Greg Palast had an excellent post on this startling decision (first printed at Alternet.org), “Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court Allows China And Others Unlimited Spending In The U.S.” That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? Palast went on to say:

In today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as “natural persons”, i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that’s already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and “bundling” of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court’s decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

I’m losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias…(click here for the rest of the post).

Ah, yes, President Wal-Mart – now THERE’S some democracy for ya…

Palast continues:

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court’s new rules, progressive list serves won’t stand a chance against the resources of new “citizens” such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by “street names.”

Let’s just hold the phone for a minute here, Mr. Palast. While Obama no doubt did get a lot of smaller contributions through PayPal, there were also a LOT of questions about from where some of those contributions came since, according to the Obama Campaign itself, their tracking left a bit to be desired. But thanks for playing. Still, there is a point to be made:

George Bush’s former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson’s wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson’s office to ask how much “Al Qaeda, Inc.” should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman.

Olson has not responded.

Um, okay, I’ll say it – it wasn’t crude, it was CRUEL. I get his point, but really, that was uncalled for in my book. Still, the concept regarding foreign contributions is disturbing at best:

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to “mega-corporations” owned by foreign governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these “unnatural” creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

A bit hyperbolic, but, well, yeah – they can, as can any other corporation-person, or country-person:

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama’s visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama’s health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

Given how things are going right this minute, a lot of people would probably be happier with a President Palin. Ask some Tea Partiers. But his point, and it is a good one, is this:

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, “Who are these guys?”

We’ll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United.

We’ve been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.

Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, “Coalition for Our Children’s Future.” The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called “Triad Inc.”

Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.

So it’s not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.

And again, to be fair, it isn’t just Republicans who are going to benefit from this new “Corporations are People, TOO!” ruling by the Supremes. Democrats will benefit, too:

Campaign Finance: The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to free speech. But Democratic leaders refuse to accept the decision, and their predictable reaction is to undermine it.

Rather than praising Thursday’s 5-4 decision to reverse the 1990 court ruling that banned corporations and unions from contributing directly to political campaigns as an advancement of liberty, President Obama condemned it.

“The Supreme Court,” he said, “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans . ..

“That’s why I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.”

Go get ‘em, Obama! Yeah, show some muscle on this!!! Oh, but wait – is this just more talk? It appears so:

The president is betting the public will accept his rhetoric without checking his facts, and the facts in this case show that lawyers and law firms, not “Big Oil” or “Wall Street,” are the biggest political contributors. According to opensecrets.org., 83% of their donations are going to Democrats in the current election cycle,

This is not unusual. In the 2008 cycle, Democrats took in 78% of lawyer and law-firm political dollars. In 2006, the ratio was 62% Democrats to 36% Republicans. Two years earlier, it was 80% to 20% in favor of the Democrats.

Maybe the president just doesn’t consider lawyers and law firms to be special interests. OK, so how about the securities and investment industry, a sector Democrats have demonized and unfavorably link to Republicans? Is this group a special interest?

The president can define special interests any way he wants. But he can’t redefine the fact that 73% of the political donations from the securities and investment industry — the “Wall Street” he apparently holds in such low regard — are going to Democrats in the 2010 cycle. In 2008, 64% went to Democrats, in 2004 it was 61% and in 2002 56%. In the 2006 cycle, the parties evenly split donations from the sector, each taking in 47%.

Oh, well, um – yes it would seem this is indeed more “words, just words,” from the man behind the curtain. What a big surprise – not at all. But there’s more:

As telling as that is, our fact-checking exercise revealed another valuable nugget. Of the 50 industries and sectors categorized as contributors by opensecrets.org, Democrats are the top recipients during this cycle in all but two (emphasis mine). Oil and gas, one of those named a “powerful interest,” is ranked as the 14th largest political contributor, and the auto industry, which ranks 46th.

In short, the stampede of special interest money began long before the court’s ruling, and Democrats are the biggest beneficiaries (emphasis mine).

Oops. Wait, look over THERE! Or, there! Or anywhere but here!! Um, do you smell something burning? Oh, yes – their pants are on fire:

The president knows this, and so does Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Yet Schumer calls the court’s ruling “poisonous” and, according to The Hill newspaper, promises to hold hearings “to explore ways to limit corporate spending on elections.”

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also knows that his party is swimming in special-interest money. But he vows hearings as well.

