In the Huff Po just yesterday, Katharine Zaleski wrote the following while commenting on YearlKos and Hillary's defense of lobbying:

Senator Obama has been criticized recently for contradicting his rhetoric by taking money from lobbyists in the past.

She linked in that line to this article from Justin Rood, which I first saw on Ben Smith's blog on The Politico (with the snarky headline "Obama used to love lobbyists!" or something to that effect) and have since seen pop up as a "damning" criticism of Obama in the comments sections of blogs all around the netroots.

Only 1 thing: nowhere in the article does it say that Obama was "taking money from lobbyists" as alleged by Zaleski. Indeed, the closest it comes to that is saying:

A review of campaign finance records turned up no record of contributions from Nufarm to Obama. Astellas Pharma employees gave $1,100 to Obama's campaign in recent months, the documents show.

Huh? No record of the lobbyists giving money, no mention of that fact, no record of one of the companies being lobbied giving any money to Obama, and no even indirect evidence that there might have been some bundling at these companies...the most given was from 1 of the companies for $1,100.

Again: Huh?

I have to ask, are the people leveling these criticisms absolutely fucking brain dead? And Katherine Zaleski: how fucking lazy are you to not even read the article you linked?

How many people will read that sentence in the HuffPo; not click the link, or click the link and only read the ominous sounding headline; and assume some lobbyists bought influence with Obama? Of course, that claim, the implied claim, is completely unsubstantiated. But it goes from implied (which is insidious enough) in Rood's ABC News piece to explicit in Zaleski's piece. Based on NO EVIDENCE of influence peddling.

This is how the media fails us. Rather than taking the time to even bother to read the source of the allegations and determine whether or not they are merited, Zaleski endorses the narrative that lobbyists bought influence with Obama based on an article that states lobbyists didn't buy influence with Obama, they just successfully lobbied him. No campaign finance. No bundling. No chartered jets. No expensive lunches. At least, none are mentioned or cited. So what's the scandal?

Now, we can debate whether or not a politician should ever listen to a lobbyist. But that's not the point. Obama has not, to my knowledge, argued that all lobbyists are evil. He has argued that being beholden to lobbyists for campaign money is a corrupting influence on a politician. We can debate whether or not he's held up his pledge to not take federal lobbyist or PAC money in spirit. But the article cited simply does not say what Zaleski claims it says. And considering how much "transparency" and "good government" are a part of Obama's campaign pledge, that's a big claim to make without any evidence.

To my knowledge, I can't send Zaleski a direct email through HuffPo's website, and I don't see the point of posting this in a comments' section 3 or 4 pages long. Which means her mis-characterization goes unanswered and uncorrected. Awesome.

The "liberal" media strikes again!