RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Paid Lobbyists Conflict With Obama’s Spin

[In a new ad] titled “Listening,” Obama says he is “in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.”

He goes on to claim “I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists–and I have won.” — The Baltimore Sun‘s blog, The Swamp.

Uh huh. Yeah, right. Here’s a reality check: “ABC News reports that an ad the Obama campaign released yesterday on lobbying reform excised a quote in which ‘Obama promised to ban lobbyists from working in his White House — a pledge the Illinois Democrat seemed to have backed off from earlier this month’.” (TPM) Also check out, “ABC News: Obama Ad Omits Lobbyist Reference.” Then there’s the just-posted report from the NYT‘s The Caucus that a month after Obama promised there’d be NO lobbyists in his White House, “he later amended his position, saying that lobbyists would not ‘dominate’ his White House.”

History Can Be a Bitch: “Barack Obama may be talking the talk on the campaign trail as he attacks special interests and lobbyists in Washington,” noted ABC News’s The Blotter in July, “but last year Senator Obama introduced bills-at the request of lobbyists-that would save foreign companies millions in customs fees and duties.”

Then There’s Reality, Again, Chomping Up Those Fine Words: There are “Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll,” reports The Hill. “Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.” That’s right. Obama has paid lobbyists who are “double dipping” while his campaign tries to deny it.

No wonder Obama excised his remarks from a speech used in the new TV ads:

A new television ad released Friday by the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., uses excerpts from a well-received November speech by the candidate in which he attacked corporate lobbyists.

But the campaign notably excised from the excerpt one mid-sentence clause in which Obama promised to ban lobbyists from working in his White House — a pledge the Illinois Democrat seemed to have backed off from earlier this month.

The ommission, first reported by ABC News Saturday morning, provided an opportunity for Obama’s rival, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to make that very pledge to ban lobbyists from working in his White House on Saturday afternoon.

The Obama campaign insisted the cut was made purely for time, and not because the senator had been called out on over-reaching rhetoric.

“It was a 30-minute speech and a 60-second ad, so of course we had to make cuts,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. “Sen. Obama has the strongest record and the furthest reaching proposals when it comes to curbing the influence of special interests and lobbyists of any candidate in this race.”

By making that cut, however, the Obama campaign, in the last week before the crucial Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, risks focusing attention on an issue that can be used to portray the senator as just another politician.

After the ommission was reported on ABCNews.com, Edwards pounced. Sensing an opportunity to differentiate himself from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and in particular from Obama, with whom he is competing for Iowa caucus-goers, Edwards called a press conference in which he made the pledge Obama seemed to have backed away from. … Read all at ABC News.

John Edwards is having too much fun with this. See also the new post at the NYT blog.

Edwards’ fun aside, Obama and Axelrod are doing a lot of explainin’.

  • Huh

    So lemme get this right: Brian Ross, the ‘journalist’ known for his screeching about anthrax-Saddam and never apologizing for his repeated egregious promotion of rank fallacy, pens that Obama worked with, among innumerable others, a smallish agro company to help pass bills that would benefit his constituency and only after insuring the agro company meet comparatively high environmental standards for their product(s). Meanwhile, Obama says lobbyists won’t dictate policy. So…he’s guilty of kinda-sorta violating, what, you’re otherwise pure image of him? Welcome to gubmint, my dear.

    To read your piece, one would think Obama had been the former CEO of a major military contractor and buried that information. Gimme a break.

    I’m sorry, but this is immature and well below the typically informative, thoughtful and analytical fare of NQ. I have to agree with the commenter above — get off the crazy horse already. You’re better than this.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Then there are those “Leave Obama Alone!!!) types, I should to be sensitive too them. The thing about it is if anybody thinks on Jan 22 2009 the powers that be will pack up and go home regardless of wins is dreaming.
    So lets look at a Republican as a reality check.

    Mike Huckabee appears to have combined two hot-button issues on the Iowa campaign trail: Pakistani unrest and illegal immigration.

    telling CNN’s Dana Bash that 660 Pakistanis entered the country illegally last year, more than any other nationality other than those south of the border

    “When he was governor, Huckabee held the following positions on illegal immigration: He supported higher education benefits for children of illegal immigrants,…..