If Democrats are acting as if they fear what the ruling will mean, it’s because they probably do. They feel their funding advantage, which already includes so much indirect union money that the court’s overturning of the ban on direct union contributions won’t help them, is now at risk.

But their complaint about a stampede of special interest dollars is hard to take seriously, and not only because of how much special interest money they’re already getting. While supporters of campaign finance laws say money is the corrupting element, they ignore the second part of the equation and the more corrosive factor: lawmakers’ votes.

Their implication is that big money buys votes in Congress, and they might be right. But trying to cut the flow of political money won’t stop the practice; it will only drive it underground. The way to stop the corruption is to prosecute lawmakers who sell their vote.

Though tainted by undue persecution, political dollars are a necessary part of our system. They illuminate the issues for everyday Americans and give challengers a chance (to) drive out entrenched incumbents. No one, not even a group of individuals, should be barred from taking part in this exercise of freedom.

Still don’t think I can concur that a group of individuals is the same as a corporation. But other than that, this piece does highlight that it isn’t just Republicans who are going to benefit from this unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court, but ALL politicians will benefit.

But will WE?

Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.

I refer to Americans United, Karl Rove and MoveOn as idiots, as all of them are hopelessly misinformed.

Rove believes the coordinated effort of the White House to pressure moderate Democrats through various advocacy groups will backfire. He is partially correct, but his reasoning is flawed. I quote Rove:

Every White House is faced with finding ways to nudge Congress without antagonizing it. But this overt campaign could infuriate members who won’t appreciate being targeted by a president of their own party. They could react by becoming recalcitrant. Should that happen, team Obama will have to recalculate its efforts, especially as the public sours on big spending plans.

Members of Congress will not simply become “recalcitrant” as a result of their personal disdain for Obama’s tactics; they will become recalcitrant as a result of all the Republican support they will receive from their constituents. Hence why I believe MoveOn and Americans United are idiots: attempting to incite certain Democrats to pressure certain Democratic moderates, their efforts will simply alert Republicans who probably never supported these Democrats that their Senator or House Representative is indeed a moderate. And not only will this engender Republican support for the moderate Democrats in question; it will also compel the Republicans and Democrats who voted against Obama in certain states to oppose Obama’s budget in a more active and vigorous manner. Moderate Democrats in Congress will then have electoral justifications to oppose Obama, and Republicans, Independents and Democrats who oppose Obama will have a new political signifier around which they can mobilize.

Consider Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, two Senate Democrats who represent southern states. Mary Landrieu beat her Republican opponent John N. Kennedy by 6 points last cycle, warding off a Republican surge that delivered a 59-40 victory to John McCain. The reaction against Obama in Louisiana almost derailed her reelection efforts, but she managed to win by citing her centrism and independence. Not only has that centrism and independence been confirmed by the ads Democratic organizations are launching against her; the Republicans who opposed her will now support her out of sympathy. As a result, she will receive supportive telephone calls from Louisiana Republicans who will urge her to oppose Obama’s budget. Moreover, her approval ratings will increase, complicating liberal advocacy groups’ efforts to render her unelectable. And yes, many Democratic groups would be satisfied if Mary Landrieu lost a reelection. Some Democrats, in fact, believe she deserves no respect. But to the chagrin of these Democratic activists, their botched efforts to make her political life difficult will only garner her more support from the Republicans who would otherwise oppose her.

Blanche Lincoln will run for reelection in 2010, and the results of the 2008 Presidential election in Arkansas are certainly not in her favor. In fact, McCain clobbered Barack Obama by a margin of 20 points in Arkansas, a margin that would make any Democratic incumbent nervous. Republicans are targeting her for her potential support of Card Check, while some Democrats derisively characterize her as the Democrat of Wal-Mart. This is certainly a stressful position for a Democrat who hopes to cobble together the coalition required to win in 2010 in a state that rejects the current Democratic President to whom she will be tied. But now that liberal advocacy groups are airing advertisements and complaining about Lincoln on the telephone lines of Arkansans, Republicans will rally behind her, and they may even cast votes for her in 2010. Americans United and MoveOn think they are blackmailing Lincoln with the threat of political death, but they are in fact increasing her popularity in her state, thereby handing her justification to oppose Obama’s budget and agenda. Some actions have inadvertent consequences.

