Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama & Politics As Usual
Barack Obama attacks Senator Clinton for taking money from lobbyists. Here's what he does:
"While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help.
Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: "I would imagine that it's as large as the Clinton list," in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.
He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give "policy" and "campaign support." Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.
Other K Street players working to build momentum for Obama are former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.
One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution.
"I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network.""
Source: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html
A new style of politics of BUSINESS AS USUAL?
Obama attacks Senator Clinton for her "doublespeak".
In a debate, Hillary Clinton admitted she had made a mistake in voting for the Bankruptcy bill. She said after realizing her mistake, she had hoped it wouldn't pass. Rather than commending her for admitting to a mistake, he instead ridiculed her.
What does that mean?" Obama asked his audience, to laughter. "No, seriously, what does that mean? If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it! People don't say what they mean."
A new style of politics of BUSINESS AS USUAL? Obama claims he is past the politics of old, including identity politics. Yet, he sends his surrogate, Jesse Jackson Jr., out to intimidate black Congressional leaders into voting for Obama: "In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.
He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?"
Source: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_supporter_jesse_jackson_1.php
Jackson Jr. also had this to say after Hillary showed emotion in NH:
"those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."
A new style of politics of BUSINESS AS USUAL?
I wish Obama would stop running as some sort of "new" politican and just admit he stoops to political ploys like everyone else.







Comments (8)
I apologize that this posted twice.
February 15, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think employing lobbyists in your campaign or accepting their volunteer work and advice is the same as taking money from them.
And yes, taking money from their wives seems like a bit of a loophole, but the bottom line at the end of the day is he's taking no money from lobbyists directly and a lot less than Clinton even indirectly. Much more of his contributions come from ordinary people, which means that he owes a lot less to lobbyists than Clinton if he wins.
Essentially your argument is one that attempts to make the perfect the enemy of the good or the good the enemy of the better.
You set a high perfect standard, then say look neither meets it -- ignore the actual differences -- and conclude that their campaigns are absolutely equal in the way they are conducting themselves.
February 15, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not the one who set the standard, that would be Obama. Of course, as it is Obama, I have nothing specific to go on, so I have to look at what he says and compare it with what he does. That's what this was: a comparison of speech to action. You say I'm making perfect the enemy of good, but Obama is the one who made himself the enemy of the status quo. I find few distinctions, I just think he's sneakier about it than even Hillary Clinton.
February 15, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's not much difference in money or campaign work, each one creates "payback" situations. Campaign work more than money. You can always go and get $2000 from someone else, but not just anyone is going to have the experience and network contacts that lobbyists can provide to a campaign.
February 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest so called Hillary supporter talking point is "look he is just as dirty as the rest of us"
Not true no matter how many times you try. You keep doing it, nothing sticks. First it was the corruption ties angle, then it was the state lobbyist vs Fed lobbyist angle. Now it is the "lobbyist can advise, but not donate" angle.
Will you give it a rest already. Here is the biggest reason why NO DEM IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SHOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY.
(this is probably the reason why she hates MSNBC) But Keith O. is too beloved a figure to attack directly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
I think even the Hillary loving reporter here at TPM was dumbfounded. Here's what he had to say
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/hillary_and_obama_square_off_over_terrorism_and_fear.php
Let's forget all this tit for tat stuff, because when it comes right down to it. When you are trying to literally SCARE up votes, the rest doesnt make a bit of difference.
Take a Stand against the politics of fear.
February 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between Rovian politics of fear, declaring an entire political party to be in favor of giving up to terrorists, and pointing out why your foreign policy experience makes you best prepared to handle current international situations. Nice try, though.
Besides, take a look above at Obama sending out Jackson Jr. to scare up some votes. Pretty sad.
February 15, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many times are you going to post the same boring column?
February 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, no difference between Rovian politics of fear and Clintonian politics of fear. It's the same tactic. The truth is, we're not certain how either candidate will behave when faced with a foreign policy crisis. I'm tired of getting the threat, whether it's from Hillary Clinton or from a Republican, that my failure to vote for them might very well mean I will be doomed.
But I'll tell you this--after observing Hillary's DEMONSTRABLE political timidity, errors in judgment, poorly planned and executed political campaign, and her bullying, non-inclusive leadership style (refer to 1993 healthcare reform project), I do NOT feel particularly safe with her at the helm.
And NO, it's not because she's a woman or that I am a misogynist.
And NO, I am not a star-struck, empty-headed, foolish, naive celebrity groupie.
And NO, I am not a voter who has failed to research the substantive accomplishments and policy proposals of both candidates.
I am weary of being insulted by these accusations.
I ask that Hillary supporters please consider that it is entirely possible for conscientious, well-informed, level-headed, fair-minded people to support their competition.
February 17, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment