The Press v. Dr. King and The Mother Jones Wing of the Democratic Party

[McCamy Taylor]

The information that follows for the next few pages comes from a document that is 30 years old. SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS
ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE
RIGHTS OF AMERICANS: DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., CASE STUDY

Here is something that might come as a bit of a shock to some at DU:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm

In October 1963, Attorney General Robert Kennedy approved an FBI request for permission to install wiretaps on phones in Dr. King's home and in the SCLC's New York and Atlanta offices to determine the extent, if any, of "communist influence in the racial situation." The FBI construed this authorization to extend to Dr. King's hotel rooms and the home of a friend.

The article goes on to ask why Bobby Kennedy would agree to wiretap Dr. King. Later, he said it was because he feared that Hoover would impede the passage of civil rights legislation if he did not get the wiretaps he wanted. However, as the article details, Hoover had used contacts in the press to create smears accusing King of having communist tries through two advisers, raising the possibility that Kennedy was bowing to public pressure created by these planted news stories.

Once the wiretaps were in place—and there is some question about whether Kennedy knew how extensively King was being bugged—here was the smear campaign Hoover launched with the help of the news media. The campaign continued into the next, LBJ administration.

The FBI's effort to discredit Dr. King and to undermine the SCLC involved plans touching on virtually every aspect of Dr. King's life. The FBI scrutinized Dr. King's tax returns, monitored his financial affairs, and even tried to establish that he had a secret foreign bank account. Religious leaders and institutions were contacted in an effort to undermine their support of him, andunfavorable material was "leaked" to the press.

Snip

Although government officials outside the FBI were not aware of the extent of the FBI's efforts to discredit Dr. King, officials of the Justice Department and of the White House did know that the FBI had offered tape recordings and derogatory information about Dr. King to reporters. The Attorney General went no further than complaining to the President and accepting a Bureau official's representation that the allegations were not true. President Johnson not only failed to order the Bureau to stop, but indeed cautioned it against dealing with certain reporters who had complained of its conduct.

Assistant Director Andrew Sullivan said

It should be clear to all of us that Martin Luther King must, at some propitious point in the future, be revealed to the people of this country and to his Negro followers as being what he actually is – a fraud, demagogue and scoundrel.

The FBI attempted to leak selected contents of these tapes to reporters. We know about those who declined and turned the FBI in. We will never know about the ones who played along:

After Director Hoover denounced Dr. King as a "notorious liar" in mid-November, the FBI apparently made several attempts to "leak" tape recordings concerning Dr. King to newsmen. One offer involving the Bureau Chief of a national news publication has been discussed at length in the preceding chapter. 353 David Kraslow, another reporter, has told a Committee staff member, that one of his "better sources at the Bureau" offered him a transcript of a tape recording about Dr. King. Kraslow said that his source read him a portion of the transcript on the phone, and claimed that it came from a "bug" operated by a Southern police agency. Kraslow said that he declined the offer. 354
It is not known how many other reporters were approached by the FBI during that period; Nicholas Katzenbach testified that at least one other reporter had informed him of a similar Bureau offer, 355 and other witnesses, such as James Farmer, have mentioned additional "leaks" from the Bureau. 356
Specific attacks on King made via the press:
Ralph McGill, the pro-civil rights editor of the Atlanta Constitution, was a major focus of the Bureau's attentions. The Bureau apparently first furnished McGill with derogatory information about Dr. King as part of an attempt to dissuade community leaders in Atlanta from participating in a banquet planned to honor Dr. King upon his return from the Nobel Prize ceremonies. After a meeting with McGill, William Sullivan reported that McGill said that he had stopped speaking favorably of Dr. King, that he had refused to take an active part in preparing for the banquet, and that he had even taken steps to undermine the banquet. McGill's version of what transpired will never be known, since McGill is deceased
Snip
In late May 1965, a reporter from United Press International requested the Bureau for information about Dr. King for use in a series of articles about the civil rights leader. The Special Agent in Charge in Atlanta recommended that the Bureau give the reporter both public source and confidential information about Dr. King because the reporter "is the UPI's authority in the South on the Negro movement and his articles carry a great deal of influence and that he would prepare anything flattering or favorable to King." The Director approved a recommendation that the reporter be supplied with a public source document and with a "short summation" of allegations concerning communist influence over Dr. King to be used "merely for orientation purposes." 411
In October 1966, the Domestic Intelligence Division recommended that an article "indicting King for his failure to take a stand on the issue and at the same time exposing the degree of communist influence on him" be given to a newspaper contact "friendly" to the Bureau, "such as ... Editor of U.S. News and World Report."
It is felt that the public should again be reminded of this communist influence on King, and the current controversy among civil rights leaders makes this timely to do so. 412
Attached to the memorandum was a proposed article which noted that the efforts of several civil rights leaders to denounce "Black Power" had been "undermined by one man in the civil rights movement who holds in his hands the power to silence the rabble rousers and to give the movement renewed momentum." The article attributed Dr. King's equivocation to his advisers, who were alleged to have had affiliations with the Communist Party or organizations associated with the Party. Dr. King's decision to oppose the Vietnamese war was also attributed to these advisers.
Snip
In March 1967 Director Hoover approved a recommendation by the Domestic Intelligence Division to furnish "friendly" reporters questions to ask Dr. King. The Intelligence Division believed that Dr. King would be particularly "vulnerable" to questions concerning his opposition to the war in Vietnam, and recommended that a reporter be selected to interview Dr. King "ostensibly to question King about his new book," but with the objective of bringing out the foreign policy aspects of Dr. King's philosophy.

