Hmmm: Former Lobbyists are People Too

I have to say when I saw this headline from Political, I fully expected it to be a piece about the McCain campaign. You know, something where McCain tells the media that the current and former lobbyists working with his campaign are all “people too.” But it’s not about John McCain… No… It’s about the other candidate that doesn’t seem to want to release “a list of former lobbyists working for the campaign.” Watch:

Isn’t it a double standard to call out your opponents (on both sides of the aisle) for their relationships with lobbyists and then not give full disclosure on yours? No wonder some Democrats and Independents leaning Dems are having a hard time with supporting him.

If lobbyists are people too, then voters should have the right to know just who those people are and what they lobby for. Just a thought… as we near the end of the primaries. I mean after all, if we are talking about bringing real “change” to Washington, it starts with full disclosure from the harbinger of change. Don’t you think?

I’d certainly feel a lot better about urging my readers to support Obama if he’s the nominee, if he’d be a little more forthcoming sometimes.

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Hmmm: Former Lobbyists are People Too

  1. kcowley says:

    Pamela- Firstly I truly admire you for your continued efforts to remind us to unite as democrats. That being said, this is just one more example of Obama which adds to the reasons that I will not vote for him, not will I vote for McCain.

    It started with all his bunk about being anti-war and attacked Hillary for voting for the Use of Armed Forces Bill. In fact, he wasn’t put to the test in the Senate of voting for that resolution, as he admitted in his own book. He has since voted twice to fund it, and against Kerry’s Iraq withdrawal bill.

    Over the course of the winter he made a number of sexist and condescending statements.

    His role in blocking a revote in FLA and MI, which would have solved this current problem, was the final straw for me. His 48 State Union doesn’t fit well with his uniting rhetoric.

    I must add that the media has only helped him along. How else could it be that I run into people regularly that don’t know that he funded the war twice and blocked the revote in Fl and MI?

  2. kcowley says:

    Not only did his blocking the effort to revote infuriate me, but his willingness to seat the uncommitted votes, 45% of the delegates, in his name. No one knows the percentages of the uncommitted for him, as Edwards was still running, yet he would accept all.

    He has done little as a Senator so I am left to judge him by his actions, words and silences during the campagn. I don’t see him as a problem solver, one able to compromise, or particularly concerned about the Democratic Party. He isn’t about taking one for the team, he is about winning. For me, he does not exemplify presidential qualities, but I bet he plays a mean game of chess.

  3. coldH2Owi says:

    –he is about winning.

    & Sen. Clinton just wants what is best for the country, right? Blind, much?

  4. Darrell Prows says:

    It’s a safe bet that all three remaining candidates largely represent “more of the same”. When all is said and done, they’re all politicians. The Dems do offer distinct advantages over McCain, but not so much between the two of them.

  5. kcowley says:

    Hillary was willing to risk her 55% of MI to re-vote during the time that Obama still had momentum, Certainly a compromise on her part that could have lead to a loss of votes. What did Obama offer to rectify this dilemma? Accept nameless votes. Mighty big of him.

  6. gqmartinez says:

    True, but Obama has spent over a hundred million dollars on advertising saying he is anti-lobbyist. Several of his ads have been deliberate lies. There’s the ordinary sleaziness inherent in all politicians and then there is spending a hundred million dollars lying with impunity with the aiding and abetting by a press and so-called liberal bloggers determined to take down Hillary Clinton.

    Obama hasn’t had to be accountable for anything. His well financed lie/distortion machine gives me no confidence in him. None at all. That he is the most “liberal senator” because he missed the largest percentage of the contorversial votes tells me the same. Where does he really stand? I don’t vote based on hope or recycled unity messages that are almost indistinguishable from Bush 2000. Scaring me with McCain isn’t going to work either.

  7. gqmartinez

    While it may be true that Obama has spent “over a hundred million dollars on advertising” it was not all on advertisements saying he’s anti-lobbyist. Those ads were a fraction of the ads he is run.

    I’m not inclined to defend Obama, as a Clinton supporter, but I feel you are stretching it here.

    Likewise, Obama’s voting record is available from many sources online. That he is deemed as a “liberal senator” based on his voting record, is based on pre-campaign season years in the Senate, when short of 2 votes, he and Hillary Clinton have indentical “liberal” voting records. This is well documented and was even touted by HRC’s campaign months ago in discussions about his “anti-war” claims.

    Hillary Clinton has said repeatedly they are very similar in their stances on the issues – the big difference being their healthcare policies, which I have noted here in the past will morph at the convention and most likely take on aspects of both HRC’s plan and John Edwards.

    I realize that you and others feel strongly about HRC’s candidacy, so do I. However, in the event that Obama is the nominee, he will need us all to bite our tongues and step up to support him so we can win in November. HRC knows this. So do I.

  8. kcowley

    It’s called pragmatism and a strong desire to win in November.

    I can only stress also that a lot of what people are upset about Obama over is all part and parcel of politics – drawing a line to show the differences between candidates. Likewise, HRC has upset many Obama supporters.

    We can;t afford McCain come November. We just can’t.

  9. Pamela: I’ve not yet seen it done better. Thank you.

  10. Darrell

    All this fussing about who’s on first is making me ill. I just want a Dem in the White House – they can pull names from a hat at this point to pick one.