Ethical Endorsements

Barack Obama is apparently frustrated with all the endorsements received by his chief rival, Hillary Clinton. He tried to casually laugh off his lack of endorsements stating: "We haven't been in Washington all that long and we haven't traded that many favors." But apparently Obama has been in Washington just long enough to understand the old fashioned method of getting endorsements, you just buy them.

According to Andrew Bolton of The Hill, Obama has been targeting politicians in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Obama showered lawmakers from Iowa and New Hampshire with contributions while other presidential hopefuls turned their focus to raising money for their presidential campaign accounts, records show.

I am not suggesting that Obama has broke any rules or that the lawmakers he targets are offering a quid pro quo endorsement. Even if it were true I couldn't prove it. But as Bolton points out:

Presidential campaigns covet the endorsements of lawmakers from these two states because they will host two of the first contests of the 2008 presidential primary.

In June Obama managed to give every single Democratic member of Congress from Iowa and New Hampshire $5000 each. That's very generous of him and surely he has no ulterior motives for being so carefree with all of his money. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the purpose of raising money for a Party nomination is to get elected. I mean, just maybe he wants to make sure all the Democrats in Iowa and new Hampshire know that he supports them financially. It's not as if he is one of those evil Washington lobbyists expecting something in return. But as Homer Simpson might say: Or is he?

So far Obama's Washington lobbying has bought, I mean brought, one endorsement. Representative Paul Hodes endorsed Obama on July 26. Of course Hodes did not say that Obama had bought his endorsement, that would be unethical. He explained it by saying that Obama had called him more, been more personal. Isn't that special. He calls AND he gives you money. Washington Lobbyist 101. But as Hodes emphasized, just so we wouldn't get the wrong idea:

"I'm not for sale. This is not about money for me. This about what I ultimately think is the best thing to do for the country."

Of course I didn't read anywhere that Hodes offered to return the money to prove it.

There is nothing illegal about Obama's "contributions" to politicians whose endorsement he seeks. And because it isn't illegal I am not going to criticize it or bring up any ethical questions. I feel the same way about Hillary's contributions from lobbyists. If they are legal that's fine with me. I won't take the low road Obama has taken by suggesting that he is trying to buy the votes of the politicians he just happens to give substantial money to, even when it is obvious that he stands to be directly rewarded for his contributions. I just won't go down that road.

But it is a little telling that the Obama campaign is the only Democratic campaign handing out cash only to people that can potentially benefit him.

Fundraising records of other candidates' PACs show no contributions in the past six months to government officials from important primary states.

In fact:

Clinton's Hill PAC, former Sen. John Edwards's (D-N.C.) One America Committee, Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-Conn.) CHRIS PAC, Sen. Joe Biden's (D-Del.) Unite Our States PAC ... showed no such contributions during the first half of 2007.

It is not my place to judge how the Obama campaign spends it's money. I wouldn't want to compare what he is doing with what say a Washington lobbyist might be doing because well, Obama isn't a registered Washington lobbyist. So I guess the analogy doesn't stand up regardless of the similarities of practice. But if it walks like a duck....

For the full read: ml 

Tags: 2008, Endorsements, Ethics, Hillary, obama, PACs (all tags)



Re: Ethical Endorsements

"I am not suggesting that . . . the lawmakers he targets are offering a quid pro quo endorsement."

Why not?  That's precisely how politics works.  Why would Obama be any different?

by justinh 2007-08-09 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I don't expect him to be. But his campaign and many of his followers pretend as if he is.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:17AM | 0 recs
They are not different!

That's the point. Obama is trying to run as a Washington outsider, but he is not any different from other politician.

by PhillyGuy 2007-08-09 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: They are not different!

Thanks, that is exactly my position.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements


Excellent diary, can you put this diary up to dailykos?

We need to continue to expose this hypocrite and fraud.

by areyouready 2007-08-09 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I don't have an account with Daily Kos. Someone has posted a few of my diaries there and they sure hated them. But you have my permission to post this over there if you like. And you can credit it to me so you don't have to take the flack.

And thanks!

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I made no mention of differences with any campaign except at the end where it clearly states that the Obama campaign is the only one doing this. And it has a cited reference to back it up. facts are funny things.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

In fact, Hillary cleared his DEBT up for endorsement, basically.  This is nothing.

by iamready 2007-08-09 06:20AM | 0 recs
Sure, it's nothing new.

It's politics as usual, but he's trying to sell it as something different.

by PhillyGuy 2007-08-09 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure, it's nothing new.

It might take a while but maybe somewhere down the road some of the Obama followers will finally admit that their guy does the same thing as other politicians. They will probably then redefine Obama's new kind of politics as new because it's Obama practicing it.

It amazes me how naive politicians like Obama are. They use the oldest tricks in the book and package it as if it is the latest fad and think they are going to fool people. His followers buy into it hook, line and sinker. It's funny in that sad ironic kind of way.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure, it's nothing new.

So, he's not naive at all, right?  The cliches and empty rhetoric work!

by justinh 2007-08-09 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure, it's nothing new.

