an insurance company (I guess that means the entire industry) in New York in, I believe 1998 or 1999. I mean, insurance is as bad as Pharma, right? Does that sully all of the recipients of my campaign donations or in-kind support since then?
“I despise ideologues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007
January 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Holy smokes! I was a registered lobbyist for an insurance company...Does that sully all of the recipients of my campaign donations or in-kind support since then?"
Only if you supported one of Hillary's opponents.
Get with the rules here.
Best, Terry
January 7, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink