Obama acknowledges he is not for--contrary to what he has been saying--a ban on lobbyists in the WH

[wyldwolf]

White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists "won't work in my White House" after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions.


Obama, leading in this kickoff presidential vote state, has put federal lobbyists in his cross hairs as a centerpiece of his campaign.

Running against Washington is a major, populist campaign theme for Obama and rival former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who are locked in a contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). They have blistered Clinton for taking campaign donations from federal lobbyists; Edwards and Obama do not, although Obama did until he started running for president.

On a blitz through northeastern Iowa since Thursday, people continually asked Obama about how he could curb the power of lobbyists and special interests. His simple, compelling, but, it turns out, incomplete answer -- ban them from the White House -- earns him applause.

In Maquoketa on Thursday night Obama said: "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

But what Obama has actually proposed is more nuanced and complex and does provide a path for Washington lobbyists to be employed in an Obama White House.

After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech.

Lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House," he said during a town hall meeting in Waterloo, revising his stump line minutes after the news conference.

They "will not run my White House," he said in Charles City on Saturday night, hoarse from speaking so much during the day.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obama_acknowledge.html

[msongs]

1. he would have to keep oprah out of the white house otherwise. she IS a corporate lobbyist nt

[Cameron27]

2. lol

[izzybeans]

3. Umm. Ok.

[Dawgs]

4. DESPERATE!!!!

[wyldwolf]

5. wait for it... wait for it...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Ooops

It's nice that he says they won't run his White House. Last time I checked even Republicans claim that they won't let lobbyists "run" the White House. Now this is the type of Bold stand that we should expect from every single human being who ever declares for President on any Party Ticket, and I bet we can get it from any of them if we asked. But it's nicer when candidates offer to run their own White House without having to be badgered about it. For the record I will say that I believe this line a lot more coming from Obama than I would from a Republican like say, pretty much any of them running.

I bet his stump speech is a bigger crowd pleaser than this revised statement though.

[Egnever]

10. Tom I would expect better from you.

What Obama is actually proposing is a ban on any political appointee in an Obama administration from working on regulations or contracts "substantially related to their prior employer for two years," as well as a ban on an employer offering a "generous severance package" to induce a worker to take a job with a government agency that regulates his employer.

Obama also has plans to close the revolving doors, where people jump from government jobs to work for the industries they regulated.



Pretty good start if you ask me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I just posted below in a reply I could have given you

I said I bet it's actually a pretty good proposal among other things, and that this doesn't qualify as a real biggie. But I don't think it's a low blow to notice the difference between his applause line and what he is actually advocating either.

[Egnever]

13. Fair enough

I read your reply after imposted my reply to you.

I owe you an apology.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. No you don't, but thanks for offering.

Without my second post I did come off sounding a little too harsh.

[SaveElmer]

7. Gosh...shocking...

Almost as shocking as the automatic response from the Obamabots saying criticism of Obama is just "desperation"

:rofl:

[Egnever]

8. But what Obama has actually proposed is more nuanced and complex and does provide a path for Washing

What did he propose?


Or are we just circle jerking this supposed gotcha?

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I am predisposed to believe your assessment

It's probably a pretty good proposal overall. But, assuming this report is accurate, it is a relevent "gotcha". They are part of the election process, but some are just slips of the tongue. This is kind of the opposite is seems. Obama took credit in speeches for taking a fairly radical progressive reform stand that it turns out was, as you say, more nuanced and complex than his applause line. I agree it isn't a real biggie, but taking credit only when credit is due is a fair standard to measure folks against. We do it all the time and no one comes up perfect, but it still is a reasonable standard for discussion at least.

[Radical Activist]

22. It looks like a good set of reforms.

The linked blog post has a few details. This does fit the patterns of attacks against Obama that lack substance such as information about his actual positions or record.

[Imagevision]

31. Then there are those who oppose any candidate simply because their popular

but that's coo, what ever floats your boat?

[Egnever]

9. LOL oh I see its more bullshit

What Obama is actually proposing is a ban on any political appointee in an Obama administration from working on regulations or contracts "substantially related to their prior employer for two years," as well as a ban on an employer offering a "generous severance package" to induce a worker to take a job with a government agency that regulates his employer.

Obama also has plans to close the revolving doors, where people jump from government jobs to work for the industries they regulated.

Sounds like a pretty good ban on lobyists to me. Sure you can nitpick it and set up scenarios where a lobyist could get in. But for all intents and purposes its a ban on lobyists.

Whats your girl proposing wyldwolf other than laying out the red carpet?

[Egnever]

14. And yes DESPERATE!

[wyldwolf]

15. And Obama told you this on his psychic hotline?

[Egnever]

16. its in your article you just conveniently cut it out.

[wyldwolf]

23. I see the official Obamanation "ooops!" spin.

[Tellurian]

17. All I see are the words left unsaid..

"proposing is a ban on any political appointee in an Obama administration from working on regulations or contracts "substantially related to their prior employer for two years," as well as a ban on an employer offering a "generous severance package" to induce a worker to take a job with a government agency that regulates his employer."

adding to BO's statement: "except in the case where a former appointee's expertise may be crucial in the interests of National Security and the safety of the US"

which would simply be included in a signing statement leaving a legal "loophole" for Obama to be in compliance of the rule he just created restricting it..

I've read Bush's signing statements.. it's all BS slight of hand in an effort to legitimize Obama's "flip flop" on doing business with Lobbyists in "HIS" White House!

[Egnever]

18. color me shocked!

Tall me again what hill is going to do besides lay out the red carpet?

[Tellurian]

20. No, color me shocked!

why did I think you could stay on topic!

...wait for it!....wait for it!

:rofl:

[William769]

19. K&R!

So much for the candidate of change.

[DemKR]

21. Mr. "Audacity to Hope" stumbles?

lol...gimme gimme more

[ellisonz]

24. Desperate.

Obama is the best candidate on ethics.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

[Tellurian]

27. In his first two weeks as a US Senator..

He voted to confirm Condi Rice and to this day supports Joe Lieberman.

Might want to restate that to: Obama is the best candidate on selectively creating "opaque" ethics.

[ellisonz]

29. LOL.

It was an 85-15 vote with Hillary, Dodd, and Biden voting for confirmation. Now why do you think that is?

Dude, Obama turned on Lieberman on Oct. 26, 2006:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/

Might want to do your homework instead of parroting the other boo-birds.

[K Gardner]

30. No homework allowed. Talking points are talking points and facts shall never get in the way..

dontcha know?? :sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

34. Obama supported Lieberman when it was important not to..

"Rev. Sharpton told CBS News yesterday that he wanted Senator Obama, a Democrat of Illinois, to explain why he backed Senator Lieberman when the Connecticut lawmaker was locked in a tight race for the Democratic Party nomination for the Senate last year."

http://www.nysun.com/article/50358

"It was an 85-15 vote with Hillary, Dodd, and Biden voting for confirmation. Now why do you think that is?"

It's obvious Obama is part of the system he considers "broken". He didn't have the gonads to stand up against the status quo. Empty words and promises. Isn't that what we've been saying all along?

[ellisonz]

35. Maybe Obama just thought it was important to have semi-moderate voices in the Senate...

And it's obvious that you don't understand how a confirmation process really works...

[Tellurian]

36. Any poor excuse you can muster is better than none

:rofl:

[ellisonz]

37. You should ask Big Dog about that...

He's got lots of experience.

:P

[LittleBlue]

25. Can't ban associations or due influence

Any person can socialize or lobby. He is rejecting UNDUE influence.

[Caseman]

26. To all the Obama supporters, no offense...

...But this is exactly what I knew would happen and will continue to happen. Obama makes all of these great and inspirational promises of change and a "new Washington," but then defaults. What makes him so incorruptable to you guys? They said Robespierre was incorruptible. Okay, that's a stretch example, but, seriously, what makes this guy so great? Where do you base your trust in him? Because he voted against the Iraq war? Does that means he is instantly qualified to run for the presidency. I honestly have no single thread of comprehension of his success. Either I'm not getting the picture or you're not. I'm not a Clintonite attacker, but I'm a Biden supporter. And though Joe has been playing the nice guy, I have had enough with Obama being placed in front of him in credentials. Please, I am asking, begging for your reasonings WHY Obama DESERVES to lead our country now? Please, inform me.

[EffieBlack]

32. He's right - all lobbyists aren't bad and he shouldn't shut the door completely to them.

Lobbying has gotten a bad rap because of the money injected into the system by corporate lobbyists. But all lobbyists aren't bad.

Lobbyists don't only represent big money. For example, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, environmental groups, entities representing children, the disabled and the elderly lobby, too - the NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National Urban League, Children's Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Human Rights Campaign, National Organization of Women, NARAL, People for the American Way, etc. all have at least one registered lobbyist representing their interests exclusively. These people and organizations represent important interests who need to have their voices heard - we should WANT them to have access to the White House and would hate to see their ability to lobby on behalf of their constituencies thrown out the window in an attempt to make a point. You can bet that, if lobbyists were banned from access to the White House, the big corporate interests would still manage to get to whomever they want, while the non-profits representing regular people who have no other voice would be virtually silenced.

[ClarkUSA]

33. What BS! You conveniently left out the part which details Obama's very restrictive plan...

Obama's plan clearly and effectively screens out almost all relevant lobbyist influence in his White House.

What Obama is actually proposing is a ban on any political appointee in an Obama administration from working on regulations
or contracts "substantially related to their prior employer for two years," as well as a ban on an employer offering a "generous
severance package" to induce a worker to take a job with a government agency that regulates his employer.

Obama also has plans to close the revolving doors, where people jump from government jobs to work for the industries they regulated.

This goes far beyond anything Hillary Clinton has ever suggested. Indeed, it goes farther than anything any president has ever done to remove
special interests from dominating the White House agenda.

What does Hillary have to say about banning lobbyist influence, eh? Does she have a plan besides raking in more $$ from lobbyists and PACs
than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat?

"Lobbyists are people, too." ~ Hillary Clinton, Yearly Kos 2007