They work with some people but not with those of us that have been around the block a few times or maybe had the misfortune to buy into a fad once before.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure, it's nothing new.

Which is why I find Obama's support, and not Obama himself, so frustrating.

by justinh 2007-08-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Edwards, Clinton- SAME

This once again proves that these three leaders are pretty the same. They are still POLITICIANS!

Obama claims to be an outsider but he plays the game behind the scenes.

Edwards accuses Hillary of sleeping with Corporations & Fortune Magazine, but it turns out he also had a date with them 6 years ago when he was still a Senator.

This is why I laugh when "idealists" proclaim that.... My candidate is different & will CHANGE the way Washington works.

" my candidate is different from all the others", my candidate will change politics in america".

Yeah right! the only thing that changes in Washington are the personalities & the party in power. But they are still & will always be "Politicians First".

by fightingLadyinblue 2007-08-09 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Edwards, Clinton- SAME

"This is why I laugh when "idealists" proclaim that."

It amuses me when the candidates pretend to play these purity games when you can practically see the mud stains on their knees. That their followers buy into it is both amusing and disturbing.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

hahahahaha...i cant even believe this guy would go there when Hillary not only paid Vilsack to back her but also paid his debt.

Boy O boy , if there's one candidate who clearly bought an endorsement , it's Hillary.

Hillary is running around threatening people to endorse her and telling donors not to give money to Obama.

by JaeHood 2007-08-09 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

What is funny is the way you make these claims and then offer no proof to back them up. You see that is the difference between you and me (one of many), I provided references to back up my statements, you just make them.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

All "star-politicians" HAVE to give money to other lawmakers that may need the money..This is like an unwritten rule.

If you're a big money-making machine like Hillary ,Obama or Emmanuel , you have to spread that cash around some and eventhough i understand that Obama made sure he didnt miss those lawmakers from the early states , i dont see anything wrong with that...This is what you do when you run for president because i'm sure Hillary probably donated the max to Harkin to make sure that they're in good term.

by JaeHood 2007-08-09 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Well, if you read the diary you would see that only Obama has done this. I know it must be hard for you to grasp that only your guy is doing something but it's true.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

So Hillary did not donate money to Harkin at any point??...I think you need some sleep.

by JaeHood 2007-08-09 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Hillary's PAC did not contribute any money to Harkin within the first 6 months of this year. That much I can prove. I cannot say with any certainty if that has changed since then.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

It is on record, look at open secrets, and written about her paying his debt off.  From her presidential campaign.

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

And no doubt about it, if Obama were NOT giving money to candidates around the country, there would be plenty of hit pieces just like this one, only accusing him of not stepping up to help Democrats get elected.

by mihan 2007-08-09 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Give me a break. this isn't a hit piece. It is actually based in fact. Apparently facts bother Obama followers.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

if you dealt purely in facts, there wouldn't be any problems. Its reality that you have a problem with.

No laws were broken.
Everyone does it, if they can afford to.
Nobody cares.

Those are facts.

by mihan 2007-08-09 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I didn't say laws were broken, in fact I think I said they weren't.  But the point that everyone does it is disputed in the diary and backed up with a reference. So, nope you are wrong on that.

If no one cared there wouldn't be so many responses to this diary.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:29PM | 0 recs
depends on who's viewing it...

i've written many things about hillary, all factually based, explained why i said it ad infinitum, and george still called the hit pieces.  that's ok, he's allowed.  i disagreed, but i understood...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

This is just so ridiculous.  And, again, out trot the Hillary bashers to say well she paid off Vilsack's debt.  What you people are not getting is that DoIT isn't criticizing Obama's actions.  She's calling to question his argument that he is cleaner than Hillary.  He's not.  DoIT doesn't have a problem with the process as long as there is no quid pro quo.  It's Obama who is decrying the system all while expoliting the same types of opportunities for political gain.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-09 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Hillary bought Vilsacks...Everybody knows that...He paid the guy debt and he's working full-time for her behind the scene.

Vilsack is going around begging people to support Hillary...Hillary unleashed Vilsack to attack Obama..Hillary owns Vilsack and whenever she say jump! , Vilsack jumps.

by JaeHood 2007-08-09 06:47AM | 0 recs
How does that change Obama

showering Iowa and NH Dem's with campaign contributions?

by bookgrl 2007-08-09 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: How does that change Obama

Didnt Hillary give Harkin money???  Answer that..If yes , then your argument is nothing but B.S.

The money will be used to help them get re-elected, so most politicians that are able to raise cash would always make sure they spread the money around.

Learn something today?

by JaeHood 2007-08-09 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: How does that change Obama

Maybe you don't get it

" He is pointing out the HYPOCRISY in your candidate " .