    Be afraid oooohhhh.

  • badgervan

    I’ve always liked this blog, but the recent cheerleading for Clinton, while tearing down all things Obama, is most unlike your normal stuff.
    Many of us prefer Obama over Hilary( too many years of Clintons and Bush’s – fresh leadership is needed ), and admire the man’s basic decency, as well as his other positive qualities.
    Go after the repubs if you must go after anyone, but know that your anti-Obama screeds are costing you some of your former admirers/readers.

    • Just Wondering

      Second.

      And I am not an Obama supporter.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Could not agree more SusanUnpc
    History Can Be a Bitch:
    Her pups are fed the milk of amnesia.

    Thanks for the efforts. Great work, even when folks disagree.

    These are OT somewhat…ok I know 15-0 can’t last for ever.
    These appeared two days apart. (first ya love me then ya don’t)

    Russia to sell advanced air defense systems to Iran-2
    12/26/ 2007
    http://en.rian.ru/world/20071226/94238985.html

    Russia Denies Iran Missile Plan December 28, 2007

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Russia-Iran-Missiles.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Then my favorite of the week:
    U.S. extradition for arms dealer:(Negropontes’ man?)

    http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/26/spain.extradition/index.html

  • http://OUTRAGEDBUTNOTSURPRISED bama_barrron

    as an edwards supporter i have a rather large grin all over my face … it appears obama is doing his very best to present himself as being as populist as john. the polls in iowa,of course, are the reason for this effort! john’s message appears to be resonating with old time rank and file democrats, especially with union types and universal health care advocates.

    several months ago, i brought up a major concern i had with obama. flying into oregon, raising lots of cash, yet not taking the time to interview with the only local progressive radio station and for ignoring the local and state party structure. i was not impressed and opined if this was the “new politics of inclusion” i would just as soon not join. since this time, obama has fumbled his responses to several old time democratic issues: social security, health care, the use of unilateral military force and his most unfortunate comments about the role of unions within the democratic party.

    i have to conclude that obama is at best giving lip service to these issues and is in fact not a populist and may not be even that progressive. yet, he continues to bash hillary for being too establishment … go figure. once again, i must reiterate my original comment … if this is the new politics of inclusion … i don’t want any part of it. no thnak you … i will remain a highly partisan populist democrat!

    • Shirin

      Well, since my main focus is on foreign policy, I have to ask since when talking about bombing and invading countries, and continuing an illegal, illegitimate, and very destructive occupation is something progressives do?

      And while we are at it, since when is enlarging the military something progressives do?

      If Barak Obama is a progressive, then so is George W. Bush.

    • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

      You hit on it perfectly. You have a very good candidate. He’s a strong second in my book.

  • http://thumbsnap.com/v/78mn2yFc.jpg 1Watt, eggumacated

    hate to go off topic. But stole this comment from Atrios’ place:

    ” GWPDA, yclept Irate Historian | 12.29.07 – 8:23 pm | # [kill]​[hide comment] [X]

    Why would I want to placate teh Right?

    When I was a very small GWPDA, and we had just returned to the States, my Mummy integrated herself into the local society. She had a lovely time visiting the Art Museum with Mrs. Goldwater and the various other ladies, became involved in the schools, all that sort of thing. Because we had been away from the wondrous years of McCarthyism for so long (hey! when she left FDR was teh bestest!) it was all a little mysterious and strange. Phoenix was still pretty frontier in a lot of ways, but in other ways it wasn’t. One of the biggest deals was the attempt – very strong, very sneaky, very vicious – by the Birchers to take over the schools and the instruction of children. It was planned and it was horrific. It was the mothers – the same mothers who were the Mothers March of Dimes, the same mothers who backed desegregation, the same mothers who supported Peggy Goldwater and her ally Margaret Sanger in establishing Planned Parenthood who brought the reactionary right, the vicious ‘right’ to its knees. It was a long term difficult activity, but they were the forefront and they won.

    For awhile at least.”
    This is the real battle.

    those who don’t study history….