All the candidates are taking money from wherever they can get it, let"s face it you need to raise a lot of money to compete effectively, but this does not necessarily translate into supporting the donor"s wishes.
Therefore I think this is a specious, biased argument and does not really give us an accurate picture of which is the better candidate.
What impresses me most about a candidate is whether or not they were fooled by Bush in the lead up to the Iraq War.
Edwards keeps apologizing for his ridiculous vote authorizing a war with Iraq.
Personally I like the guy who was never taken in by the saber rattling of Bush and his cronies, Barak Obama never supported the war and this shows me a trustworthy candidate who has good judgment.
Edwards chose to go after the big bucks and make himself a multi millionaire by becoming a trial lawyer.
Obama chose to work in civil rights after graduating Harvard Law School; he could have signed up with any law firm in the country, especially after being the first black to ever become the editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Hillary all showed very poor judgment in giving a pathological liar authority to wage war.
"I don"t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships born"
Barack Obama, October 2002, Chicago.
Obama Rolls The Dice With Latest Edwards Criticism
While John Edwards announced this weekend that he will ban corporate lobbyists and foreign government lobbyists from his White House, Barack Obama has stepped up criticism of Edwards on everything from his populist views to Iowa ads about Edwards by an independent organization backed by union members.
With these latest remarks, however, Obama is wading into treacherous territory if he thinks no one will notice his close ties to big business lobbyists and their money, all while he attempts to play connect-the-dots on Edwards.
Obama has been relying on the advice and support of Washington lobbyists since early in his 2008 predential campaign. In an article from March of this year on The Hill, Alexander Bolton detailed Obama's K Street connections:
"Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young."
These lobbyist ties surfaced again before the holidays, when The Hill published this story on December 20 that exposed two federal lobbyists currently on Obama's campaign payroll, one of whom appears to have received payment while she was working as a lobbyist.
"Teal Baker, who received her first payment from Obama's campaign on June 13, represented 18 corporations between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year while working as a lobbyist for Podesta Group, a K Street powerhouse. Clients paid Podesta Group over $2 million during those six months for Baker and her colleagues to represent them, according to documents filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.
Clients such as Oshkosh Truck and Pinkerton Consulting paid more than $700,000 for Emmett Beliveau and his colleagues at Patton Boggs to represent them during the first half of 2007. Beliveau received a $3,050 payment from Obama's campaign for advance work on Feb. 21, a campaign finance report shows.
In addition, the article states, "Brandon Hurlbut, Obama's liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.
Until recently, Hurlbut had a voice mail greeting at B&D Consulting informing callers that he was on "a temporary leave of absence" to work for Obama's campaign."
On its website, Patton Boggs, (the firm that employed Beliveau), proudly boasts of being "consistently ranked as the nation's number one lobbying firm by the National Journal."
The Podesta Group, (the firm that employed Teal Baker), is run by Tony Podesta, a Chicago native. Podesta was listed third in Washingtonian magazine's list of the city's top lobbyists. The Washingtonian article from June says Podesta was hired by British Petroleum, whose pipeline problems and refinery fires have created regulatory and public-relations issues. Podesta had been "guiding BP through congressional hearings."
The author of the article, Kim Eisler, writes, "Podesta and his team of 23 lobbyists are said to collect $12 million to $15 million in annual billings."
A chart on current and former lobbyists who've worked for presidential campaigns for the 2008 election is published on The Hill's website. Wondering who's on Edwards' payroll? The chart names two men: Adam Jentleson and Matthew Morrison.
Jentleson "lobbied on behalf of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank," and Morrison, "was registered as a lobbyist for the American Federation of Teachers," (a trade union). Trade union and liberal think tank, quite the distinction from Obama's political movers, isn't it?
According to Colleen Murray, a spokeswoman for Edwards, both aides have ceased lobbying.
As Paul Krugman recently confirmed in his column for the New York Times, Obama is attempting to compare labor unions and progressive interests with groups that advocate for corporations as he criticizes Edwards, those recent Iowa ads and tries to link Edwards to Washington lobbyists.