Hillary is not claiming to practice " A NEW KIND OF POLITICS " while he is playing the old type of politics. He is deceiving people and it is just disgusting.

by lori 2007-08-09 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: How does that change Obama

Thank you! For some reason he just doesn't get it.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:06AM | 0 recs
because it's untrue...

barack said he was going to change washington and government, he never said he was going to play dead.  he will compete.  i strongly suspect that hillary's supporters resent that more than anything else.

hillary and her supporters are naive and irresponsible to believe or assert that you can change this country by competing like green party candidates do.  having competed in chicago, barack knows what it takes to win, and it ain't beanbag.

none of that makes him a hypocrite.  he never claimed he was not going to compete.  he claimed that he would bring his legacy of changing politics and cleaning up government to the white house.  he's never hidden records from the courts or the public in a closet, never chaired a secretive government commission, and never talked democrats into voting for and supporting an immoral invasion.  hillary's as hypocritical as they come, and the need to bring barack down to hillary's (dirty) level doesn't alter the fact that obama represents a change from the status quo -- hillary being it's most ardent defender...

by bored now 2007-08-09 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Vilsack can put together the best caucus organization in the state (e.g. Kerry '04).  Given their own networks within the Democratic establishmanet, it was only a matter of time before Vilsack starting running Hillary's organization in Iowa.  

by justinh 2007-08-09 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

"It's Obama who is decrying the system all while exploiting the same types of opportunities for political gain."

That is exactly my point.

But a minor correction.... I am a he. A heterosexual pro woman man.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 06:58AM | 0 recs
Wow, I'm totally impressed!

by bookgrl 2007-08-09 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow, I'm totally impressed!

Cool. We are a rare breed. A mutation some say.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

This is great. A pro-woman man! Keep the great diaries coming DoIT.

by lonnette33 2007-08-09 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

My sentiment exactly bookgrl.

Great diary DoIT.

by lonnette33 2007-08-09 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Thanks lonnette33!

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

To all the folks who are bashing Hillary and helping Vilsack with his debt; Obama made a promise to run a new and different kind of campaign, is the way to do that? Hillary has not paid anyone via her PAC so far, while Obama has showered $5000 to Sen. Harkin, Rep. Hodes and other vital people in Iowa, NH and who knows where else? He is a hypocrite and a big one; live up to your own standards, don't impose them on anyone else!

by American1989 2007-08-09 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

"live up to your own standards, don't impose them on anyone else!"

Words of wisdom. I fear they are falling on deaf ears.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Its just for some reason which I understand that the Clinton camp do not want to push Obama on this one . Because If she pushes it hard like if he were a republican his whole campaign could probably be over by now.

Imagine is whole campaign is about

" A NEW KIND OF POLITICS". If he were a republican , his campaign will probably be over by now. But I think the clinton camp do not want to alienate other dems.

by lori 2007-08-09 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

They probably don't want to push because Obama will end up hanging himself with this tactic.

by Tommy Twolicks 2007-08-09 08:32AM | 0 recs
name one republican who's campaign is over?

let alone one republican who's raised 70 million dollars.

ron paul seems to be running on a similar message on the republican side, though...

by bored now 2007-08-09 09:11AM | 0 recs
he did?

can you provide a link to where he said he wasn't going to raise or spend any (legal) money, or play fulling within the rules, other than not accepting contributions from lobbyists?  because i completely missed that, and believe that you have twisted barack's words into a hillary-inspired spin because you don't want to see change in this country...

by bored now 2007-08-09 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I guess we now know why Obama was so sure that

" Money Influences Politics "

by lori 2007-08-09 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements


I'm having a hard time reaching the keyboard. So hard to stop from rolling on the floor.

Just hilarious!

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:10AM | 0 recs
My take on the "lobbyist" thing

I don't care how the candidates raise money, I don't.  The whole system of campaigning from the very state level to federal level, stinks high heaven.

I don't care that Clinton took monies and still taking monies from lobbyists.  That is her vice.  I don't care that Edwards or Obama took monies from lobbyists on their quest to the US Senate seat, I don't care.

But the stark difference is this, they are not taking it now.  No monies from federal lobbyists.  That right there, cut off "huge monies" of PAC and everything else for their presidential campaign.  They found other ways, legally, to raise money.

To win the White House, it takes monies.  But you also have to understand the public's perception of lobbyists.  And you can thank Jack Abramhoff for that.  He made the name vile and filled with corruption, when in "some instances" it is not.

Now Clinton got manuevered in a "gotcha" question at the Yearly Kos forum.  It would have been ok to say, yes, I take the money but it will be my first job as president and I will set a mandate to eliminate taking monies from lobbyists.  That would have stopped everything right there.  But she did not state that.  In fact, she elaborated, and stated that lobbyists represent average americans and that she would not be influenced by the monies.  How stupid of a statment is that?  And if you do not think, that it matters to the public it does.  There are 2 congressmen in prison behind the Abramhoff scandal, along with others still being investigated.  And let us not forget our own William "money in the freezer" Jefferson.  So, lobbyists do influence policies, which influence people.  Remember, corruption/scandal was in the top three why the GOP was thrown out.

Now you can make a point of "finger pointing" and it is warranted.  But the reality is that she is on film, stating these charges, and the pubic does not like it, period. MA

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

You know your blind ignorance is particularly amazing.

