... the focus is not on the message but the mechanism of delivery.

My point is no one is talking about the mayors comments in that column only who actually wrote them. The mayor clearly endorses them, so ... are we just providing a smoke screen for the message itself?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511911784

Obviously a lot of politicians have speech writers and I have no problem with that. I do draw the line at lobbyists tho.

As to the actual message. I do have a problem with it as he side steps the fact that Clinton is guilty of a lot of the things he accuses Bernie of. He also blasts Bernie about black colleges when no one reached out to him to see if they would be defunded or not. His plan would actually bolster black colleges.

Although you are a fire-breathing Sanders supporter, you are a cut above the rank-and-file.

Doesn't matter how contemptible. And sorry, dear Buzz, but I have criticized Bernie.

But often nuance and definition is lost on one-liner ... in this case 3 words.

Words attributed to someone who did not write them or authorize them. Somewhere in there is a messenger who took it upon themselves....yada, yada.

... hiring someone to write your editorials.

Jeebus H Krpyonite!

are differences between the Sanders and Clinton campaigns.

This campaign is very much about Hillary and establishment democrats being too ' in bed' with big business and their lobbyists.

You may be fine with establishment Democrats selling out the people in the name of having corporations pay for elections, but many others are feed up with it.

He has staff, the staff can write those kinds of hit pieces, there's no need to hop into bed with lobbyists for this kind of nonsense.

Am I?


Hold on to your hat .... I agree.

I'm calling it blatant dishonesty, but it's legal .. although a government official should be held to higher standards than a bio ghost writer.

And if you agree, then do you also agree that the act of writing that piece is worst than the acts it speaks against.

I agree with this:

Very creative exclamation. Must mean something dire.

All of them. The writers all get paid, and none get credit. Nobody considers it plagiarism. Well, maybe you.

When they don't, one might think they have their own agenda or trying to have it both ways? And even if it does fail the exact test of plagiarism, it smells.

who the elected official was elected to serve, or are they being paid to do the bidding of a corporate lobby?

If I'm elected I hire staff and writers to do what's in the interests of the people who elected me.

If I ever think that the people's interests and the interests of some industry sector align, then the same people I hired to write in the name of the interests of the people can write that same speech/article ... I don't hire sector lobbyists because the optics are incredibly poor.

To paraphrase a famous quote: “Not only must integrity be done; it must also be seen to be done”

...one minute after the OP, reply with a meaningless one-liner.

How fucking idiotic.

Corporate money buys a lot of astroturf.

Interesting.

The ultimate losers.

I choose not to be on the same side as UnitedHealth, Honda, and MGM Resorts.

ALEC's letterhead still on it - she forgot to have it edited out. And the power company writes up any bills concerning the power companies. And so it goes.

others. But, Sanders's supporters have thrown all of them under the bus. . . . . . .

I thought that was obvious.

This is why we have transparency in government, because it matters whose interests you currently represent.

http://www.gtlaw.com/People/Tharon-L-Johnson



I am an accomplished public, political, and business strategist with more than a decade of experience creating successful legislative solutions and political campaigns. I leverage my fifteen years leading key Presidential, Congressional, state, and local campaigns and government teams to craft innovative approaches to complex public affairs challenges for a diverse array of corporate, nonprofit, and public clients.

Currently I serve as Director at Greenberg Traurig LLP, a leading global law firm. Charged with building the regional office's government law and policy practice from the ground-up, I focus my practice on navigating complex legislative environments and building strong relationships across national, federal, state, and local levels.

Throughout my career I have served in senior roles at every level of government, including for such notable public officials as civil rights legend Congressman John Lewis, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Georgia Congressman John Barrow, and Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. I led national campaign strategy for 11 key southern states, including two battleground states, for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, where I also served as Senior Advisor to Florida.

In addition to my professional roles, I am a passionate community servant. I sit on the Board of Trustees of Woodruff Arts Center, Clark Atlanta University, KIPP Metro Atlanta, and the DeKalb County Chamber of Commerce. . . . . .

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tharonjohnson

conflicts of interest. The fact that it wasn't disclosed is bothersome, because it appears to be astroturfing.

Lewis, Clyburn, Sharpton, etc., endorsing Clinton. I get it.

Here's his Bio: http://www.gtlaw.com/People/Tharon-L-Johnson

Anyway, he certainly was a lobbyist at the time so he had a conflict of interest.

As for Reed, Lewis, Clyburn, Sharpton endorsing Clinton, that has nothing to do with this and I'd kindly ask you not to introduce distractions into the discussion.

as is your reason for not liking the endorsement of Clinton.

In fact, the article as written (which you claimed proved your point) actually contradicts that narrative.

Sorry the facts don't agree with you.