Rove is incorrect when he claims moderate Democrats will react personally to Obama’s efforts to manufacture grassroots opposition to their centrism, and MoveOn and Americans United are incorrect when they believe their Washington, DC, advocacy will yield results in Louisiana and Arkansas. All of them are idiots, as all of them are misinformed, and all their efforts are misguided. But at least Democrats who struggle to win south of the Mason-Dixon line will remain in office as a result of the idiocy of some groups’ version of advocacy. For similar to Bill and Hillary Clinton, these Democrats understand the predicaments and the paradoxes that sustain the Democratic Party in the South. Republicans and the operatives surrounding Obama, on the other hand, do not. Obama, after all, admires Reagan, and Reagan, to be sure, is anything but an expert on Democratic politics.

But not in the United-Obama-Rezko-Ayers-Wright-Odinga 57 States of America!

Nope – in this country, at least one party dismisses the actual results and puts in who they want. I believe there’s a term for that…Oh, yes – that’s right. Banana Republic. I suppose it is racist to mention banana anywhere in the same paragraph as Obama. Heck, you can’t even mention the guy’s middle name anymore in the land of the “free.” Nosirree Bob – you’ll get the NAACP and the ACLU breathing down your neck. For mentioning his middle name. Nothing else, just his middle name in the context of saying his full name.

Yeah, Okay. (I’m thinking of taking a page from Soldier4Hillary, and calling McCain and Obama by their middle names.) Wow – he really must be The One to make everyone capitulate to his every little tantrum.

Anywho – I digress. So, there’s a mighty interesting ad out by the PAC, “Our Country Deserves Better.” And how. This one is particularly intriguing because it is a series of clips of Hillary Clinton at her rallies. Oh, what she said was good, as you’ll see in the video below. It just highlights what a travesty has occurred in this country by the DNC selecting Obama, and Clinton not just getting back to work,putting all of this behind her. No, she has been (forced to) stump for Obama more than any of the other front runners over the past 40 years combined (according to her husband when he appeared on The Daily Show recently). Yep. I know, I know – she has to do it to have any chance of getting anything accomplished for her state, and the people of this country (has the Senate always been a glorified junior high school?? I mean, really – where else do you have that kind of vindictiveness? Ok, high school, too.), and you know I love Hillary Clinton. But seeing this ad is a double-edged sword: she is the one who won this nomination, not only by the popular vote, but surely would have by delegates had Obama not committed caucus fraud (and you know he did – it has been widely documented – 2,000 cases in Texas ALONE). Had she not had her votes stolen by the DNC – wait, I mean the ODNC, she would be the one running for president right now. But, no. (And this isn’t sour grapes – it is flat out anger at the DNC for betraying 18,000,000 of us, dammit!)

So, without further ado, here is the video:

Good, isn’t it? I bet ol’ Barack will throw a hissy fit about it, too: “Stop showing her on tv! She’s showing me up (again)! Make them stop!!!!” like he always does. You’d sure never catch Johnny Mac making a spectacle of himself over things like this, or claiming that Fox News is being MEAN to him – I mean, really – grow a pair already, Barack. You already have ALL of the other networks behind you – propping you up every time you misspeak (which is, uncannily, as often as Bush), and pushing you across the line. Oh – and would it KILL you to tell the truth – just ONCE???

Ahem. The ad is a good one. Hillary is right on target. And she’s funny, too, I might add. Sigh. I sure miss seeing her, but there is some delight in seeing these tidbits resurrected to bring His Holiness down. Oh, yeah. Now that I think about it, this is pretty awesome. Let’s have some more, “Our Country Deserves Better!” Bring ‘em on! Can I have an “amen”??

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination.

Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California’s eighth district– including most of San Francisco. An Italian American, Pelosi was raised on politics. Her father was a Congressman from Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi was elected as Democratic Speaker of the House 2002. Pelosi shattered the glass ceiling in the House of Representatives when she was elected the first female speaker in 2007. A shrewd politician, Madame Speaker exercises a lot of influence over the members of congress. She determines Committee assignments and in conjunction with the DNC and Howard Dean decides how much money and support the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gives to each member of congress in their bid for re-election.