I don't know about you but I have much more respect for someone that tells me the truth upfront than someone that lies to me . Obviously you don't see it that way.

I do not respect anyone that deceives people and Obama is still taking money from State lobbyist , lobbyist that don't disclose their work , backdoor lobbyist and wives of lobbyist who are directed by lobbyist to donate.

Obama's whole image is almost a fraud right now with all this information coming out and he can be exposed by a 30 second ads easily and if the Clinton camp pushes it hard , I will bet peolpe will respect the one who told the truth but obviously you don't see it that way

by lori 2007-08-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

You are taking this out of context.  I do respect Clinton for being upfront, but let's not be dense here.  We live in a time of "media 24/7", meaning what and how you say things do have impact.

All these candidate have had snafu's along the way.  But Clinton need to put this lobbyist issue to bed.  Can't you see, that stating this and on film is a ticking bomb ready to explode?

And put ads out there.  What he took lobbyist monies while campaining for senate?  Guess what, put ads up that state, "they all did", because they did.

The difference is taking the monies NOW for president.  And she is all over TV, MSM, Cable, on the internet, stating this all over.  And then elaborating on it that "lobbyist represents the average american".  Go talk to an average american and listen to what THEY think about lobbyists.

Again, this is about NOW, what is going on NOW.  Not back then.  Finally, the video is a killer, it is.  I have seen so many videos of this, you think the media would want to move on.  Oh, lastly, this does matter to people, it does.  

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

You konw I do not think you understand , he is still doing it now, please do me a favor and read these links and come back and defend it . as-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html -obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-0 4-19.html

You know I bet you Obama will realize his mistake sooner or later . I have a feeling the Clinton camp might just be waiting for the appropriate time to push back , because it is so easy to cut him down.

by lori 2007-08-09 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

Again, cut him down on what?  They have been "cutting him down".  And so what he gives monies to other democrats.  Just like Clinton wiped out Vilsack's debt, and then took his ground team in Iowa.  Again, this is reasonating with the public and I know you are angered.  But be angered at the "system", at your candidate for making an incredibly stupid statment(s) on video.  The film is the killer, you know it, and everyone else does too.

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

Look read those 2 articles , they are not long reading. You didi't even read it , how about when tapes come out that Obama has been deceiving people which will be more devastating . When they talk about it on the news cnn, msnbc I wonder how you will feel then.

Again those 2 articles are about his lobbyist money and the way he is covering it up including federal lobbyists.

by lori 2007-08-09 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

I think that FACTS scare Obama followers.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:46AM | 0 recs
i don't...

i'm not sure why you and george (perhaps others) are so offended that someone is bringing new people into the democratic fold and giving them hope for their future.  i tend to be as cynical as the next guy, but i appreciate obama's work to empower people, give them hope, and give them a reason for supporting democrats.  he's a rock star for that alone...

by bored now 2007-08-09 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: i don't...

Hey, I didn't say anything bad about Obama bringing new people into the electoral process. In fact I think all candidates should try their best to reach out to every potential voter. My problem with Obama has to do with the way he misleads those that hope he is telling the truth. The facts of this diary point to that.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 11:49AM | 0 recs
obviously, you are wrong...

obama hasn't misled anyone, despite your various attempts to smear him.  it does say a great deal about you...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:10PM | 0 recs
don't respond

Every since the media and news articles have been talking about Hillary Clinton and her incredibly stupid statements on lobbyists, now it is time to cut down Obama.  It won't work.  They don't understand the video being made and the words being commented on.  They are angry that just those words, and power behind them, have cut her some points in the polls.  It is not worth arguing with them.  This is the only site that will allow such crazy crap to be allowed.  If this was another site, these people would be banned.  jmho

by iamready 2007-08-09 12:48PM | 0 recs
been there, done that...

i'll just quote myself (apparently i have to post this over and over again):

"i've read them...

i knew this already.  i'm comfortable with the fact that he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists -- the people who actually call, make the appointment and ask for favors.  there is no perception of quid pro quo.  none.

i understand your need to defend this slimmy practice, so you try to dirty up those who don't follow establishment tactics.  but that tells us more about you than about obama.  the hint of corruption doesn't matter to you.  perhaps you even engage in corruption.  and you feel the need to attack those who aren't as dirty as you are.  gotcha..."

by bored now 2007-08-09 10:00AM | 0 recs
i call foul on both parts...

first of all, it's extremely doubtful that hillary would pull our troops out of iraq if she were president.  she's "lying" about that (although it would more appropriately be called pandering).  secondly, you're accusing barack of lying because you have added standards to his promise that he never made and never inferred.  you've been intellectually dishonest about that, and i've pointed that out in the past.  pay no mind, you make the same smears over and over.  who's the one lying?

by bored now 2007-08-09 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: i call foul on both parts...

