Barack Obama calls everyone else too cozy with Washington insiders. He doesn't take money from corporate political action committees or Washington lobbyists, Obama has repeated ad nauseum. Of course, it depends on what the meaning of "take money from corporate political action committees or Washington lobbyists" is.
It is true that Obama accepts no contributions from "Washington lobbyists".
But, Obama does take money from their spouses and holds fundraisers in their offices, to which the lobbyists' clients are invited. (What's the source of cash from a lobbyist's spouse who works in the home, has no individual income, and has no individually held income generating assets? Isn't the use of ex-Senator Daschle's lobbyist wife's office for a fundraiser an in-kind contribution? Forget about a mahogany, marble and glass lobbyist's office - - an institutional green and linoleum rec center meeting room in DC's roughest neighborhood would cost you at least $350 for a private party.)
And, yes, Obama doesn't take PAC money or money from lobbyists representing big oil and drug companies.
But, Obama's taken humongous sums from those companies' executives. And, two oil company executives raised (i.e., bundled, in plain English) $50,000 each for the Obama campaign.
He may claim to be a political virgin, but Obama is in bed with nine former lobbyists, who serve as top campaign staffers. And, some of Obama's informal advisers are current lobbyists.
http://www.usatoday.com/...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/...
(And, yes, Clinton's no better - - but she doesn't lie about her lobbyist ties. Indeed, Clinton honestly confronted the issue at one of the earlier debates (in response to a query from John Edwards). Remember, "lobbyist" includes the paid representatives of the AFL-CIO, NOW, NEA and Greenpeace.)
Add these facts to Obama's backing away from earlier indications that he would accept public financing in the general election, and you have the basis for the hard questions at the next debate.
Now, I'm sure the usual cast of sophomores (who should be starting to study for finals - - me and your mom are not paying for you to play on the computer all day!) and campaign-paid bloggers will respond with the usual ad hominems, spam and insults. As you did to my Ayers diary. And, my Farrakhan diary. And, my Rev. Wright diary. But, I hope at least one Obama supporter has the good sense to figure out how to shoot down the message, not the messenger, 'cause stammering answers followed by post debate whining had Obama down in subsequent Gallups. (As annoyed as I'll be, if Obama's the nominee he'll get my time, effort and money. I don't want to have to back a fifth loser from the Kennedy machine - McGovern, Teddy, Dukakis, Kerry . . .)
BTW - If a certain highly excitable front pager wants to jump in to this discussion with his usual dose of ad hominems and foul language, I ask that s/he answer one simple question first - - have you received money from any presidential campaign? It is a legitimate question.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
PS - Gotta love Helen Thomas - - asking the tough questions for longer than most of us have been alive Or, is she only right when you agree with her?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...
http://newsbusters.org/...