Question: Is this another case of 'gotcha' ("well, you said you weren't going to be negative but now you've had the gall to respond to one of my unfair attacks") -- or -- is she saying that Obama has fallen below some accepted standard ("no good Democrat would have a paid lobbyist on their campaign staff")?

Fact check: I read elsewhere that her staff is filled with lobbyists, esp Mark Penn??

Is this a genuine criticism or a finger-wagging "tut-tut-tut"?

Because, frankly, ANYONE who put out that flyer about Obama's (asserted) support for abortion rights knowing (as she knew, if I did!) the real story behind those 'present' votes is in NO position to talk ethics or integrity to anyone!

(Disclosure: Biden supporter who will support anyone but Hillary - because of her ethics/integrity)

What's interesting is the REASON Obama makes a distinction between state and federal lobbyists. I think that reason is that Obama was took lobbyists' money and worked with and for them in IL.
Nothing else makes sense.

Deal with real issues Hillary.

How about NAFTA, which the Clintons pushed through and was the key effort of the Clinton's DLC and New Democrats.

How about deregulation of energy markets, telcoms, and just about every industry that lobbies in Washington all through the 90's.

When did ENRON start gaming the system, and who made it possible? Late 90s. Clinton deregulation.

Who blew healthcare reform once already, and killed it for over a decade, which has profited insurance companies trillions.

How about Hilalry sitting on WALMART's board, while they were union busting and using illegal labor without any rights or protections.

How about Paul Krugman's continual support of the Clintons, on NAFTA, and on deregulation of energy markets, which led to him getting a $45K "consulting" fee from ENRON.

How about the Clinton's DLC strategy of triangulating token social liberalism with supply side economics.

The Clintons and DLC sold out long ago.

We have a chance to elect a real progressive and change things. If not, look forward to more of the same.

and Clinton's campaign accepts more money from big business lobbyies than any in either party. big deal. i wouldn't use that as an attack against her, because its not really a major issue.

i'm willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt on their rationale for including these people on their staffs.

NCSteve,

There is no distinction in this case because the man is, in fact, a federal lobbyist. That's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of public record.

Jeez... if that's the worst thing she's got, he's in good shape.

FWIW, I came within striking distance of being required to register as a state lobbyist a year or so ago-- my org was up for sunset review by the legislature and due to various reschedulings by the subcommittees, I was getting close to the meeting limit for 'citizen' lobbying, even though all I ever did was read a prepared statement a couple of times & confirm that the oversight committee was active. It was pretty annoying, especially since I work for a non-lobbying 501(c)3 and am just the formal liaison for appointments.

NCSteve,

Wow!

The mental gymnastics were stunning. A 10.

Nobody's pure, and there's no bright line as to who is or isn't a lobbyist. (Much of this I learned from having to vet long lists of folks on the "is you is or is you ain't?" side of this question.

So, here goes for the toughest question in academia:

"So what?"

CalD- please provide the evidence and a link.

Just watched the Mark Halperin vid clip (linked above) and apparently this Jim Demers guy is actually a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry (a.k.a., "Big Pharma").

Ouch.

Looks like she's officially joining 9ui11iani's Big State strategy now.

Can you say:

D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N?

Her next tactic will be to try to pin everything on Mark Penn? Did he fuck up? Sure. But she's still the candidate peddling phony experience and ingenuous change.

CalD,
David Kurtz' last sentence in the first paragraph of the actual post says that "Demers is a state lobbyist only".

Here is something from the Demers Group website:
The Demers Group has developed a solid reputation among legislators, regulators and the Executive branch of New Hampshire's government

CalD-

So what? What's your point? Make it clear for me because I am a simple man.

Funny. This is the best ammo they have (besides the misrepresentation of his record). Bodes well for the general election.

Angry Vet:

We're good, right? I mean really do like all these people. All I've ever asked of any of them is to fight fair. I know it's crunch time and things get silly, but if they want to dip Clinton's pigtails in the ink well, she gets to kick 'em in the nuts.

Actually Keith, this would really be more of a case of Senator Obama inadvertently attacking himself. Oopsie.

My thoughts exactly Keith.

Yeah it is a pretty good gotcha (although it is funny that HILLARY would be making that point considering how she defended the use of lobbyists in the first place. Would work better as an Edwards talking point)
but in the end, for all her talk of him not being "vetted" enough, if THAT's the only things she could dig up on him (and that misrepresentation of his Patriot Act vote which is easily debunkable) then we don't have to worry for November !