But by doing just this, Obama glaringly leaves the door wide open on his own involvement with big business lobbyists and more importantly his denial of what's at stake in this era of rampant corporate greed.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A vote for Hillary, is a vote for business as usual.From the people who pardoned Mark Rich,drug dealers,criminals NAFTA, FBI GATE,POST OFFICEGATE etc. It's the same fight it's always been,the super rich class that hasen't to work for three generations or more,against the working man. Even if the working guy makes 100k or better,he still has to work.The super rich are busy buying up media,to influence your thinking.GO EDWARDS
This is the Edwards we always wanted, smart, good looking and macho. I hope he dos not listen to the ever shallow talking heads and be himself no matter what.
To hrayovac, chet, and anyone who thinks the SEIU's 527 ad is a "smear" on Obama: Please read the script or link to the ad below. It's simply a positive ad for Edwards. A "527" ad does NOT equal a "smear," as much as some Obama supporters might choose to believe:
script:
"The price of dependence on foreign oil. Health care in crisis. Government run by corporate lobbyists. Isn't it time someone had a plan to take them on? The Edwards plan: Ban campaign cash from lobbyists. End tax breaks for big oil. Stop job killing trade deals. Stand up to insurance companies for real health reform.
Ask all the candidates what their plan is to level the playing field.
"Paid for by the Alliance for a New America which is responsible for its content. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/26/533813.aspx
Over the last few weeks Obama has copied Edwards stump speech to try to get more votes and he has attacked Edwards over and over in an effort to stop his surge. It's pretty obvious to everyone except for some of the Obama supporters. Other Obama supporters finally see it and have lost some of their frenetic energy on the blogs. I guess they just don't have the appetite to defend someone who even they see as not living up to the rhetoric of the politics of hope and bringing people together.
I look at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as very similar candidates. They both believe in the "inherent rights" of corporations, and they both have accepted the long-standing political tradition of financing with corporate backers. I think their experience levels are comparable—despite Clinton's years as First Lady. And I think both would do a decent job as president. But I think neither would address the central problem we have now—the missing voice of the American public in setting policy and making law.
I support Edwards because, other than Kucinich, he is the only candidate who talks about the fact that democracy is slipping out of the hands of the American people. He doesn't put it in those terms, but this is the core effect of undue corporate influence on politics.
A populist message is always risky. It's easy to attack. It's easy to be portrayed as phony. But at this point in our history, we need to recognize that ordinary citizens are losing their power to influence their own lives. I'm tired of having my rights purchased away from me by lobbyists and CEOs.
If Obama wants to attack that message, I think he does so at his own peril. A lot of Americans feel the same way I do.
The biggest amount in individual donations ($2,300 and under) in election history has been raised by Obama. Fact.
Christine Escobar displays a laughable ignorance.
The information she gives is that Obama funds are going towards consultants. ALL campaigns pay for consultants. When the campaign is over, the job is done. Consultants have no loyalty.
The direction of the arrow means something. What you do not want to see is the other direction that is, influence of money or favors going TOWARDS a candidate. This is where the Clintons get in trouble. And Edwards is allowing a smear ad by a 527 because he's broke. That's the ethical issue which should be the concern if you understand how politics works..or doesn't in those cases.
Who knows what qualifies a person to be president of the United States? The best indicator, I believe, are people's actions that indicate their judgment. I think about JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he alone against all his advisors, including his brother, decided not to invade Cuba, which very well might how instigated a third world war. Who among all the candidates would have that kind of judgment and courage? It seems to me that the vote for the Iraq War Resolution indicated a lack of judgment and courage that concerns me. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that ushered in an escalation of the Vietnam War. Only two men in all of Congress voted for it and both were old men: Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. Robert Bird said it was the vote he was most ashamed of it.
Therefore, I ask: Which of these candidates would be one of the few, the brave, the wise?
[Obama on polarization] Obama is waging a war against a class of politicians just as Edwards is waging war against a class of lobbyists. Isn"t that polarization at work?
[Obama on the establishment] How can Obama posture to bring a new face and a new way in the establishment when he brings with him a circle of close advisers and staff from the Clinton administration? Employing "Clinton minds" around him means he embraces the Clinton policies.
[Obama on his candidacy as now or never] He is a plain opportunist seizing only the moment when as an unknown, his blunders are not yet much to be spoken of¦ seizing only the moment when as a dazzler, his fresh tactics could still work¦ seizing the moment when the rhetoric of hope would still work.