They are both oing to draw down combat forces and they will both leave security forces.  You are naive enough to think we can leave Iraq lock, stock, and barrel?  

by bookgrl 2007-08-09 09:25AM | 0 recs
that would certainly be my argument...

we harm our national interests, and especially our fight against a distributed network of terror cells, by remaining engaged in an occupation of a country in the middle of a civil war.  the occupation of iraq is the recruiting poster for al-qaeda.  and we have to stop that now.

i understand this defies conventional wisdom.  that's why i like barack (and intend to post on this more), because he understands that the occupation of iraq is actually contrary to our obvious security interests here.  yes, we broke it, we should have to fix it, but we can't.  we don't help.  we harm iraq's potential for moving away from being a failed state.

the rest of the world has no interest in helping while we are there.  this was a huge mistake, and we have to just cut and run.  afghanistan/pakistan is where our real interests lie, and we need to quickly send our tiger teams and special forces units to pakistan asap.  things will only get worse the longer we wait to be rational here...

by bored now 2007-08-09 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: that would certainly be my argument...

Hey, I am right there with you about the occupation of Iraq. We need to get out and do so responsibly.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 11:55AM | 0 recs
then you can't support hillary...

if you're honest with yourself...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: i call foul on both parts...

What does Iraq have to do with endorsements? From what I've read here most people understand that this is a diary about the Obama's campaign giving money to politicians in Iowa and New Hampshire? Iraq wasn't mentioned at all.

I am not sure what standards have been added to Obama's promise. He is the one that seems to be taking things away from his promise.

by Dickweed 2007-08-09 09:26AM | 0 recs
i was speaking to honesty...

this happens to be an area i had some personal insight into...

by bored now 2007-08-09 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: i call foul on both parts...

Where is this Hillary and Iraq stuff coming from? The diary is about paying people that you hope will endorse your candidate. Nothing about Iraq.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 11:51AM | 0 recs
i can repeat myself, if you like...

i was responding to the disingenious assertion that hillary was honest...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

"And you can thank Jack Abramhoff for that."

Yes, the Edwards and Obama campaigns are implying exactly that from Hillary's accepting lobbyist money. No matter that worker's unions are also Washington lobbyists. If they can somehow manage to add the taint of Abramhoff to Hillary they think they do the Democratic party a service. They are wrong and they will remember when they made the mistake. They both take money from special interests. Yeah, it might not come directly from "Washington" lobbyists but they have no problem taking it from their wives or from State lobbyists or the members of law firms that lobby, etc.

They are frickin hypocrites. It is obvious to anyone that can see past Abramhoff. On film they both claim to be lobbyist free. Watch and see how this plays out.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: My take on the "lobbyist" thing

You don't get it.  I agree, it is hypocrisy at its highest.  But the difference is VIDEO, COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH.

That is the difference.  This lobbyist thing stinks, high heaven.  Until the public DEMAND public funded elections to take these corporations OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT, this will continue.

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

The Clinton people have seen the poll's and it is resonating that Clinton's public pronucements of defending Lobbyists are playing very poorly with the american public.

That is why you are seeing these hit diary's on Obama. If they were not playing well with the public, you would not see diary's like the above from a Clinton supporter.

Remember The Clinton campaign looks at more poll's and follows them more closely than any other campaign.

by BDM 2007-08-09 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

You see anything that doesn't cast Obama in a glorious crown as a hit piece. This diary is based upon FACTS. Something you apparently choose to ignore.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

You are getting upset over nothing.  Yes, let the attack ads START.  About accepting lobbyist monies while running for senate.  Big Whoop.  Then run ads that state they all did it.  No Surprise.  Now run an ad do this accept this money NOW.  Big Difference.

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Lest I Remind :

Obama's Campaign Theme : A NEW KIND OF POLITICS.

If the Clinton camp pushes it hard , Obama's campaign will be doomed.

by lori 2007-08-09 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Pushes hard on what?  Lobbyist monies?  Don't you understand what Mayor Willie Brown stated after the debate Tuesday?  He said if Clinton does not cease this "lobbyist" story, put it to bed, it will be a virus.  And it is starting to run.  Now, let the ads start.  But you can not refrain from the FACT that she is on video saying this stupid stuff.

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

You know I don't understand how you are going about thinking about this , yeah Hillary Clinton can take a minor hit but I suspect when they start pushing back hard on Obama , his campaign will take a nosedive and people will realize he hasn't been upfront with them . People will eventually realize that someone told the truth the other was lying.

by lori 2007-08-09 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

That it is why it is so important to expose the hypocrisy of the Obama and Edwards campaigns. They are the ones that implied that Hillary was bought and paid for by lobbyists. And they both crossed a line when they did so. At present Hillary is biding her time remaining focused and staying on message. I suspect she will continue to do so. If these guys push their luck she will wipe the floor with them and it won't be pretty. They don't know who they are messing with.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

So it is a coincidence that the only Democrats he is currently helping are from Iowa and New Hampshire?

I have no idea how Hillary paid Vilsack's debt. Perhaps someone can provide the factual information. I know that it did not come from her PAC.