CalD:

If you see it that way, so be it. HRC is not making the case for her vision for America, that's always been her problem. If she wants to spend time trying to convince folks who Obama is/isn't, then I wish her the best of luck representing the people of New York for the remainder of her term.

CalD:

Oh we understand your point, I just don't see how it translates into a reason to support Clinton. Her problem, once again, is she has NO VISION. Excellent technocrat, but unfortunately being POTUS requires LEADERSHIP. She has yet to demonstrate it and saying that Obama is not really for change because his NH chair is a state lobbyist, or one of his National Co-Chair is a federal lobbyist doesn't translate into him being a hypocrite (especially when his rhetoric on this point hasn't shifted one iota).

But hey, if that's all you've got to hang your hat on, then by all means have at it.

Another term for it is "stepping on one's own... ummm... 'Johnson'".

Angry Vet (formerly known as "M") wrote: ...Personally, I am not blind enough to think that "all lobbyists are bad." What about the AARP? NEA? Various labor unions?...

Oh I absolutely agree. But Clinton got crucified for daring to suggest that very thing a while back, in almost those same words, and Edwards especially but Obama too have been hating on her about it pretty gleefully ever since. So I just figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In that regard, CalD, I think you may have a point I am rather worried about how the media has latched on to Barack, but whether that is simply cheer for an admirable and dashing figure or just worship for a winner, none can know.

Personally, a better media narrative, from their point of view, is the first "realistic shot of an African-American to become President."

That might be what is driving this entire show.

Another point along those lines is that I have met too many people, with generally liberal points of view, who absolutely detest Sen. Clinton and will not vote for her no matter the situation. I am a progressive myself, by nature, and the son of a strong woman (not to mention a law student), and I have rarely been able to convince these types of the irrationality of their "convictions."

However, these same types are flocking in droves to Sen. Obama, and to a lesser extent, Sen. Edwards.

What the trend suggests to me is that (#1) there are more sexists out there than I could've believed, in up here in the rather egalitarian tundra, and (#2) this provides further evidence that Sen. Clinton is overall a weaker candidate.

Of course, the second argument runs along the circular and specious reasoning of the usual "electability" argument, so I certainly cannot stand with sound footing on such a conclusion/premise.

Yes, the media has been pumping for Obama, probably as a result in some of their own minds for the desire to be reporting something wholly new, instead of the usual Clinton-Bush Culture Wars.

You see, the problem with "objectivity" itself is that nothing is really objective, even by the facts reporting, right? The nature of the editorial process, and the sheer amount of information available allows for subjective bias to creep into any report. I'm sure the fine journalists (as they are, if you recall their breaking coverage of various scandals through the year) here at TPM can attest to that problem.

Sorry about the novel.

Now that the Obama-bots believe that the giant Clinton is gone - they need to start comparing Obama to McCain or Giuliani - in this you will start to see where the GOP will rip the guts out of Obama in the Campaign. Please tell us, how is Obama electable compared to these guys - think about the GOP ads now: "Obama voted "present on 150 bills, had the 2nd worst attendance of Veterans affairs hearing in the 109th congress, was absent for Kyl Lieberman " (video of empty seat in Oval Office) - do you want him to be absent when this happens on his watch (video mushroom cloud). Now, think about the GOP and stop thinking Clinton because you as Michael Moore said, the GOP will eat him for lunch!

I have full confidence that Sen. Obama will continue parrying negative attacks in the manner that he has during the primary season.

As for Sen. Clinton, I'll believe she is defeated when she bows out of the race. Anything can surface at any time. I have faith and optimism, but it is tempered with a hardened realism that not a lot of fellow Obama-travellers may have yet.

I am not an Obama-bot. I believe in God, therefore, there is only one person in my mind who walks on water, and he died almost 2,000 years ago.

I am, however, a supporter of Sen. Obama's campaign for President.

CalD,

Too true on all accounts, I fear. Though I must argue with your premise that black men had the vote in the 1870s. Shall I direct your attention for the underlying reasons for the 24th Amendment?

Fear of the "other" is no reason for any of us to vote the way we are going to. Worrying about who will stand up to the "Republican Smear Machine" is pointless, and puts us in the position of reacting to the other side's narrative and agenda, which thus places the initiative in the hands of those we wish to beat.

That is one of the best things about Sen. Obama's campaign, as it transcends what the party has done in the past in terms of campaigning: new voters, a broader spectrum of ideologies, and, at the center, a truly progressive candidate with a track record to match.

