Don't agonize, organize ... that's my mantra. Change won't happen unless you work to make it happen! But sometimes even your best efforts don't provide the results you were looking for. Or sometimes a situation is just so completely outrageous that all you can do is say ... YIKES!
14 comments:
Thank you for putting this up, it's the first time I've seen it. I have the feeling it won't get play on the MSM because right now, Obama is their rock star. They won't begin to rip him to shreds until after he gets the nomination. He's mistaken if he thinks they are going to be kind to him. That's why I think he's so naive and not ready for prime time.
You, BAC, living in Washington should know there is never a question so complicated as one your opponent calls "a simple yes or no question". The person in question is a lobbyist registered to lobby in Concord, New Hampshire. Legally, he can't lobby Senator Obama for the companies he represents. As far as can be shown, Demers is just a New Hampshire resident supporting a candidate he agrees with in a volunteer capacity.
Lobbyists, as people, are not evil. The influence peddling that is endemic in Washington is the problem. Obama has given back every penny given to him by lobbyists or PACs. Obama has not asked candidates to kick every lobbyist out of every corner of their campaigns; he has asked the other candidates to refuse to be bought by lobbyists. Now, if his entire campaign leadership were made up solely of corporate lobbyists, that would be a problem, but it isn't. Demers is just one of four co-chairs, and was the only one listed as being a part of the campaign on a voluntary basis (also in that listing, he was remarked as being a former lobbyist, leading me to still question when Obama found out he still was).
Next time, show us the full response before you start attacks like this.
Mudslinging like this that does nothing but make your opponents look bad do not help anyone. Do you really want Senator Clinton to have to answer why she has for a running mate someone who six months prior she was slamming as a hypocrite and inexperienced?
John - it is only "mud slinging" if it's not true. The exchange between Clinton and Obama was:
SEN. CLINTON: … You know, when it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama’s chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies. ...
SEN. OBAMA: That's not so.
But it IS "so" ... so why didn't he just say yes that night, and when asked by ABC?
Demers is registered to lobby for Pfizer and PhRMA. And he is not "just a volunteer" he is a co-chair in NH for Obama.
Your spin might hold water if Obama had replied, he's a state lobbyist and is legally not allowed to lobby a federal office holder -- but that's not what he said.
And keep in mind it is OBAMA who has made this a campaign issue. If HE wants something to be an issue for Sen. Clinton, then he must expect to be questioned about his own actions.
What I find almost amusing about your response here, is your comment that "Lobbyists, as people, are not evil." That is pretty close to what Sen. Clinton said in an earlier debate. And the question of 'what he knew and when he knew it'. Will he vet Supreme Court nominee's the same way?
But not to worry, John. George H.W. Bush said Reagan's economics plan was "voo doo economics" yet he managed to secure the VP nomination for two terms. The American public can be very forgiving if they want to like someone, and it's clear they want to like Obama.
BAC
Gee, that is kind of a low blow. And one that you would not accept if it was directed at your candidate. What if Edwards came out and said, "one of your biggest supporters is a skirt chaser."
What if Obama came out and and said, "Isn't it true that you were once president of The Young Republicans?"
Both of those questions, while technically true, might not actually apply to what is really going on right now. Obama's New Hampshire supporter is a lobbyist, but Clinton was using the question to make people believe that Obama was using him as a lobbyist.
I guess what I don't understand is why some Democrats have such a hard time believing that Republicans stoop to such disgusting tactics, but don't have a problem when Hillary uses them. Oh it is horrible the way Bush keeps using terror to get reelected. But when Hillary played the "fear card", she was simply telling it like it is.
Such double standards. Of course, you won't see it that way, but it's true!
It is Obama true that made lobbyist MONEY an issue. He has also said that they will have a seat at the table, but won't be in charge. Technically, you and I are lobbyists when we ask our representatives to do something for us. Lobbyist money, and the undue influence that it buys is what Obama has been speaking out against.
Obama did respond with that in the GMA interview. But in that ad that you showed his response was cut to "Um". If the same were done to Hillary about a hot button question you'd be saying the same things I am (just watch Colbert's "Better Know a District" segments to see how it can be done for comedic effect).
Also, I don't understand this question at all: "And the question of 'what he knew and when he knew it'. Will he vet Supreme Court nominee's the same way?" How does this tie into Supreme Court nominations?
What Hillary, and by extension you, are trying to do with this ad is set up Obama as a straw man. You are taking something Obama has said, "Lobbyist money gives them an unfair advantage over regular people when campaigns rely so much on money" and turning it into something magnitudes more "Lobbyists shouldn't be a part of campaigns." You then attack that second by saying he isn't living up to it and act as if he said it, and then feel free to completely ignore what he had actually said.
Robert - your argument simply doesn't hold water. Has Sen. Clinton make "skirt chasing" a theme of her campaign? Has she made being a former Young Republican a them the campaign? The answer is NO.
Obama and Edwards made the word "Lobbyist" an evil thing, and now it is coming back to bite Obama on the ass.
Do I wish she had not played the fear card? Yes. So let the other candidates call her on that.
