Exposing the lack of compassion by conservatives and
debunking right wing hypocrisy at every opportunity.
I'd suggest everyone read Marc Ambinder's piece about Why Did Edwards Do This, Pros and Cons.
Also, MarKOS looked at this from a couple angles, thinking it was stupid at first, but coming around after studying it for a bit. He's nervous for our boy, but thinking it through.
MyDD's Jonathan Singer has his own thoughts.
But mostly, you should read the following:
==================================================
To: Staff & Supporters
From: David Bonior
Date: September 28, 2007
Re: Public Financing
Yesterday, Sen. Edwards announced his decision to seek public financing for the primary election. John himself thought long and hard about this decision and made it with the firmest of convictions. He believes this is the right thing to do – not only for this campaign, but for the American political process. The leadership of this campaign shares his convictions and endorses his decision.
I want to assure you that we are doing this from a position of strength. I thought it would be useful to cut through all the media speculation and outline as clearly and concisely as possible exactly why we made this decision and why we believe it is a smart move strategically for this campaign.
Why did we do this?
Quite simply, we did it because it is the right thing to do.
As you have heard John say many times over the years, elections should be about ideas – not money. And the focus on money in this election is frankly obscene. Now, more than ever, candidates for president should be judged on their vision, character and personal integrity – not how much money they can throw at voters in the form of advertising and fancy Washington consultants. And, in one of the most important elections in our lifetime, candidates for president should be spending these last few months leading up to the primary election focused on meeting with voters and discussing their ideas and their vision to change America – not caught up in a fundraising contest.
The American people agree – and they want things to change. They want a president who is accountable to them, not to big corporate interests and Washington lobbyists.
Why are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not doing this?
It’s a good question, and one that the American people deserve to have answered. John believes Senators Clinton and Obama, who often talk about their support for public financing, should join him and prove that they mean what they say.
When John challenged Senator Clinton to join him in ending the practice of candidates accepting money from Washington lobbyists, she said that wasn’t the answer – she said the answer was public financing. And just last week, Senator Clinton said that she believes public financing is the way to fix the broken system of corruption and buying influence in Washington and should be the law of the land. Well, we already have a public financing system for presidential campaigns. With this action, John is putting his money where his mouth is. The question is: When are the other candidates going to do the same?
Why now?
It became clear if we didn’t lead the way by example, no one else would. There is too much at stake in this election for the status quo to prevail.
Candidates can speak to the virtues of public financing – in theory – until they are blue in the face. But until someone is willing to step up and lead the way toward changing the way the system works, you can rest assured that things will remain the same.
John has never taken a dime of campaign money from PACs or Washington lobbyists – in this campaign or in any other campaign. This gives him unmatched credibility in calling on all Democratic presidential candidates and the Party itself to do the same. He supports public financing of campaigns as a necessary step to reduce the influence of money in policy making, so participating in the public financing system is simply the right thing to do.
What does it all mean?
Understand this: This in no way handicaps us in the early primary states, and it does not put us at a disadvantage going into the general election. If anything, this decision will help us win the nomination in two ways: our strength with the grassroots means we will get a boost not available to candidates who depend on large contributions; and we will be running the campaign in a way that reinforces John’s central campaign message.
Under the public financing system for presidential primaries, once a candidate demonstrates broad-based public support by raising $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least 20 states, the government will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions to that candidate. In return, the candidate agrees to limit campaign spending for all primary elections, limit campaign spending in each state and limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.
The system of public financing was put in place after Watergate as a way to take power away from the big money players and give it back to candidates who have strength in grassroots. That’s what John’s campaign is all about. We have raised millions of dollars – more than any other Democratic campaign at this point in any previous election. As I said, we have raised this record amount without taking any money from PACs or Washington lobbyists. Just as important, 90 percent of our contributions have come from donors giving $100 or less. This is the type of real grassroots strength the public financing system was meant to encourage and reward. By focusing on small contributions and the grassroots campaigning, the boost we will get from being able to receive federal matching funds puts us in a better financial position for the nomination campaign.
Does this change our strategy?
No. We are on track and moving forward with our four-state strategy, focused on winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. We’ve said all along that we needed to raise $40 million before Iowa. With public matching funds we are very likely to exceed that goal.
But the key thing to remember is no candidate can buy votes in these states. You have to earn them with bold vision and real ideas. Substance counts a lot more than money in the places where voters can look you in the eye, judge you face to face, and question you in detail about your plans for the country. And when it comes to substance, there’s no contest. John has led this race on ideas – from universal health care, to the war in Iraq, to education, global warming and helping American workers. With this decision, he extends his leadership into the critical area of restoring the essence of our democratic government.