The authors of the document conclude by speculating about the effect the FBI’s campaign had on Dr. King.

Perhaps most difficult to gauge is the personal impact of the Bureau's programs. Congressman Young told the Committee that while Dr. King was not deterred by the attacks which are now known to have been instigated in part by the FBI, there is "no question" but that he was personally affected:
“It was a great burden to be attacked by people he respected, particularly when the attacks engendered by the FBI came from people like Ralph McGill. He sat down and cried at the New York Times editorial about his statement on Vietnam, but this just made him more determined. It was a great personal suffering, but since we don't really know all that they did, we have no way of knowing the ways that they affected us.”

This vendetta against King using the news media has been common knowledge for thirty years. That means that this generation of Democrats knows that the press is a big fat liar and does not really need me to remind them. However, I will do it anyway, because I think that it has an unexpected effect on this primary.

In recent years, attacks via lackeys in the news media have become the administration’s method of choice for dealing with political enemies. They still use selective prosecution by the Department of Justice, however when they recruit the corporate media to do their dirty work, they can keep their fingerprints off the corpse. The FCC gives them the power to tell the telecoms what the do. News organizations that do not comply will find their TV stations in trouble just as Katherine Graham did back in 1973, when her reporters at the Washington Post would not lay off the Watergate story, and she would not heed Attorney General John Mitchell’s warning to back off or else she was “gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer”. Yes, sexism is perennial.

Tonight, Keith Olbermann and Dana Milbank on Countdown got a hearty chuckle at the suggestion that the press might take part in a conspiracy to malign a political figure . KO also showed a clip of Madeline Kahn from What’s Up Doc? and said that it reminded him of Hillary. (Since this kind of comparison seems to invite everyone to play, I guess I am free to admit that KO is starting to remind me a bit of Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N77uqGZPUPw )

OK, enough silliness. When the realists within the Democratic Party see and hear members of the press deny that their own exclusive club is corrupt, we know that if we keep offering the olive branch, the press is just going to keep trying to shove it up our you know what.

Yes, Virginia, there is a right wing conspiracy. They hire people to sit around a room and create smears and distortions and sometimes out and out lies that they feed to overworked members of the press who repeat them as real news as you can read about here (but KO would rather you didn't, because he just told you that there is no conspiracy against Hillary Clinton)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200406/green

Kerry was clearly not Bossie's first choice of nominee. In his basement he proudly showed me dozens, perhaps hundreds, of boxes marked "HILLARY: WHITEWATER" or "HILLARY: TRAVELGATE." He called them the "Sierra Madre of Hillary oppo," regretfully adding that what could have been "ready to roll in twenty-four hours" will now have to wait until 2008.

And there is an independent economically driven corporate media conspiracy that is even worse. It claims that it is all about Edward R. Murrow and speaking out to defend the American dream and American freedoms, but more often it is about Willie Horton and the War on Drugs which is really the War on Black Folks and mentioning the surname of every suspect with a Latino last name and laughing because a blond woman has endorsed McCain (Can she remember a phone number? How could a blond woman remember anything?) and painting the face of Welfare as Black when most women on Welfare are White and what are the ratings? If the ratings are high enough then that justifies any sin the way that the one with the most money must be God’s chosen, Calvin told us that, correct?

Am I being too negative? Should I just try to get along? What if I say that I don't want to? What if I say that the same people in the press who attacked Dr. King would do it all over again and someone needs to be there to hold them accountable? Is that too divisive?

When people get to an impasse in arguments, very often it is because they have a fundamentally different way of looking at things. Some people are what we might call libertarian if they are Republican, Kumbaya if they are Dems. They believe that people are born basically kind, loving, good and that rules just make us mean, ornery and finally nasty to live with. They approach every problem as “Get rid of the unnecessary rules and the problem will go away.” Some people are what you might call Agitators if they are Democrats, Law and Order if they are GOP. They believe that there are a lot of people out there who are just waiting to oppress others. People who want to steal, cheat, kill in order to acquire the most stuff and become king of the hill with everyone else their slave. These people figure that the best defense is to make a law against it. “No illegal search and seizure” etc. Because they just know —from experience---these people study history and they have long memories----that there are people out there who will seize any opportunity to do the wrong thing if they get half a chance.

Neither side is right or wrong. They are both right in some situations. The libertarian group is correct in almost any situation that involves groups of similar people coming together with a common goal, as in a community organization or local government body or a family gathering or one on one. I am usually a member of this group in my social interactions. However, the libertarian model is a terrible one in the military where young people are given powerful weapons and told that the rule “Thou shalt not kill” no longer applies. There have to be laws in the military. There have to be rules in medicine, in the judicial system, in federal government. As business becomes more complex, there have to be rules there, too.