In addition, Pelosi also contributes money directly to the congressional campaigns of certain candidates through her Political Action Committee “PAC to the FUTURE.” Her PAC receives money from other PAC’s such as Service Employees International Union $10,000, American Bankers Assn $10,000, Sheet Metal Workers Union $10,000, International Association of Fire Fighters, $10,000, and Goldman Sachs 10,000. It also receives money from individuals.

In the 2008 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) reports that Nancy Pelosi’s PAC received 585,400 and contributed more than $445,000 of this to 59 congressional candidates. PAC to the FUTURE gave money to 38 incumbents and 21 challengers.

Of the 435 members in the house, Pelosi gave money to 8.5% of them. Of the members who received money from Pelosi, 71% were men; only 29% were women. Only eleven percent of the female members of congress received support from Pelosi’s PAC. It’s disappointing that a female speaker did not symbolically make some contribution to all Democratic women in the house.

But even more important than the gender implications of Pelosi’s behavior was her impact on the Presidential election.

Publicly Madame Speaker did not endorse either Obama or Clinton in the Democratic Primary, but was she was anything but neutral.

Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of thirty-eight members of congress, twenty-eight of these endorsed Obama; ten endorsed Clinton. Pelosi contributed to the campaigns of Obama endorsers almost three to one. Pelosi not only gave to a greater number of Obama supporters, she collectively gave them more money.

Pelosi gave $250,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Obama and only $80,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Clinton. Money talks, and Pelosi and her PAC spoke volumes….in shorthand. She may not have publicly endorsed a candidate, but the members of the House of Representatives knew she supported Obama.

Of the thirty-eight Members of Congress Pelosi gave money to, sixteen went against the grain for Obama. This means, their state voted for Hillary, their district voted for Hillary, yet they endorsed Obama. Why? Follow the money.

By endorsing Obama, all of these Members of Congress went against the will of their constituents, twice, at the state level and at the district level. Only two members who received money from Pelosi’s PAC went against the grain and endorsed Hillary.

Is sixteen against the grain for Hillary and two against the grain for Obama a coincidence?

Pelosi’s contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern. Sixty-three percent of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.

Ten thousand dollars, PAC to the FUTURE’s typical contribution, doesn’t seem like a lot of money but besides getting money from PAC TO THE FUTURE, most of these members got contributions from other PACs.

These contributions were most likely orchestrated by Pelosi and company since the overlap is too startling. Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina has BRIDGE PAC. BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but two of these same members of congress. Steny Hoyer from Maryland has AMERIPAC. AMERIPAC gave money to almost every single one of these same members of congress. Typical donations from both of these PAC’S were $10,000.

And then there is the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, and of course there is the HOPE FUND owned by Barack Obama. All of these PACs donated an average of $10,000 to most of their campaigns. These young representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.

It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider. But in reality—all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along. Pelosi’s Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades.

ACTION: Call Pelosi’s office at 415-556-4862 and let her know how you feel. Let’s not just call her biased against women; let’s call her finished.

FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY, BEFORE IT DISAPPEARS.

(The EXCEL sheet is incorporated into the story.)

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Obama supporters will point out that Hillary also take money from oil executives. She freely admits this, saying:

“Well the fact is [Obama] didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Why does Obama continue to mislead the public about the source of his contributions? It might come as a shock to his supporters: it polls well. It’s an open secret that Obama spends lavishly on a small army of pollsters, message men, media advisers, public relations experts, and advertising agencies. But in the case of being clean of oil money, Obama’s money machine didn’t speak to his message men:

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits “penalty.”

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year and we’re paying $3.50 for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore,” says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Obama’s team has carefully crafted a message that he doesn’t take money from political action committees, although he did until recently, and he doles out substantial amounts of money from his own PAC. Instead he takes enormous sums from people who just so happen to all work in that industry. It’s really just a shell game with dummy corporations: These groups of ultra-wealthy donors are not registered and regulated, and therefore Obama can claim that he doesn’t take money from oil companies:

Obama’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

As the ad aired, Obama took $12,400 from oil company executives and employees in increments of $1,000 or more. Altogether, people who identify themselves as working for oil and gas companies donated $46,000 in March.

Obama’s claims allow him to project a squeaky clean image created by his handlers. The only problem with this poll-tested strategy is that it collides with the reality that wealthy oil executives are pouring money into his campaign. Obama’s chief strategist David Axlerod, in a moment of candor, described his role like this: “I know my business and the technology of politics and polling and focus groups, all of what we do, in some ways contributes to an atmosphere of cynicism. I try to fight that. I can’t say I’m totally blameless.” You think?