I am not justifying Edwards use of PAC money. He is playing the purist card.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:23AM | 0 recs
obama has helped a *lot* of democrats...

around the country.  he's attended their fund-raisers, given them money, appeared with them on tv.  he's a great validator, one eagerly sought by all kinds of democrats.  when hillary wins, she will no doubt want to use barack as a validator -- and barack would be wise to refuse.  no need to be tainted by her; he's got a future to think about...

by bored now 2007-08-09 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

How innocent.  How come then the concentration on donations in Iowa and New Hampshire?  When I read that Obama gave the same $5000 equally across the country then I'll find your response credible.

by markjay 2007-08-09 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Instead of constantly writing meaningless diaries, go and rec this diary written by tigercourse on HRC.  Very good and well written and worth a read.  Not this drivel. 01332/4247

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

No thanks. I stay away from the haters club.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

You are so silly, this diary is about HILLARY CLINTON, by a SUPPORTER.  Get a grip.

by iamready 2007-08-09 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I don't take the recommendations of people that claim my writing is drivel. But thanks for thinking about my best interests.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Why don't you respond to those links I posted , unless the facts scare you.

by lori 2007-08-09 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

What links?  And continue to argue that Obama is just like Clinton, only she got caught on camera, like a kid in a candy jar?  I made my point.  The system is hypocritical, need to be fixed, and it has to be the will of the people to demand it to be fixed.  Until then, business as usual.  I know you are upset about all these videos, but we are in youtube age and media 24/7, and she did put her foot in her mouth.  This is for Clinton and her team to clean up, not anyone on here arguing about it.

by iamready 2007-08-09 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Obama the Naderite is probably the kind of endorsement he would likely pay to get rid of.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 08:41AM | 0 recs
Yes, he is the change candidate

and THIRD in the University of Iowa, REPUBLICAN POLL.  He can get the votes we need to win the White House.  He is looked at as a change candidate, unifier. 14716/5006

by iamready 2007-08-09 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, he is the change candidate

Changing to the Naderite wing of the Democratic party is political suicide. I am sure Obama knows this. If he were to embrace Nader's endorsement it would bring his candidacy down. Poof, it would be gone. If ya don't believe me how about you recommend to him that he embrace Nader and watch how fast the party faithful pull away. Nader gave us Bush. He is the worst type of egocentric political hack. Go ahead and buddy up to him at your own peril.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm confused

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the reform policies Nader has pushed are wrong and/or that Obama shouldn't pursue these?  You seem to be blurring specific reform measures with the candidacy of someone who used them as a political platfrom.  I don't follow the logic here.

by justinh 2007-08-09 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm confused

I am just totally anti-Nader. Period.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 11:56AM | 0 recs
low info blogger...

one endorsement?  i'd criticize your misleading statement, but you have repeatedly established that you're not interested in facts.  for those who are, obama has more than one endorsement:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.)
Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.)
Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.)
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.)
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.)
Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-A.S.)
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)
Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.)
Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.)
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.)
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)
Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)

now that this has been pointed out, the next time you try to mislead people, we can call you on it...

by bored now 2007-08-09 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: low info blogger...

Not sure who you are referring to. I didn't say a word about the amount of endorsements Obama has received Nationwide, merely the endorsements he has bought, no scratch that, got in Iowa and New Hampshire. Perhaps you should read the diary before pouncing with your spurious claims. I know you like your guy and all but don't accuse me of misrepresenting something I clearly have not. I mean, there is a limit to hero worship, right?

by DoIT 2007-08-09 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: low info blogger...

Don't worry, he has ton of support at the various state levels.  These shrills are just pathetic.  Low information diarists.

by iamready 2007-08-09 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: low info blogger...

Don't say that.  DoIT is a solid supporter of Hillary and the point he? makes is valid.  "Low information" talk does Barack little good and makes us look uppety.   A new kind of politics is not displayed by the impression of buying endorsements, however I contend these folks endorsed him based on him fitting their ideology for the most part.

by Todd Bennett 2007-08-09 02:12PM | 0 recs
he doesn't think out what he writes...

or he needs a broader range of sources.  but i'm using the term in a mocking sense.  when i think something is stupid, i pretty much just say it...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: low info blogger...

Did all of these politicians really endorse Obama? If they did maybe he should stop wasting his money because only one of them is from the states he is spending money in.

by chanarang 2007-08-09 01:50PM | 0 recs
yes, they did...

i don't think he bought any of them, but that's me...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:41PM | 0 recs
by Edgar08 2007-08-09 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Harkin Came to Obama's Defense

I thought you were saying Harkin approved of Obama buying endorsements. Not a chance.

by chanarang 2007-08-09 01:52PM | 0 recs
quoting you:

"So far Obama's Washington lobbying has bought, I mean brought, one endorsement."

you're a complete idiot.  accusing me of hero worship is a profoundly stupid comment.  to wit: hillary offered me a job, but wouldn't consent to my financial requirements (admittedly hefty).  furthermore, i've contributed to THREE presidential candidates, including hillary.  we have a low bar in this household.  finally, last summer, when she called looking to make inroads into the blogging community, i gave her the best information known to me (yet i supported barack then).  i am anything if not exceedingly objective about politics and especially who i give money to.  you can't see straight for your own support of a candidate.  that doesn't move the ball forward at all (but it does a great job of alienating potential allies).  remember this when hillary loses and you start looking for conspiracies.  hillary lost because of you.  it's as simple as that...

by bored now 2007-08-09 09:10AM | 0 recs
If Lobbyists

Are Buying Clinton, then Obama is buying Endorsements.

