No, no he isn't.
And neither is Hillary Clinton. Much has been made in the past few days of Clinton's willingness to accept Lobbyist money, and her belief that they are not a corrupting influence on her. And of course, there are many lobbying groups (Labor, Environmental, Equal Rights, etc.) that Democrats love. Clinton's position earned challenges from John Edwards and Barack Obama, as well as boos from the YearlyKos Krowd.
But now we have evidence that Barack Obama has taken lobbyist money. From the AP, "Obama has taken money from lobbyists registered in his home state of Illinois, however, some of whom have federal interests." http://www.wkrn.com/...
So, Obama admits to taking money from state lobbyists with federal interests. I don't quite see a huge difference between that and federal lobbyists with federal interests.
Moreover, Obama has earned some $1.4 million "this year from law and consultancy firms that have partners who are registered to lobby, a Times analysis of Obama's fundraising shows. He has received hundreds of thousands more from corporate executives while turning down money from their lobbyists." He has also "used state lobbyists, former lobbyists, spouses of lobbyists and partners in lobbying firms who are not registered for specific clients to reach the rich, the Washington Post reported in April." Between 2001-2006, Obama earned some 8% of his fundraising through PACs.
http://mydd.com/...
In contrast, Clinton has raised only around $400,000 from lobbyists.
I don't blame Obama for taking this money. I don't think it makes him the least bit corrupt. I don't think it means he won't work against a bad system once he is elected President. But I do think it makes him a hypocrite. He attacks Clinton for raising money directly from lobbyists, and yet raises far more indirectly from them. If lobbyists are bad Senator, why do you raise so much from them and their associates? And if they aren't that bad, why go through pains to raise the money surreptisiously?