Obama’s willingness to say one thing and do another is wearing thin. He continues to lose contests and his favorability ratings have plummeted. Claiming to be clean of oil money is one thing, actually doing it is something else. “From our perspective, if there is a distinction between oil company PACs and lobbyists, and their executives, it is a mighty fine line,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. “They all represent the same interest — oil.”

Today oil prices hit yet another record high. Food prices are soaring. In the United States, stores are beginning to ration the sale of rice, flour and cooking oil due to food shortages. The dollar continues weaken and inflation continues to grow and only threatens to get worse. 80,000 Americans lost their jobs last month, and tens of thousands of layoffs have already been announced this month. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, a mortgage crisis, and a credit and financial crisis. The Fed had to step in and rescue one of the country’s largest investment banks. Homeowners have had their home equity lines of credit shut down. Inventories are up. You can’t pick up the Wall Street Journal each week without seeing the words “recession, depression, or crisis.” The War on Terror is far from won and we continue to suffer major setbacks in Afghanistan. The US military continues to weaken, and the Army and Marine Corps are enlisting convicted felons in order to fill their ranks. People across this country from all demographics are genuinely frightened. Yet, the only thing the House Republicans can talk about is an earmark moratorium. Eliminating earmarks tomorrow won’t solve any of these problems. Arguably, it could make some of them worse. We all know this is a gimmick. Earmark money is not “new” money put in spending bills, so what programs are they going to cut from Bush’s request to create money for a proposed stimulus check? The time for gimmicks has passed. The country has real problems and needs real leaders with real solutions. How many more House seats do they need to lose in order for them to figure this out? Wasn’t the loss of Hastert’s seat a clear signal of what awaits them in November if they don’t start offering the country a real agenda?

I agree with my friend.  Earmarks, in and of themselves, are not evil.  I believe in full disclosure.  My friend’s point is that the Congress, particularly the Republicans, are fiddling while our nation burns.  Think any of these things will be issues in the fall?

But reading all of the reviews of Wednesday night’s debate made me realize that there is more than one use for Teflon. Typically, the phrase has been used to mean that, like Teflon, a candidate has a surface so slick that criticism just doesn’t stick – it slides right off. It serves as armour, so to speak, to deflect incoming fire.

Usually, in today’s world, the media enables this, or it couldn’t happen. How?

1.) They don’t pose a question at all, even though they well know it needs to be asked.

2.) They allow the candidate to just blow the question off with a fluff answer, and then drop the subject. No “wait a minute.” No “do you really mean that….” So the issue just slips and slides off into never-never land — in this case, usually defined by the ending of a news cycle and the beginning of the next.

3.) Finally, sometimes they just accept an answer that they know isn’t true. Even worse, sometimes they report an answer they know to be false without giving equal attention to the alternative point of view, or to the known and documented facts.

In this case, fawning may be involved. Witness MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews’ comment, “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg,” as Obama spoke. (Huffington Post, Feb 13, 2008)

Wednesday evening, though, I realized there could be another function for this Teflon. It might also act as a shield from input. Now input is something a candidate should welcome, isn’t it? If you don’t accept input from your constituents, how can you ably represent them? How can you even answer their questions? How can you learn from experience? How can you grow?

That brings me to the next question. If, in the interest of maintaining your image, you chose to put on a Teflon coating, aren’t you, in truth, hiding yourself from your constituents? And if you are, isn’t that the very essence of deceit? At the very least, it amounts to the ultimate arrogance, because it implies that you don’t want or believe you need that input.

I fear this is the trap into which Barack Obama has fallen. It might be the reason Obama has given such unsatisfying answers to the questions concerning Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, the lobbyists and special interests who are bundling for his campaign, “Bittergate” and a number of other flipflops and inconsistencies. If you are so used to questions and issues just slipping off, perhaps you become immune to the need to give real answers to legitimate questions. How can you be a president who is truly “of the people” if you disdain the people’s input?

Senator Obama, regretfully, has largely succeeded in keeping his teflon coating intact during this primary season. If he succeeds in winning the nomination, however, I fully expect the Republicans will get out the armour-piercing rounds, and he’ll deflate like a punctured balloon. I would much prefer for him to learn big lessons from this primary season, then withdraw and help unite the party behind Senator Clinton. During the next 8 years, he might evolve into a more transparent, more humble, more practical and productive candidate who can occupy the White House for an additional 8 years. That is my hope.