Sen. Clinton, however, has run for a long time on the narrative that she is "tested," has "stood up to the Republican smear machine in the past," and "knows how to fight them." This is exactly that kind of reactive rhetoric that puts the initiative, and hence, the bag of dirty tricks squarely in the hands of those we wish to best.

Sen. Clinton is known, by her enemies and those who should be her friends on her side of the ideologic fence. Sen. Obama is not as well known, but a simple search shows you what you already know; I doubt the man has any skeletons in the closet, or else, sure as shit, they would have come out by now. If not, Sen. Clinton majorly dropped the ball on her oppo research.

So in our perfect world, we have a candidate of emotion that galvanizes support versus a candidate that many have mixed feelings about. On the issues, the two are nearly identical. Therefore, other qualities must be judged.

Who do you pick? One with a country full of enemies or one that glories in a high turnout rate and an empowerment platform. The latter is just too much of an opportunity to pass up.

Yes, this is a rather superficial choice. But it's about who is the best candidate. And I know there are millions of racist assholes in this country that will turnout in force against him, and probably take a couple of shots at him.

However, this man may actually bring about a true love of the office-holder again, a fiercely intelligent and powerful candidate who bring to the polls those that have already given up on this country. In that respect, Sen. Obama stands as the candidate that most represents the aspirations of our Party.

Again, I will always take a chance on idealism over taking the CW risk-free way. Perhaps that is why I am such a bad poker player.

BBLN-

Grip gotten. I have not yet had my idealism shot off, even after 18 months in Iraq. I choose not to live in fear of Republicans, especially a group that puts up such weak candidates as now stand.

Look at Iowa. Give Sen. Obama the summer, the backing of the Democratic establishment, and (in your mind) mindless automatons like myself convincing everyone to vote for him, and you'll see a Democratic President.

Did we lose the last two elections because we were too nice? Because we were "SwiftBoated?" Or was it because our message and vision were unclear.

You see, when you disparage my comments without meeting them face-to-face with a real argument, you see the current dire straits Hillary Clinton is in. Don't expect me to change my mind simply because we are supposed to fear Republicans.

I don't fear fat, draft-dodging chickenhawks like Rush Limbaugh. I fear the leaders of our party that are scared of him.

Hatred begets hatred.

Along the lobbying line of argument, and a possible attack ad (or merely stupid rumor):

Thanks to MN Publius for the report: www.mnpublius.com

One of the co-chairs for Minnesotans for Obama is none other than US Representative Keith Ellison (DFL- Minneapolis). Yes, Rep. Ellison is a Muslim, and took the oath of office on Pres. TJ's Koran.

Does this mean Obama is a Muslim [sic]? Of course it doesn't.

Note, also, that US Representative Betty McCullom (DFL-Saint Paul; my rep) is also an Obama co-chair. Add to that list the mayor of Minneapolis and the number one contender for retiring US Rep Ramstad (R- west 'burbs).

Does this suggest to anyone which way Minnesota is blowing? All's we need to add to that list is Senator Klobuchar, and you have a clean sweep for Obama.

Angry Vet

I'm familiar with Jim Crow laws and such in the South, if that's what you meant about the 24th amendment. I'm too tired to look it up right now.

I don't personally find Barack Obama that inspiring or charismatic but I'll certainly concede to you that he's the more talented politician of the two. I do however believe that Clinton would be the more effective administrator if elected and if there's anything that has never been been thrown at that woman, I'm hard pressed to imagine what it would be. Shame we can't combine them into one person.

I would personally be more impressed by a more informed electorate than a larger one. Having both would be great, but if I had to pick just one I'd definitely pick the former.

But as regards a lager electorate, it does seem to have escaped a lot of people's notice that John Edwards 32% share in the 2004 Iowa caucuses amounted to some 39,000 people, whereas his 30% share in 2008 was more like 70,000 -- an 80% increase for him alone. So unless someone can explain to me how Barack Obama turned out all those extra people out to caucus against him, then I'm going to have to assume that George W. Bush probably deserves some of the credit for that turn-out in the Iowa Democratic caucuses too.

I'm all for empowering. Nobody doesn't like empowering but it doesn't actually make your enemies go away. It's really not an either/or kind of thing, empowering and enemies. There do exist people who are simply beyond the reach of reason.

I also respectfully submit that all of our candidates represent the aspirations of out party pretty darned well. Some may have better packaging but the stuff inside is all good.

I have to go to sleep now. Nice chatting with you, Angry Vet. Have a good night. Don't let the trolls bite.