Obama "buys" endorsements, while lobbyists buy Hillary.

People on the board are attacking Senator Obama for buying endorsements. At least he hasn't been bought, and paid for. Especially by lobbyists and special interest money....



And even after Clinton said lobbyists "represent" the American people, the lobbyists cheered her on....



I find it interesting that a Hillary supporter known for attacking Obama posted the Obama endorsement thread....

But Obama buying endorsements isn't as bad as Hillary being bought by the lobbyists.

FACT: John Edwards or Barack Obama, the other two top tier candidates, haven't taken one dime from lobbyists or special interest PAC's

FACT: Hillary has taken the most money from lobbyists. Including from the healthcare industry, where she says she's best prepared to provide universal coverage.

Attack them (Obama and Edwards) on their stances, their honesty, their hair, their endorsements.....

But lobbyists don't influence them, and they're most prepared to bring the big bold change this country needs. It's hard to make the case you're fighting for the American people when you're taking the most money from lobbyists on both sides.

Obama has promised to forgo the type of insider politics he bashes Hillary for...and yet...obviously he is willing to practice it himself...

And his no lobbyist money pledge is a joke...loopholes you could drive a truck through...but we can leave that for another thread...

She calls the consultants and gives them thousands of dollars a month. Hypocrite Hillary - she ought to have it stamped on her forehead. Nobody comes close to her political sleaze.

You have to look at *how much* special interest money (Hillary has the most by far, even more than republican candidates which is sad) and from where (health care industry, defense industry, telecom industry, etc.).

Unfortunately any "viable" candidate (aka, the so called "top tier") in our flawed system will have taken *some* amount of special interest money, which is why the issue has to be broken down further (see above).

Also, you have to look and see if a particular candidate has a platform that seems to be influenced by their donors (see below) or if, for example, a candidate has a plan that contradicts powerful special interest groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html

Yes, I suppose they do. The ones that DON'T represent powerful multi-national banking conglomerates, the energy industry, credit card companies, and other artificial persons. REAL Americans live and breathe, suffer, and mourn. Artificial people do none of these things and are NOT real Americans.

And I just wonder what they're going to want in return.

Tax breaks for middle to low income families?

Reduced interest rates on credit cards for all?

A reduction in the amount of fees banks can charge customers?

Better employment laws to protect workers?

Health care for all?

Better prescription medicine prices?

Higher minimum wages?

Yeah, they're gonna want something for those donations, and it won't be for the betterment of the American people.

Edwards is the ticket.

It isn't the way he looks or his sex -- he's different in his IDEAS, and that's what this country needs right now, not more of the same in a different package.

but you haven't shown any quid pro quo

He takes money from lobbyists spouses, from their lawyers...and takes money from state lobbyists...

It's a gimmick...and a lame one at that...especially given his past willingness to work to get lobbyists preferred positions through the state legislature in Illinois and the U.S. Senate...

when he entered the presidential race with a theme of "changing Washington" - ha!
Obama still has his lobbyists Rolodex and has been using it to garner donations from the network of lobbyists friends and families.

Obama is also deceptive regarding his "opposition" to the war.
He opposed it when he couldn't vote - then voted with Republicans for every war funding bill until AFTER he entered the presidential race - at which time he based his campaign on "opposing the war."

Obama is just tooooo deceptive!

Go Edwards!

And you want to attack him on it?

I've asked you for the same on Obama's behalf and got nothing. Talk about hypocrisy.

for Congressmen and others who had endorsed him. They all give money to various candidates. Hillary goes way beyond that, she pays people thousands a month to be consultants to her. Obama is not buying endorsements, please do not repeat that again.

And how that's worse.

Sorry for the confusion.

Over 300K worth...?
Or is this a recent "evolution" in your thinking?

Apparently the fact that Hillary takes PAC money disturbs you..so much so that you feel the need to criticize her for it.

I am simply wondering if you made the same criticisms of Kerry in 2004? Or did it not disturb you as much...

But by even putting the notion out there that Obama "bought" endorsements, it just puts that impression more and more in people's minds. It's not true. All candidates give money down the line, all of them.

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html

NONE have endorsed Edwards!

to Obama's campaign. Several times. Now, the person contacting me presumably got my name from a list of folks who have contributed to Democratic candidates in the past. They knew I worked at a law firm and could've checked available databases to see if I was a lobbyist, but they didn't. Would they have still taken my money if I had told them I was a registered lobbyist? I don't know. But I'd be shocked if they haven't actually accepted contributions from lobbyists, albeit unknowingly.

BTW, I haven't picked a candidate yet, but will contribute generously to whomever gets the nomination. If the candidate who gets the nomination still isn't accepting my "dirty" money, I'll just have my wife make the contribution instead.

See, its all a lot of showboating, imo.

SC doesn't really get cold enough for "mittens" ....but I guess her aim is those states that do. :shrug:

i just googled around and found a headline that reads the same, but nothing underneath besides "oprah to campaign with obama".

what's the deal?

In fact, I EXPECT them to take advantage of every opportunity to claw their way to the nomination. Their next opponent will be evil and tricky, and I want them prepared.

Thanks for separating fact from fiction.

K & R

I bet if I compare the list of names of DC-area contributors to Obama's campaign to a list of registered lobbyists, I can find a match within ten minutes. How am I so confident? Because I received a half dozen calls from Obama's campaign asking for money and I'm a registered lobbyist. I suspect its "don't ask, don't tell". In addition, I guarantee that there are registered lobbyists who have indirectly contributed to Obama's campaign by having contributions made in the name of a spouse. And there are going to be dozens of contributors who, while not registered as lobbyists themselves, practice with firms or consulting groups that do lobbying work and who themselves do a lot of work before federal independent and executive branch agencies (which doesn't require a lobbying registration).

Its all a game. Really, it is.