During Tuesday’s Clinton-Obama debate, the candidates were restrained but took a few jabs at each other.  They made some policy statements, and each said that the other could beat John McCain.  Blah, blah, blah.  That’s what I figured I’d blog about.

As Barack Obama delivered the final words of the debate, however, my blogging plans changed because my jaw dove toward the floor over one thing that he said.

Obama reiterated that his campaign has not taken money from "registered federal lobbyists" or PACS, the message being that he isn’t tied to special interests the way other candidates are.

Technically, Obama did not lie about this point. 

In reality, the representation is false, because Obama has taken special-interest connected money.  The Hill had a story about this a year ago.  My co-blogger and I blogged about it earlier this week.  And yesterday, USA Today ran a story about it, which states:

"It’s accurate that Obama doesn’t take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal.

"But Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama’s case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama’s fundraising team." (USA Today)

USA Today doesn’t stop there.  It gives a laundry list of evidence that Sen. Obama may be tainted by special interests.  The list includes but is not limited to the following:

• "Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig [the same firm that lobbyist-turned-prison-inmate Jack Abramoff had worked for]….

• "Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show….

• "Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show….

• "Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He’s taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "’I don’t take pharma money.’" (USA Today)

This story should have broken widely back in January, as Obama gathered momentum partly based on claims that he was divorced from special interests. 

Instead of questioning Obama’s claims and informing the public about disconnects, many media chose to give Obama a free pass.

After months of such media nonsense, USA Today did a bang-up job of hunting down evidence that casts doubt on Obama’s claims of political purity. 

This story was printed yesterday: hours before the Democratic debate.  Yet, Obama (once again) questionably claimed political purity hours after USA Today‘s story was printed.

Apparently, some of Obama’s campaign staffers didn’t read the USA Today story — or maybe they thought we ordinary folks hadn’t read it.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Signs of Bush Tactics & Hypocrisy in Another Obama Email

* Obama’s Questionable Claims of Political Independence

* Not Technically Fibbing: More on Obama’s Campaign Finances

* The Audacity of … Hypocrisy?

* Obama Took Oil Money but Said He Didn’t

* Obama Took Credit for Others’ Legislative Work, Media Ignored it

In March, I objected to a fund-raising email (signed by Barack Obama), which claimed that Hillary Clinton was attacking Obama’s supporters.  The implication: she’s coming after you, personally, the way Darth Vader went after Luke.  Fostering a bellicose, with-us-or-against-us mentality worked for President Bush after 9/11, and Obama’s use of that tactic is as factually questionable as it is divisive. 

Yesterday, I found another Obama campaign email (signed by David Plouffe), a double whammy that includes: 1) a similar line about Hillary’s so-called "attacks" on Obama’s supporters; and 2) the oft-repeated — and highly hypocritical — message that Hillary and McCain have taken special-interest money, while Obama hasn’t.  In part, the email states:

"We’ve built the broadest campaign of ordinary people in the history of presidential politics — and more people across this country have voted for Barack Obama than either one of them.

"And we’ve done it the right way: our campaign is funded by everyday people giving $5 or more. That’s distinctly different from Senator McCain and Senator Clinton, who both rely on money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs….

“The attacks from the Clinton campaign — on Barack Obama himself, and on supporters like you — can be expected to increase as her chances of winning dwindle further.

"A few weeks ago, one of her top aides tried to diminish our success by referring to the places we’ve won as "boutique" states and to our supporters as the "latte-sipping crowd."

First, Barack Obama certainly has taken special-interest-connected money, just as Hillary and McCain have.  Yesterday, my co-blogger Damozel covered this very issue:

"State lobbyists and non-wage-earning spouses of lobbyists and lobbying firm employees have contributed $115,163 to Obama’s campaign through March 20, according to the center [for Responsive Politics].…

"People in the oil and gas industries have given $222,309 to Obama. He received $528,765 from the pharmaceutical and health industry, making him the largest recipient of the sector’s largesse." (Newhouse News Service citing Center for Responsive Politics)

Technically, Obama wasn’t lying: he didn’t take money directly from corporations, but neither did Hillary or McCain — because that’s illegal (see Tillman Act of 1907).  Instead, candidates take money from corporate executives, employees, and PACs (which tend to be comprised of corporate employees). 