I think you're missing the context here.

This never would have been an issue if people weren't smearing Clinton on the Lobbyist issue.

Yes.  You are being defensive.

If you're a campaign and all you do is pound home the idea that your opponent is being bought off by Lobbyists, then fine, you succeeded in establishing a context by which one can successfully counter-attack.

Really.  If anyone actually does think Clinton is selling herself then Lobbyists, then yes, it is totally fair to point out that Obama is buying endorsements.

Live by exploiting Cynicism!  If that's your thing?

Die by exploiting cynicism!

So.  Question.  Maybe it's time to back off the attacks on Clinton, too?

by Edgar08 2007-08-09 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: If Lobbyists

Those points are just perfect, especially the last sentence. Thats's what I get from reading the diary. If one thing is fair then so is the other. I don't think the Obama people will see things that way but it is fair.

by Dickweed 2007-08-09 09:31AM | 0 recs
i'm not accusing clinton of buying endorsements...

nor arguing that obama is doing anything differently than hillary.  this is politics.  and i don't see anything wrong with his contributions to iowan and new hampshire politicians.  both parties in iowa, at least, rely on national politicians to help them with their fund-raising.  obama is playing the game, good for him.

i don't think i am being defensive.  at all.  and there's no reason to back off on holding hillary accountable...

by bored now 2007-08-09 10:13AM | 0 recs
There's No Reason To Hold Back

On holding Obama accountable for being the only candidate to make these kinds of donations to other Politicians.

by Edgar08 2007-08-09 10:29AM | 0 recs
you'd be wrong...

i've talked to an iowan state senator who has received money from all the major campaigns...

by bored now 2007-08-09 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: you'd be wrong...

Cool. Name names. Let's get this stuff out in the open. That is the purpose of the diary.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:01PM | 0 recs
i'll be glad to ask for permission...

the next time i talk to 'em...

by bored now 2007-08-09 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: you'd be wrong...

if you read prairie state blue, you would know this individual.  since you do not, then refrain from attacking him.  he is KNOWN in the bloggers world.

by iamready 2007-08-09 01:37PM | 0 recs
thanks, but we all know i make a terrible first...


by bored now 2007-08-09 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: i'm not accusing clinton of buying endorsement

And there is nothing wrong with Hillary accepting contributions from "Washington" lobbyists. And yet Obama has implied that somehow she was bought and paid for.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:00PM | 0 recs
that perception existed long before obama said it.

your problem is with obama, not with the fact that the perception exists.  many people view hillary as corrupt by washington politics...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: quoting you:

Maybe you need a drink or something. So you are one of those professional politicians? It must be hard on you guys having to find ways to explain away all of Obama's miscues. But I am sure from the way you brag that he pays you pretty well to make him look good. And since you do work for Obama that would automatically disqualify anything you say from being objective. Case closed.

by Dickweed 2007-08-09 09:37AM | 0 recs

i do political consulting, i don't hide that.  but i don't work for obama.  i focus on targeting, field, data management and voter segmentation, apparently like souvaine (and perhaps others here).  i have a couple of clients, thought i would pick up a presidential, but haven't so far.  i can't think of any obama miscue, perhaps you will enlighten me...

by bored now 2007-08-09 10:16AM | 0 recs

Yep.  Obama's been perfect.

He's a Political Nadia Comeniche.

Even I can admit Clinton should have at least remembered where she was when she tried to tell a bunch of Bloggers that Lobbyists are people too!

by Edgar08 2007-08-09 10:31AM | 0 recs

i don't suggest that i know everything obama says or writes.  i suspect that what you call miscues i don't.  do you have anything in mind?

now if you want to talk about the missteps of the obama campaign, i can cite a litany...

by bored now 2007-08-09 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: quoting you:

"complete idiot" is actually attacking me directly. Uncool and against the rules.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 11:57AM | 0 recs

i broke the rules!

i'm shocked, shocked that you'd say that.  we can only laugh at your attempt to define what "cool" is...

by bored now 2007-08-09 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

The passage doesn't say that Nader likes Obama.  

by justinh 2007-08-09 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

You could also interpret this as doing his part to help Democrats get elected, by stepping up and making use of his fundraising appeal as he did in the 2004 and 2006 elections.

I have no doubt that any number of potential members of Congress would love to have him step up and help financially.

If I were a candidate in a swing district, I'd be more than a little concerned about taking money from the current 'frontrunner'.

by mihan 2007-08-09 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

Point taken, but 5000 dollars is not very much in the scheme of things if the Congressperson did not like the candidate in the first place.

by Todd Bennett 2007-08-09 10:32AM | 0 recs
That's How Obama Supporters

Would spin this.