The bottom line here is when a CANDIDATE makes something an issue, then they better be sure their closets are clean.
John - We can forget about the ABC interview if you like, why did Obama lie during the debate? Hillary said his campaign chair was a lobbyist for drug companies and Obama said "NOT TRUE".
You want to claim that it might be because he didn't know the fellow was STILL a lobbyist. My point about the Supreme Court is this. If he can't vet is own campaign chairs, how can I trust him to vet U.S. Supreme Court nominees? Will I have to roll the dice and HOPE none of them would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, or reverse the Lawrence v. Texas decision?
It's a rooky mistake to be campaigning againt (specifically drug company) lobbyists, and then have one as your campaign co-chair. And then LIE or at best try to MISLEAD the public during a debate.
Has Obama come out against citizen lobbyists? No. My argument is about what he has said vs what is the truth.
BAC
Hi BAC!
Wanted to stop by and tell you what a great job you are doing. The boys are scared. They should be.
The truth will bitchslap them yet.
Shez - thanks for stopping by! I absolutely agree!
BAC
The point I am trying to point out is that, according to the information I have, Demers signed on to the Obama campaign as a FORMER lobbyist. The paperwork being put forward as proof of Demers's lobbying ties show the date of registration as 12-28-2007, roughly a week before the debate in question.
If this information holds true, then Obama may not have been informed by the debate that Demers had registered for Pfizer as Obama was spending all of his time campaigning in Iowa. This means that he did not, in effect, lie during the debate, he may have just given the most accurate information he had. Again though, this is just based on the limited amount of evidence available to me.
The other half of your argument is also slightly inaccurate, which I tried to point out. While Edwards has made the word lobbyist anathema to his campaign, Obama has only made the phrase lobbyist money the issue. Changing that, and attacking him on the modified phrase is a false argument. It is exactly like Robert's statements that you (justly) disputed the relevancy of.
As far as his vetting process goes, I personally would expect that Supreme Court justice would have much different standards than volunteer campaign co-chair does (especially since the duties of the latter are simply "get votes").
And hence why we should support Edwards, who has made lobbying a key part of his campaign and has not gotten bittern in the ass by it, LOL. I know your support for Hillary is true BAC and I agree with you calling Obama out on it, but Hillary is just as guilty of using lobbyists as Obama.
John - Lobbyists usually have to register every year, so we don't know if Demers was registering for the first or second (third or fourth) time. Obama has talked about money from lobbyists, but he has also said that no lobbyist will work for him in the White House. And he has been pretty clear that he doesn't care what kind of lobbyist they were/are, they will not be welcome. Both Obama and Edwards, but mostly Edwards, have used all-things lobbyist against Clinton for months now. Would you at least concede that if the two of them are going to make lobbyist a negative word, that Obama should know whether or not someone in a leadership position on his staff is a lobbyist? And wouldn't it have been wiser for him to say "not to my knowledge" instead of "not true" when the claim was made?
I would consider this a non-issue if the person in question had walked off the street to become a phone banker for Obama, but state co-chair is in my opinion different. And he must have known he would be asked about it. So why did he appear so unprepared for Diane's question?
Maybe I'm suffering from "I didn't know" fatigue following 7 years of the Bush administration.
Boxer - As mentioned earlier, I only point this out because it's been made a campaign issue by the other two leading candidates. Clinton is not the one making it an issue.
BAC
Yikes! BAC:
I'd forgotten how much I liked your blog.
#1) You are right. Obama needs to cut the shit and lick the knife. In other words, ANSWER THE QUESTION
#2) Once he's answered it, is it not time for everyone to acknowledge that "lobbyists" aren't the problem but Buckley v Valeo is?
#3) Obama and Edwards fans need to go to Newsmeat and Open Secrets and see where the money's coming from. It's no cleaner than Clinton's.
#4) Liberal Obama fans need to take account of the fact that the lobbyists Obama most proudly rejects come from ORGANIZED LABOR.
Kelso, and BAC, Obama did answer the question, just because he took a second to organize his thoughts with an "um" does not mean he was unprepared nor that he didn't answer.
He drew a distinct line between state and federal lobbyists. The "did he know" is my question, and is based on the information available. I agree that "I don't know" is endemic of the current administration, but there is a distinct line between "I don't remember if I sent that memo (fired those attorneys, used the Constitution as toilet paper)" and this case. He also hasn't used that defense; to my knowledge, I am the only one saying it.
To Kelso's #2, Obama has said that lobbyists, in and of themselves, aren't the problem, it is their influence, largely through money. If I remember correctly, BAC, Obama said that Obama said no lobbyists would be working for him in the White House making policy, again I would make a distinction between policy maker and voter getter.
To #3 - according to filings, Obama has returned all the money given to him by lobbying groups. Individual donations from citizens he and I count differently. I'm not interested in clearly biased half truths that those sites are trying to spread. Call me naive, but I would rather stick to FEC filings.
#4 - I'm not sure where you are getting that information. He is very clearly supported by some organized labor groups.
Kelso - Thanks for your kind words.
John - This topic has pretty much been discussed, and I think we may simply have to agree to disagree.
BAC
Post a Comment