Obama is running for the presidency now, not because he is called for a vision, but because he is compelled by a favourable condition. His candidacy is not about hope. His hope is about his candidacy.
Christine, You're pretty good with the Clinton talking points, combining the "roll of dice" with some other vague inuendo. The real roll of the dice is with Hillary. Will we get the hawkish Hillary, or the warm and fuzzy Hillary? Will she be "our gal" to fight the Republicans, or will she continue to side with them on Iraq and Iran? She has reinvented herself so many times we really have no idea who she is or what she stands for.
Christine - it looks like you did your homework on the numbers and information you provided to the voters. I for one appreciate this.
I knew when I saw that Obama was getting over $100m in donations, mostly from Corporations that he was owned.
I did listen to Elizabeth Edwards today on C-Span. She made a very good point. She quoted Hillary Clinton who when asked several years ago why America doesn't enforce worker's standards in China or human rights issues in China - Clinton said, "it's hard to criticize your banker, and China has become America's banker." The point being Elizabeth Edwards said, is that taking money from so many corporations as Obama has would make it difficult to critize the people who have bankrolled his campaign for the Presidency.
Only Clinton and Obama take Corporate wealth - both taking over $100m - possibly more as the 4th quarter stats for 2007 are not in. All the other candidates have less than a 1/4 to 1/20th of that amount to run on who use public financing.
Experts predict that when 2008 is over with, $1 billion will be spent electing the US President. Who wins?
Obama pointing out that the labor unions support Edwards and none support Obama made me take another look at Edwards.
I'd rather have someone owing to labor than owing to corporations and big business.
You're pulling out things that happened _6+_ months ago, in the early stage of the campaigns when ALL the campaigns building up are using workers who have other day jobs and are transferring full-time to the campaigns and comparing it to a real and present issue of December 30, 2007, _days_ before the Iowa primaries, that of 527 groups currently running half-million dollar ads for a presidential candidate in that state when it appears to have been agreed to that that would not be done in the primaries?!? Have you ever switched jobs?!? Depending on the nature of the work, there's always some overlap, usually at least a month where you're listed for the rest of the quarter/half or whatever the contract is based on, yet you're already out the door. The issue is not the lobbyists per say, but it's when and whether they're being paid to influence the politics. These folks are switching jobs (and to a degree, it shouldn't matter who they've previously worked for- then again, it doesn't make for a sensational story if you don't include that) - unless you want to institute some formal "hold time" between when someone works for a lobbying firm and when they go to work for a campaign. If it cuts down in the confusion, I'm all for it! Similarly, for the 527 groups, - it's about _when_ & _how_ they're using their influence to pull for particular candidates when they're supposed to be _independent_ issue-based organizations.
I was not convinced by Edwards even last time when he was a vice president nominee.
First of all, he sounded and looked like s salesman. I don't know it is because he was a trial lawyer or anything else, he didn't appear to me that he was sincere but said things needed to be said to win the votes.
Secondly, during the 2004 Democratic Convention, he had a prime spot as a vice president nominee to show he deserved my support, he was not able to achieve that.
I think we all are jaded enough to know that we have enough articulate and eloquent politicians who know how to give lip service, but have no will, no integrity and no leadership qualities to get things done.
Obama 2008
Obama better start looking at the man in mirror, I think it's him. He's a lier, and sleeps with corporate bigwigs who are using him as strawman, so the republicans win the election.
How anyone can support John Edwards for PRESIDENT is beyond me.
He was on the Senate subcommittee for intelligence. He was entrusted to lead the Dem senators in the area of intelligence. HE PROMOTED INVADING IRAQ AND ALL THAT SENSELESS DEATH WITHOUT EVER BOTHERING TO READ A MERE 92 PAGES OF INTELLIGENCE THAT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM.
No matter what he says, he is, by this alone, unfit for command. No matter what, he was negligent and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "I'm sorry" just doesn't cut it for that level of negligence.
There are many other reasons not to trust John Edwards with more than lining his own pockets, but the war disaster is more than enough to disqualify him.
Honestly, as an American who has lived mostly in other countries, I must conclude that this is the stupidest country in the free world.
Loading comments…
Posted December 30, 2007 | 02:10 AM (EST)