John’s leadership on issues is precisely why our momentum continues to grow in the states where he has been campaigning. And this growing momentum will carry us through to the general election.
What about the state spending limits?
As a campaign that has always had a plan to win with less money than its rival campaigns, we were already working within a budget that makes it possible to achieve our goals and easily stay within the spending limits. We have studied the numbers extensively, and we are nowhere near exceeding these limits. The FEC rules are much more generous than many seem to understand. For example, staff salaries and staff travel do not count against the state limits – which is perfect for a grassroots campaign. Half of all expenditures in a state don’t count against the state limit because they are treated as exempt fundraising costs. And even the total cost of television and radio advertising does not count against the limits for individual states. In short, the spending limits are actually quite manageable, if you’re smart about how you spend the money you are allowed to spend.
What happens between February 5th and the convention?
Rest assured, we are prepared for this campaign to go the distance. We have a comprehensive campaign spending plan is smart and targeted and based on a strategy to ensure that we not only have enough money on hand to clinch the nomination but also have a reserve to take the fight to the Republican nominee in the spring. To give you just one example, part of this campaign is about restoring the power of the Democratic Party. Since the party can spend money independently of its Presidential nominee, a stronger Democratic Party will be in a position to meet the challenge of waging an effective campaign on behalf of John Edwards and every other Democratic candidate.
What happens in the general election?
Make no mistake – we are taking a principled stand on this issue. John Edwards believes the best thing and the right thing would be to operate the campaign under the public financing rules for the entire presidential campaign. But he also understands that almost none of the Republican candidates share this commitment. Accordingly, we will continue to raise money for the general election so we will be ready to compete against the Republican nominee.
Once we win the nomination, John will challenge the Republican nominee to join him in accepting public financing. Quite frankly, it’s a fight we’d welcome. If they refuse, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it and make the decision at that time about whether to accept public financing. But you can be sure that we will run a campaign that is aggressive, adequately funded, and successful.
I look forward to that day. And I know that this decision is the right way to get us there.
9/28/07
| [+/-] |
Public Financing, The Right Thing To Do. |
5/24/07
| [+/-] |
Iraq Funding and the Ohio Delegation |
The Capitulation Bill is now history. Wisely, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama waited until their votes were not needed, and voted against it. But what about your congress critter.
I was glad to see my Congresswoman, Marcy Kaptur (D - 09) join Dennis Kucinich (D - 10) in refusing to renew Bush's blank check for his war without end. Nor was it a suprise to see Betty Sutton (D - 13) stay true to her principles after authoring a bill which would have begun withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within 90 days, with all of them gone within six months.
Tim Ryan (D - 17) is now officially forgiven (at least as far as I'm concerned) for Pork Chop-Gate because he refused to endorse the Iraq madness any longer.
However, Charles Wilson (D - 06) joins Zack Space (D - 18) on my list (the bad one) for cow-towing to the pressure of being a Democrat in a red district. Zack had already made my list for joining with Mean Jean Schmidt (R - 02) in backing the plan to recycle nuclear waste in Pinkton.
Zack, Charlie, a lot of real Democrats across Ohio fought for you guys. You got some serious problems if you think that catering to the conservatives will help you keep your seats. Get a clue, they hate you anyway. Now you pissed off the rest of us.
Good Luck in '08. You're on your own, at least for now.
Two notes of interest. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D - 11) did not vote. (Okay, not so interesting.) What was priceless was watching our own Minority Leader, John Boehner (R - 08) break down and cry like a little Georgie Voinovich right there on the House floor.
Pathetic.
If you'd like to bust the chops of your Congress Critter, look under the flap.
Oh, and one more thing....
Screw You Sherrod Brown. Paul Hackett wouldn't have betrayed us like this.
5/23/07
| [+/-] |
Maybe It Won't Pass... |
In a time when our President is identified merely by one initial, "W," and the spine of the congressional Democratic leadership cannot be identified at all, I yearn for the days when 3-initial Democrats, FDR, JFK, even LBJ and the promise of RFK were something quite different than the breed in attendance today.
Democrats with Balls.
I, like so many on the left -- some far left, others only moderately so -- and even those wandering in the middle cannot express their reaction to the "Capitulation Bill" without using the word, "disappointment." Even that word hardly seems to capture the proper emotion.