Helping Democrats win elections.

by Edgar08 2007-08-09 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: That's How Obama Supporters

I am just asking if you really think 5 grand would get Hodes to endorse Barack if he really did not like him.  I doubt it.  However, Obama could still retain outsider cred by showing off his donors.  Wexler, Jackson Jr., and Hodes are all liberal to progressive so they fit in with Obama's platform.  Now if a Ben Nelson were to donate, one could wonder.

by Todd Bennett 2007-08-09 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: That's How Obama Supporters

Pardon, that should read if a Ben Nelson were to endorse.

by Todd Bennett 2007-08-09 10:41AM | 0 recs
If it was just a matter

Of sharing the wealth amongst likeminded Dems, Obama could wait untill after the Primary was over.

by Edgar08 2007-08-09 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: If it was just a matter

Obama didn't have any problem stepping up in 2004 and 2006, and it seems like a little bit of cash now might help out in congressional primaries, or even to get a headstart on the general election.

If this is the level that this debate is coming down to, its really kinda sad. Its like, so freaking what?

by mihan 2007-08-09 11:01AM | 0 recs
Like I said Above

I didn't set the tone of this debate.

If Obama considers it laughable that a Lobbyist's Contribution doesn't come with a price, then it's totally fair to make the same observation about his Contributions to other Candidates.

At least until the Primary is over, anyway.

Like I said above.

Live by exploiting cynicism.

Die by cynicism exploited.

You want to raise the level of debate, I'm all for it!

by Edgar08 2007-08-09 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said Above

The question should be: Do you think lobbyist money from Big Pharma and Big Insurance given to Hillary has affected our lack of health care reform? That is what Obama (and Edwards) have implied. And that is a question both of them should have to answer!

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: That is not what they said

I don't think that Hillary blames Big Pharma for her inability to get reform passed. She has mentioned what she learned from the process and though BIG money played a part in fighting the reform it is not what sunk it.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said Above

Really good points. This guy started the fight. If he wants to rise above it he can start that too.

by chanarang 2007-08-09 01:48PM | 0 recs
are you trying to kill off democrats in iowa?

are you unaware that it's a competitive state?  campaign finance purist?  or just need to tear down one of the democrat's strongest fund-raisers because he dared to take on the clintons?

by bored now 2007-08-09 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: If it was just a matter

Yeah, sending it into only the states that matter the most is a little suspicious I think.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:16PM | 0 recs
your problem is illustrated by the last two words.

if you're thinking, you're woefully ill-informed.  this is the convention for raising money in iowa.  anybody with a basic knowledge of iowa and presidential politics is aware of this.  perhaps you should investigate the subjects that you attempt to write about...

by bored now 2007-08-09 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I left the interpretation wide open. It could be perfectly innocent and then again maybe it isn't.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

and maybe my dog gets diarrhea from eating apples in the backyard. Who cares?

Seriously, do you really think you're going to get any traction on this issue?  

by mihan 2007-08-09 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

If I'm not why are you so concerned?

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Question

Dean did an on-line fundraiser for Congressman Boswell in Iowa before the caucuses.  Is that different from Obama transferring funds to lawmakers in Iowa and New Hampshire?

by justinh 2007-08-09 10:45AM | 0 recs

hillary's supporters resent the competition.  you can hardly tell she's ahead in the polls...

by bored now 2007-08-09 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I do not have a link to the direct FEC numbers. If I run across it I will send it your way.

by DoIT 2007-08-09 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

This is just a great diary! Thank you for exposing the truth about Barack Obama and his money machine.

by Hunky 2007-08-09 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

If you automatically assume the worst in people, this looks bad.  Obviously a cynical person would view this as a corrupt attempt to buy endorsements.  

But I would disagree.  I'm just not cynical enough to assume Obama's intentions were dishonest.  I don't see the problem with simply contributing money to fellow Democrats and their campaigns.

by Namtrix 2007-08-09 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Ethical Endorsements

I found this in another diary by someone named areyouready.

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

It seems very damaging to Obama's claim that he isn't in bed with lobbyists. It sure does.

by chanarang 2007-08-09 02:46PM | 0 recs
Well, What Did We Expect?

Seems pretty obvious that the lobbyist contribution issue has hit a nerve in Hillaryland.  The rather weak arguments and attempts to spin notwithstanding it is clearly proof that this is an issue, that Obama and Edwards are standing on a different principle and are making a serious point which resonates with both the media and the public.

The whole thrust of the Hillary camp is not that they are wrong but that they are hypocrites on the issue which and has been argued ad nauseum in this forum and is demonstrably false.  This response is proof enough that they should continue with this approach.  Let's let the electorate decide which candidate they want in the White House, the one that says she won't refuse registered federal lobbyist contributions or either of the candidates who say they will.

Has it occurred to any of you what an excellent issue this would be for the general election against the Republicans with all of their special interest and corporate backers?  I think it would be a hum-dinger.  Why does Hillary not want to have this arrow in her quiver?  Is she afraid of scaring off the people she really is intending to represent?  Or has she already made some promises which she must keep?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-09 03:04PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads