Many supporters of Barack Obama believe that he will usher in a new era of change. They believe that he can unite the country, pull in independents and moderate Republicans, and "take this country forward." Lately, Obama's been ramping up his anti-"special interests" rhetoric, and they believe that too. But I think any serious, objective Democrat needs to ask a couple of hard questions.
If Obama really is this candidate of change, why doesn't he scare the hell out of the entrenched interests who benefit so much from the status quo?
And why the hell are they supporting his campaign? That's right. Supporting his campaign.
This is why: Barack Obama is their secret weapon. At least they seem to think so.
Now I know this is an inflammatory statement. But before you write this off as a candidate hitpiece, please keep in mind that, though I have tacked to Edwards, Obama is my strong second choice. I very much want to believe in his candidacy, partly because he may win, but also because he is often inspiring. But these are legitimate questions in light of strong evidence. And I believe they deserve objective, reality-based consideration, no matter where they lead.
I should also point out that Obama may not be in on it, or even know about it, although I find that unlikely. But Obama's got some corporate lobbyists so excited about his campaign that they're willing to support him and do so in ways that conceal that support. What does K Street know that the American people, and all those young people who flock to his rallies, don't?
I think this is a relevant question.
The signs were there in early 2007 and before. As The Hill pointed out in March:
Lobbyists tend to be cautious creatures. Evidence that they are flocking to Obama’s camp shows that his campaign has gained substantial momentum among the politically sophisticated.
Some of Obama’s K Street boosters keep their support a secret to uphold Obama’s image as a Washington outsider untainted by D.C.’s influence business.
So lobbyists have been keeping their support secret to preserve Obama's image as an outsider. I'm sorry, but that should raise a flag to even the most ardent Obama supporter. As should this:
To help raise lobbyists money without it getting caught, one of Obama's lobbyist fundraisers even tried to enlist other lobbyists wives to raise the money:
One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama’s campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist’s wife would be interested in making a political contribution.
"I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you’re a lobbyist and we don’t want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network."
Dutta declined to discuss his work.
How devoted of an Obama supporter must one be to not find this disturbing?
I don't want to post too much of The Hill's article, but here's the top:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is benefiting from the support of well-connected Washington lobbyists even though he has prohibited his campaign from accepting contributions from them and political action committees (PACs).
While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help.
Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: "I would imagine that it’s as large as the Clinton list," in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.
He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give "policy" and "campaign support." Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.
So this establishes that there's a K Street operation to support Obama without letting it get around to much, all in the name of protecting Obama's image as a candidate who doesn't take money from lobbyists. But is there any evidence that Obama is as friendly to lobbyists as they are to him? Harper's Magazine's Ken Silverstein, a genuine progressive journalist and muckraker, establishes as much in his Nov. 2006 article, Barack Obama Inc. - The birth of a Washington machine:
Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Silverstein clearly establishes that as soon as Obama came to town, he surrounded himself with Beltway insiders, big money lobbyists, and the usual riffraff that infests the halls of Congress.
He set up his own lobbyists funded PAC, Hopefund, and began doling out cash to other Democrats to raise his own stature and make loyal allies. Loyal allies like Joe Leiberman, who Obama's PAC gave $4,200.
In several primaries, Obama’s PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable "moderates"—even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers. Most conspicuously, Obama backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, his Democratic primary opponent in Connecticut, endorsing him publicly in March and contributing $4,200 to his campaign. The Hopefund also gave $10,000 to Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot in the National Guard who lost both legs in Iraq and who is running for the seat of retiring G.O.P. Congressman Henry Hyde in Chicago’s western suburbs. Despite her support from the party establishment, an enormous fund-raising advantage, and sympathy she had due to her war record, Duckworth won the primary by just 1,100 votes over a vocal war opponent named Christine Cegelis. (When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, "There is good and bad in everything.")
Again, I like Obama. And I don't mean this to be a hitpiece. But any reality-based assessment of Obama's candidacy must include this information. People have a right to know that lobbyists are keeping thier support secret to protect his image.
They have a right to know that Obama's new "tone" is nothing but good old fashioned triangulation - balancing the interests of his constituents with those of his corporate allies.
Nothing about this is a huge indictment of Obama. More, it is simply the story of another Washington politician maneuvering through the game of Beltway, establishment politics and doing so adeptly. Mr. Obama is indeed a smooth operator.
But this information is in stark contrast to his recent campaign rhetoric, especially as he attempt to shave off John Edwards' anti-corruption vote. And the result is a lot of people who believe they are getting one thing, when in fact, what they are getting is a lot more business-as-usual then they know or care to admit.
Another result is that good, genuine progressives are inadvertently helping Senator Clinton by splitting the anti-establishment vote by supporting an candidate who is very much in the throws of the Beltway establishment machine.
As much as I hate to say it, and believe me, I do because it looks like Obama might actually win, the Obama campaign is starting to look a lot more like other campaigns that are presented as grass roots, but are in fact largely the product of a stealth operation run by corporate interests. And we all know what that's called: Astroturf.
I do not believe Obama is in on some big scheme to deceive voters so he can secretly work for the big money interests in Washington. But no truly, reality-based progressive can say that this information is not relevant and disturbing. At the very least, it demands more investigation by honest people trying to decide who they think is the bast Democratic candidate for change.