I've seen weak displays of rhetorical tricks masking the inability to follow one's convictions before; swallowing principles to pursue the practical, pragmatic politics of the day. But what we witnessed yesterday with the cave-in by the Democratic leadership giving Bush yet another blank check for his Iraq war was nothing short of pathetic.
The most egregious example came from Speaker Pelosi herself, indicating that she probably would not vote for a bill she is actively helping to get to the floor. Could there be a more cravenly cowardly stance? Explain how this is not the height of hypocricy.
The oft quoted maxim by Margaret Mead advising us never to underestimate the power of a small group of dedicated people's ability to change the world because that's the only thing that ever has, neglects to consider the sheer stupidity of those people when they've been in elected office too long.
The only thing that gives me some solace is that the candidate I've been supporting for President came out on the right side of this issue, and so many others in the way he urges us to look at our foreign policy and reject the GOP framing.
The only way to beat them is to stand our ground and not give an inch. That's what John Edwards did today.John Edwards' principled stand remains strong and righteous. I've no doubt that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama face a difficult choice -- one far harder than voting for cloture on the Feingold defunding bill when they knew it would likely fail.
Today, he went to the heart of America's foreign policy establishment and called out the Bush crowd for their misuse of patriotism. He had the guts to say what all of us know—that the Bush Terror Doctrine has failed our troops and failed America by straining our military to the breaking point and sowing chaos around the world.
John Edwards offered a clear plan to rebuild our forces and cure the damage inflicted on our military by Bush's policies. He offered a vision of an America where moral leadership is once again the rule, and where we are stronger and more secure because of it.
Their choice, however, should not be that difficult -- if they really meant they way they voted on Feingold-Reid. We shall indeed see if they will put their money (rather, our money) where their mouths are. So far, their silence is deafening, and as you know, "silence is betrayal."
UPDATE: Chris Dodd is going to vote no on the Capitulation Bill, putting more pressure on Obama and Clinton -- and giving hope to those of us who still hold out hope...and want action.
UPDATE II: Kerry says NO too.
"An Iraq Bill Without a Deadline is Meaningless"
"We support the troops by getting the policy right and this bill allows the President to keep getting the policy wrong. We need a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, not watered down benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President. We support the troops by funding the right mission, not with a White House that opposes a pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform," Kerry said. "The original Senate legislation offered a roadmap to change course in Iraq. This new version enables the Administration and Iraqi politicians to deliver more of the same. I am determined to continue pressing this issue until President Bush changes course. We owe our troops nothing less than a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice."Call, make some noise. Be heard. Don't let this one go down without a fight.
5/18/07
| [+/-] |
Send It Back |
For reasons I neither appreciate, approve of, nor care to understand, impeachment is still off the table.
(Okay, it's a numbers thing, and we lose, I know.)
So, what do you do when Bush, Inc. insists on their war in perpetuity, and laughs at the Democrats' pitiful effort to impose benchmarks he can and will ignore, and timetables we know he will never honor.
Atrios says send the little punk in the Oval Office the exact same funding bill he vetoed the last time, again and again. If he want's to defund the troops, so be it.
So does MarKOS.
Joe Biden approved of the idea last week.
How about you? Do you you agree with this statement?
“The American people gave Congress a mission to end the war - not a mission to accept meaningless benchmarks or endless temporary extensions. There is only one way to stop the president - Congress should use its funding authority to end the war. Congress passed a plan to support our troops and bring them home, and they should do it again. And if the president vetoes it - if he vetoes any bill that supports our troops but sets conditions - then he alone is standing in the way of what our troops need.”Glad these guys climbed aboard the "screw him" bandwagon. Edwards read the tea leaves and has been saying this for over a month now.
-- John Edwards
"I have urged Congress to stand up to the President's veto threat, rather than back down in a false game of chicken. If he does veto funding for our troops, Congress should send the same bill right back to him. And they should do this again and again, until the President finally understands that he cannot reject the will of the overwhelming majority American people.That was back on April 11th, just two days before he called for Wolfowitz's resignation from the world bank.
His reaction yesterday to the news that Wolfi finally was out?
"It's about time.Isn't is about time you stopped looking for what's wrong with this candidate or than one, and helped elect the one person who's consistently ahead of the curve?
4/15/07
| [+/-] |
Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest ... |
Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
WARNING: If you cannot take a critical view of Senator Obama, you'd best move along.
The Washington Post's story today, Obama Taps Two Worlds To Fill 2008 War Chest paints a picture of politics-as-usual from a politician holding himself out to be something quite the opposite.
