And my goodness, how can Obama say with a straight face "no lobbyists work for me" when HIS CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR is one! The gall!

Holy mother ...

I am speechless.  The gall.  The bullshit.  And those non-Democrats who are so gaga about him because they listen to his bull, and don't do the digging that you did, World Dictator.  Thank you so much for this.  It's painful that this guy is such a huge phoney.

Do you have a link to your update?

but when it is his own PAC handing out money and buying influence that is another story according to him.
Unfortunately because of the TV media Obama really does have a chance to win tonight in IA. If he wins because 45 percent of his vote was independents and republicans I consider this caucus invalid and think everyone should ignore it.

I do want their votes, but not because we voted for a nominee who pandered to them by attacking democrats.

"Be that as it may, when a candidate promises not to have any lobbyists in their administration, they are making a mostly empty promise."  That's what is so galling.  The hypocrisy.  

Not in the Bill Clinton administration. He put in place rules that anyone working in his administration could not take a federal lobby job for a period of time (I can't remember if it was 1 year or 2 years) after leaving the White House.

The con-job of this primary season is the false assertion that the way the Bush administration has done business is the way the only Democratic administration of the last 30 years did business.

Decent paychecks? ..  If Hodges gets a job in Obama's administration .. how much would he be getting paid?  over 100K a year? .. for most of us here .. that is more than just decent

What's the most viscious dem attack ad ever?

Isn't this kind of disturbing to Obama supporters?

No. Why should it be? The calculus we need to consider isn't whether any candidate is pure or perfect, but which candidate will be a better president relative to the other candidates. I think Obama would be a better president than Clinton or Edwards and the others, and that's why I'm supporting him. I'm enthusiastic about him, but not really more enthusiastic than I would be for a President Hillary Clinton, my second choice. So are the three instances you cite hypocritical on Obama's part? Yes. Disappointing? Probably. But ultimately they are trivial. Obama has a record on ethics, lobbying, and politics reform stretching over a decade, and his claim to the good government mantle is based on that record. His record and his history is what legitimizes his campaign rhetoric and campaign promises--the only legitimization there is.

I guess the point you wanted to make to "Obama supporters" is that Obama sometimes does not practice what he preaches, which by implication probably either means your point is that 1) Obama's sometimes hypocrisy is outright disqualifying for his candidacy or his message about cleaning up Washington or 2) Obama supporters are delusional and believe Obama is a flawless person. I've already addressed point number two above, though I might add that we're talking about politicians here, not saints. They're all hypocritical, though I would even argue Obama is less hypocritical than other politicians. Most of the things he says are backed up by things he's done. As for point number two,  it's no doubt true that most people are unaware of the intricacies of campaign politics and that politically speaking they would react negatively to instances of hypocrisy, perhaps as some sort of indication of a character flaw. But if voters are going to focus on trivial side-issues and not on the records and the substance of the arguments and let that be the decisive factor in their determinations, then I think that's substantially wrong and unfortunate.

it's okay if you are obama.

Actually, no.

If Edwards was taking money from these folks, then it would matter.

Hell - if edwards was taking a little bit of money from lobbyists, I wouldn't fault him. At the end of the day, its really the thought that counts. Obama and Edwards realize that the system is broken. They have different ways of fixing it, but they both realize that.

Hillary wants to work within the system. And by "within" I mean "with lobbyists". And by "work", I mean "invade random countries".

And Democrats in Iowa are going to make the foolish mistake and vote for him. I hope they wake up and see through this phony. Thank God I did not buy into the whole Obamamania. I kept my sanity.

Ha ha ha ha. This is probably the best comment I've read all day. I'm going to repost it tomorrow night.

We should nominate the candidate that the media hates the most. They are the most electable. Hillary in '08. She will piss off the media all teh way to victory.

When he says no lobbyist will work for him and preaches it to Clinton and hires someone who was a lobbyist, it is HYPOCRISY. Obama is just the same ole politician.

calling him out for being a lying pandering phony of a hypocrite.

Perhaps you could explain to us what is wrong with state lobbyists working in a federal administration.  I confess I understand the concept of lobbying pretty well and I don't quite grasp that one.

Since they themselves have noted that it is mostly symbolic. It is not very insightful to call them out for this:

"a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates." - Ben LaBott

"The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water [as the other candidates]," he told reporters in Iowa, back in August. "The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up." - Obama

Obama trumpets his own non existent ethics while jumping through the loopholes he created just large enough and the right shape for him.

If Obama were to say "Lobbyists are a part of the political process. A necessary evil that I object to in principle but accept realistical. While I can't realistically promise to be not associated with any lobbyists I do pledge to rein them in" this wouldn't be a big deal.

But instead Obama is running on a "i'm going to clean up politics in a revolutionary manner that only I can provide thus you must elect me if you want change"

Obama brought this on himself. He only has himself to blame. He reaped the political benefit from trying to be squeaky clean and now he must deal with the fallout from the discovery that he is not squeaky clean.

A hypocrite is one of the worst things a person can be, plain and simple.

a few words for you.... Clinton never pretended that she was not talking to lobbyists.  She is honest and Edwards and Obama are lying hypocrites.

Troll-rated for the absolutely preposterous accusation of racism.

Before you decide that anyone who makes a bad argument is guilty of veiled racism, you might want to take a closer look at your own argument.  When Obama says he won't let lobbyists work for him, tell me - do you think he means he won't let former lobbyists work for him, or do you think he means he won't let people work for him and be lobbyists at the exact same time?  Everyone sure assumes it to be the former, since the latter would be an absolutely stupid thing to promise.

No, not everyone who has ever been a lobbyist is evil, but when you say you won't let any former lobbyists work for you, you sure leave yourself wide open when you welcome their support.

Why don't you Obama-haters just admit you don't want to see a black man in the White House?  I used to not read racism into this, but the attacks on him have become so fucking stupid there's really no other interpretation.

I'm african american so lick my balls you fucking race baiter

Democrats are not racists.

Obama IS a hypocrit.

yes