Taking money from the spouses of lobbyists and corporate players is an old trick that people have used to get around donation limits.  Obama seems to have used the spouses so he could take money from lobbyists without having to list lobbyists as the direct donors.

That’s smells like a bamboozling.

Furthermore, as Sourcewatch points out, Obama "used campaign donations generated by PACS and Lobbyists to bankroll the birth of his White House bid"; the donations totaled about $1 million (citing Chicago Sun-Times).

In other words, Obama was for taking lobbyist/PAC money before he was against it. If you want more details, The Hill covered Obama’s under-the-table ties to lobbyists last year — issues of which many other media outlets still seem unaware.

About the alleged "attacks": the phrase "latte-sipping crowd" is a way of saying people who can afford to pay $5 for a cup of coffee.  Since when is it an insult — in this of all nations — to be referred to as having money?

That and Hillary Clinton did not claim that the states Obama won don’t count.  She just recognized that the ones who had small caucuses may not be as representative of the greater population as the states that had primaries with large voter turn out.

Fact: caucuses often include far fewer voters than primaries (usually voters who are politically active and have accommodating schedules).  Compare these few primary and caucus states for example:

Less than 50,000 people voted in caucuses to decide who got Wyoming’s, Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s combined 74 delegates.

More than 1.6 million people voted in primaries to give out Georgia’s, Rhode Island’s and Oklahoma’s combined 68 delegates.

The term "boutique states" certainly is not an insult or attack on the caucus states that Obama won.  It’s a very pleasant way of pointing out the obvious: far fewer voters participated in most caucus states than in most primary states.

In short, Hillary Clinton has not attacked Obama’s supporters — and yet, Obama (or his campaign staff) seem obsessed with convincing their supporters that Hillary has attacked them.

Trying to make Hillary out to be a personal enemy of Obama’s supporters is not the way to promote the party unity.   It’s also hypocritical, coming from a candidate who has billed himself as a "unifier."

We’ve seen this tactic before.  With help from Mr. Rove and Mr. Limbaugh, President Bush managed to get many Americans getting riled — as though criticizing Bush equated to calling his supporters’ mamas ugly. 

If Sen. Obama continues to craft images and make statements that clash with his actions, how will voters ever know who he really is?  I’ll be happy to foward the Plouffe email to anyone who emails me.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Technically, Obama Didn’t Fib re: Campaign Donations

* The Audacity of … Hypocrisy?

* Obama Took Oil Money but Said He Didn’t

* Obama Took Credit for Others’ Legislative Work, Media Ignored it

For all of Sen. Obama’s rhetoric about the need for tax return transparency, you’d think he’d have released all of his tax records. Guess again.

For weeks, Sen. Obama and his campaign relentlessly demanded that Hillary release all of her tax returns even though 20-years of them were already publicly available. His campaign held an endless string of conference calls, issued press releases and flooded the airwaves with surrogates attacking Hillary for not immediately releasing the returns for the last few years she has been in public life.

Sen. Obama said the American people “deserve to know where you get your income from,” stressing the need for “full transparency” and bragging that his campaign has “set the bar.”

Well, Hillary released tax returns earlier this month and is now the only candidate in this race who has made thirty years worth of tax returns public.

But despite his rhetoric, Sen. Obama doesn’t abide by the standards he sets for others.

Sen. Obama has refused to release his tax returns for 1997, 1998 and 1999, even though he was in public life as a state senator during those years. During this period of time, Sen. Obama was accepting contributions from special interest lobbyists, PACs and even directly from corporations.

In fact, Sen. Obama has a habit of demanding higher standards of transparency for others than for himself. The National Archives has released hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from Hillary’s years as first lady, including her entire schedule. Throughout the campaign, Sen. Obama has demanded Hillary release more documents, even though they are not under her control. Meanwhile, Sen. Obama refuses to release any documents that are more than three years old. At first, Sen. Obama and his campaign told the press that he had records from his state senate years. Later, he said he threw them all out.

Whether it’s tax returns or legislative records or his relationship with indicted political fixer Tony Rezko, Senator Obama seems to take “the dog ate my homework” approach to disclosure.

When it comes to transparency, the only thing transparent about Senator Obama is his claim to be transparent.