The campaign received $50,566 from 49 lobbyists, but aides flagged the checks during initial screening and said they will return the money. Still, for hosting events and otherwise raising money, the Obama fundraising team is relying on partners in lobbying firms who are not registered for specific clients, former lobbyists who recently dropped clients and spouses of lobbyists. The strategy allows Obama’s team to reach the wealthy clients of lobbying firms while technically complying with his pledge.This isn't the first time I've come across a story that tells us that Obama is doing a reach around to abide by his stated policy to refuse any more of the PAC or lobbyist money he collected for his senate runs, yet finding a way to access the donations of the wealthy, and give them access too. It seems that actively soliciting the spouses of lobbyists fits within his rules.
Howard Mortman makes a good point. "I guess if you make up your own rules you can also make up your ways around them."
There is an argument to be made that he is simply a brilliantly appealing politician who is crossing the great divide between the Washington elite and the common folk, between the haves and the nots.
As the first-quarter finance report his campaign will file today is expected to document, Obama has managed to successfully bridge two very different political worlds. Along with thousands of first-time donors who sent $50 or $100 from their home computers, the report is to list scores of longtime political insiders who funneled stacks of $2,300 checks to Obama's accounts.But something of this stinks. I'm reminded of a chief executive who signs a piece of legislation with great fanfair, but once behind closed doors, files a signing statement full of enough loopholes to make the new law meaningless.
Look, I don't care who Obama gets his money from as long as he is a man of integrity. I never assaulted Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or even Al Gore for tapping those sources of funds. But when a candidate makes a show of refunding fifty grand in donations, as if it were somehow dirty money, I'd like to think that I wasn't watching some slick magician with suspiciously bulging sleeves. But low and behold, we find out that that he "shared secret plans for a series of soon-to-be-released policy statements" with these elite mogels, all of whom expected to bundle upwards of a quarter of a million dollars each, and are urged to call the Senator up personally to discuss his talking points.
Among those big time money men (and presumably, women) who now have Obama's private cell phone number on speed dial are a Hyatt hotel heiress, a New York hedge fund manager, a Hollywood movie mogul and a Chicago billionaire. Now it doesn't matter that Obama or any candidate receives a check from someone who happens to be wealthy. Much more interesting, and possibly concerning, is which industries and ideologies are represented by that money.
Some are Clinton family's former loyalists, including James Rubin, son of Clinton's former treasury secretary, Robert, who framed Republican talking points around Democratic economic policy. That triangulation is what gave us "solutions" like "welfare reform," "tax relief," and "free trade." In fact, Bob Rubin's Hamilton Group has completely infiltrated both Hillary and Barack's camps. As Sirota said, "What a shock," that the owners of one of the world's largest military contractors, General Dynamics, are among Obama's biggest doners when you hear nothing from him about reducing our military budget and hedging on our involvement in Iraq.
If you were around in 1968, anytime a presidential candidate talks about secret plans while the country is in the middle of an unpopular war, red lights start flashing in your brain. Matt Stoller's discussion with Matt Yglasias touches on the idea that it's about time that cadidates, at least ones deserving of our support, be honest with us. Say what you mean and do what you say, period. For years they've been selling us the idea that good things will trickle down from these millionaires, but in reality, they're just peeing on our leg.
Our political discourse is pretty broken, and words choice and meaning can only return if we demand our leaders be straight with us.Will the impressive crowds attending Obama's rallies notice that this rock star staking out the anti-Hillary mantle is as well supported by the interconnected beltway establishment as Mrs. Clinton? Obama gets the big money from the big money folks because he seems like he can appeal to the unwashed masses, us little folks in the grass/net-roots. He appeals to us because we don't see him as someone who is an establishment suck-up.
Turns out, we may have been had.
I'll give Obama this. His tactics are non-divisive. He doesn't seem to pit One America against the other, or pick sides between the two. It also explains his frustrating ability to talk about the issues that matter most to us, and to the prosperity of the nation as a whole -- while remaining aloof on details. And it's not even the usual details, like: "How are you going to pay for this?" The questions are, "What are you going to do about this."
People go to rock concerts because they like the music. They may admire Pearl Jam for bypassing the corporate controlled media, or Metallica for their prinicpled stands even though their fight against Napster stopped much of the freebees we were all enjoying. But if the music is just more elevator muzack, the crowds won't be there. Trust me, if the Who or Rolling Stones were sponsored by Halliburton, they'd still fill up stadiums.
But once the show is over, you have a different kind of choice than you do after attending a political rally. Voting for a candidate is not the same as buying their CD. Reading more about them, examining their position on the issues, listening to the debates and their speeches -- that's more like buying their music so you can listen to them again and again. Voting for them is an explicit endorsement of their agenda, and their sponsors.
Look at it this way. If your kid bought a Brittany Spears CD a few years back, that didn't mean they had to change from Coke to Pepsi because she did commercials for them.
So just who is Obama going to represent? To whom will he be beholden? It would appear that he has equal financial support from the small doner internet base as he does from traditional fundraisers, "some of the biggest names in Democratic politics." So who will he eventually sell out? Will he follow the agenda of the fat cats who've already maxed out their donation allotment, and probably hedged their bets by giving to Hillary too -- or us, the people who fill those crowds and knock on doors and send twenty bucks when we can?
Sooner or later I would think he's going to have to make a choice. I hope he does do before he doesn't need us any longer. He's already fooled a lot of folks into thinking that he's a populist of some sort by forswearing lobbyist money, yet finding a way into the pockets of those lobbyist's clients, and their spouses.
How does that saying go? Fool me once......
(Updated and Cross-Posted)
4/1/07
| [+/-] |
Hitting At Obama's Strengths |
Karl Rove would be proud. Barack Obama's stance on the war was supposedly unassailable, but is now up for debate. Legislatively, ethics reform is his strong suit, yet it too has come under fire. Wishful thinking and good intentions won't change the fact that sometimes failure to address the issues with substantive plans means ... well ... you lack substance.
That's just bad politics.
The reality is that you can be both. You can be "substantive" in the wonkish way that provides white-papers and detailed policy proposals, and still be that transformational leader the progressive blogosphere is looking for. Contrary to what Glenn Greenwald says, Obama is not the only candidate who speaks of true transformational change -- but there is only one candidate who speaks that way and also tells us how it can be done. The sooner our Deaniac Blogfathers realize John Edwards meets their litmus tests, but Senator Obama falls short, the better they'll sleep at night.
I love you guys, you hold outs for a dream candidate, hoping against hope that Gore or Clark will ride to the rescue, or that Obama will eventually find the words to match his voice. I've been that guy, voting for John Anderson in my first presidential election, crushed by Gary Hart's "monkey business." I don't want to see you disappointed, especially when there's already someone out there who fits the bill and is fighting the battle of his, and his wife's life -- for all of us.
The dimmer switch on Barack Obama's shining star is short circuiting across Liberal Blogtopia. (Yes, yes, Skippy, we know.) Call me a concern troll if you must, but constructive criticism never hurt anyone, and Obama needs to start hitting back, hard, with real proposals and facts to counter the myths, or he's in for a very long downward spiral which will bring a lot of good people down with him. That could only foreshadow those dreaded words, "Democratic Presidential Nominee, Hillary Clinton."
The implosion of John Kerry's chances were directly connected to his failure to effectively meet attacks and rumors head-on. The nastiest smear against Obama to date, when Fox News tried to say Obama was the product of some islamist madrassa, was not countered by his campaign, but rather by CNN. The Illinois Senator needs to be more pro-active, more aggressive, and his proposals more professional and comprehensive.
His passive, nice-guy act isn't working. He can shake things up quite a bit if he wins, but he's got to get in the game first. He keeps this up, he'll be torn to shreds one paper-cut at a time.
When I saw him sit down with CNN's Wolf Blitzer as the words "On The Issues" scrolled across the screen, I sat bolt upright in my chair. Unfortunately, there was only one issue discussed, Iraq, which simply has been done to death (and won him few new recruits). Anyone interested enough in politics to be reading this knows where every candidate stands on the war, and knows there's not a whole lot that can be done to stop the neocon nightmare.
Unless about half the Senate Republicans have an epiphany which signals Bush's impeachment is something they might not dismiss out of hand -- the Democrats only real options are either to shut down all war funding (which would be a true gift to the President -- getting him out of the mess while blaming others for the consequences), or to put conditions on the funding.
Holding fast to timetables, and winning the ensuing argument with the public is the best weapon the Democrats in Congress have to force Bush's hand while still surviving the aftermath. By taking the position that Bush will "play chicken" with the troops lives and pronouncing that the Democrats will give the administration the "clean bill" they want, Obama gives away any tactical advantage we have against an out-of-control White House. Obama fails to even test the bully whose use of the "bully-pulpit" is inept on his best days. Conditions on the funding is the only way to avoid "owning" the war, and ending it with the least political fallout.
Bush has never been seriously challenged since they stopped counting ballots in Ohio. If ever there was an issue worthy of standing up and being counted, it's the war. A true leader isn't passive, whether he wants to be a leader in Congress or of the free world.
I'm confident however, despite his curiously less than spectacular anti-war tactics, that Obama will bring the war to a close should he win the presidency. Likewise he'll try to get more if not all Americans some kind of medical coverage. I have no idea where Obama really stands on Universal Health Care, except in some vague notion that he's for it, what ever form "it" takes and how we get there. Ditto Education, the Environment, Energy, Poverty, etc., but certainly he'll sign off on a Democratic Party Platform.
Of course, so will any nominee.
It's one thing when the occasional blogger infers that Senator Obama is all flash and no bang. It's even expected that human garbage like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris will just outright lie about his record.
You've got a problem, however, when a leading progressive voice like Barack Obama is diss'd by Mother Jones of all publications. Picking up on a backhanded swipe by Slate's John Dickerson about a possible candidacy by actor/Senator, Fred Thompson; Mother Jones noted that "like with Obama, there are questions about whether Thompson has the substance to back up all his style."
Worse, in terms of how this is perceived by the blogosphere, is when Jermome Armstrong questions whether Barack's style itself is all that. Certainly this "emboldened" KOS to declare Obama surrendered to Bush -- all but declaring the equivalent of cyber war on Obama supporters (and visa-versa).
Come ON! Barack! Get it together man! Even Chris Dodd is taking pot-shots at you!
There are over two-thirds of Democrats out there who, right now, have no intention of voting for Obama, but will have to pull together if somehow he gets the nomination. Give us something to work with, dude. Give us some fire. Show us you got some fight in you -- and the ammo to back it up.
As an Edwards supporter, I'm more than receptive to the liberal ideals I think ... maybe ... Obama hopefully represents. I'm a natural fit for him, demographically, since I'm a white-collar male with a post-graduate degree. His trouble seems to be with women and blue-collar voters. But, to resurrect Walter Mondale's old slogan: Mr. Obama, where's the beef? (Okay, maybe not the best slogan ever.)
The most troubling thing I've seen is not the battle over the supplemental war funding, but The Hill's jab at Obama on his lobby reform record. You can criticize him for being vague on Health Care, (he is) or that he's not making the environment or poverty as big a priority as Edwards, or that like Hillary, he's not so much against a "residual force" (permanent bases?) remaining in Iraq after Bush leaves office. But I really thought he "owned" ethics.
Obama has been a leader in trying to change the Senate's relationship with the lobbyists who have owned Washington for so long. You know you're on the side of the angels when you team up with Russ Feingold on ethics reform. When you read Obama's website, this stands out as some of his best accomplishments to date.
Yet I've seen nothing to indicate The Hill article is an obvious hit job using a tactic perfected by Karl Rove -- exposing the weakness of an opponent's perceived strength. To complete the tactic, the bona fides of the attacker are usually highlighted to complete the picture. But no one has stepped up so far to show their ethical purity (thus taking advantage of the smear), nor has Obama smacked down the idea that his network of lobbyists is "as large as the Clinton list." Whoever put this out there doesn't have the Rove thing down yet, but Obama certainly has not risen to the occasion either.
Desiring a new kind of politics does not mean you ignore the old tactics that can work against you -- unless the reality is that you. got. nuthin'.
I really don't want to think that Obama is a "cynical poseur." I'm hoping The Hill article explaining how Obama is letting lobbyist money and influence through the back door while locking the front gate is just plain wrong, a lie, something Bill O'Reilly cooked up. I want very much to believe the real reason Obama's positions on so many important issues avoid specifics is because it's early and he simply hasn't had the time to do his homework because he's been busy doing his job as a Senator. -- not that he's holding out for the highest bidder.
Unfortunately, I haven't heard much from Camp Obama to disabuse anyone from this notion.
Lobby and ethics reform, plus being against the war from day one aren't Senator Obama's only true strengths. His real power is in his "aura" that he IS special, something different, unspoiled, that he has intangible quality that sparks inspiration. However, if he thinks that his halo doesn't fade if it's perfectly acceptable to hold himself out as a champion of cleaning up government by refusing PAC and Lobbyist money -- but hypocritically hits up the lobbyists' wives for cash on the sly -- then he's just another politician with his hand out.
Nothing to see here, nothing special at all.
Subscribe via Email