The Agitators’ group----the one that remembers what was done to people like King and that recalls the crimes of Nixon, the one that worries that the telecom monopolies are too powerful---has the tendency to create government regulation of business and industry. We have an FDA because of this type of movement. We have equal employment opportunity laws (though not the fact) because of the wing of the Democratic Party that believes in getting tough. No laissez-faire allowed. Forget Kumbaya. We want jobs.

Much more than her husband Bill, the pragmatist, Hillary Clinton belongs to the fighting wing of the Democratic Party, the one that writes legislation that will regulate industry. John Edwards was even more firmly aligned with Democratic Agitator style than Hillary. That was why he was the first one that the press took out with their combo of “Edwards is a phony” and “Who is Edwards?”

While Obama maintains a general lead over Hillary, Democrats are divided, and I believe that this division can be explained along the lines above. The two candidates’ stands on the issues are not different. Their voting records are not different. However the press---the voice of the right wing conspiracy (for every Democratic who believes in media bias knows in his or her heart that most of the members of the press corp who express bias do so in favor of the RNC’s oppo) has chosen to resume the attack upon Hillary Clinton that it carried out in the 1990s. And we all know what effect that had on Democratic support for the first couple.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/1999/061299.php

President Clinton's highest-ever job-approval numbers in Gallup Organization polling for CNN and USA Today came in a survey taken on Dec. 19-20, 1998, the weekend that the House approved articles of impeachment against the President. Six Gallup polls taken during the Jan. 7-Feb. 12 Senate trial showed Clinton's job-approval rating consistently between 65 percent and 70 percent, with his disapproval rating ranging from 27 percent to 33 percent. Clinton enjoyed a postimpeachment halo for another month, with his Gallup job-approval ratings in four polls ranging from 66 percent to 68 percent. This is an extraordinary level for a President in his seventh year in office. Ronald Reagan's job- approval rating in the Gallup Poll, at this point in his second term, was only 48 percent; the very popular Dwight D. Eisenhower, the only other post-World War II President to serve two full terms, had a 64 percent approval rating at this point in his tenure.

As long as the press keeps working on the old big lies 1. Hillary is a bitch, 2. Hillary is a liar, 3. Hillary is a crook, a core segment of Democratic voters will look to her to fight back. She is David vs. Goliath on this one. Her fans are cheering her on. But she can only do it if she is still running. And anyone who says that she must drop out because the press is attacking her---

---well, would you listen to that kind of argument if you were Hillary? Or Parnell? Or Mother Jones?

http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/jones-coal-miner/

(Mother Jones)I have been to jail more than once, and I expect to go again. If you are too cowardly to fight, I will fight. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, actually to the Lord you ought, just to see one old woman who is not afraid of all the bloodhounds. How scared those villains are when one woman 80 years old, with her head grey, can come in and scare hell out of the whole bunch! We didn't scare them? The mine owners run down the street like a mad dog today.

That wing of the Democratic Party---the Mother Jones wing---is still alive and well, and it does not even know the words to the song Kumbaya, not after eight years of Bush’s failed economic, social and military policies. It is up to Obama to persuade the Mother Jones wing of the party that he is the right man. It won't do much good to demand that Hillary stop being whom she is and quit in the face of media attacks, because those voters will still be whom they are.

Hillary is not "stealing" Obama's Mother Jones votes. He has to earn them.

[Ken Burch]

1. Look, I'll back HRC if she's nominated...

But it's silly to equate her with leading the "Mother Jones" wing of the party when she got those massive corporate donations, supports a Scoop Jackson foreign policy(which will guarantee that so much is spent on the war machine that nothing progressive can be done at home, since fiscal conservatism always leads to policy conservatism as the 90's proved) and has always been contemptous of progressives and activists. Also, the fact that her campaign's surrogates (like Ed Rendell) encouraged working-class whites to vote for her in order to stop the country electing an African American president is a betrayal of everything Mother Jones stood for. Mother Jones would never have accepted the idea that it was right to divide working-class voters on racial lines.

HRC is the candidate of the people who will be watching the convention from the luxury boxes. You can't hang with CEO's and fight the power. And if Mother Jones had gone to Davos, it would've been to march with the anarchists, not chill with the rulers.


She'd be something of an improvement, but she still accepts the limits on political possibility that the DLC imposed in '92. And she won't hold the new voters Obama gets, since she has no ideals.

And she should only have been fighting hard against McCain since Feb 5th. She should've avoided going after Obama hard since she knew, after that, that he had as least as good a chance of getting nominated as she did and that she thus owed it to the party to avoid damaging a potential nominee.

[cornermouse]

2. Why hasn't Obama called for Bush to boycott the Olympics?

If he's the liberal that he is often portrayed and quoted as being, why hasn't he publicly asked Bush to boycott the Olympics?

[Ken Burch]

3. I don't know.

n/t.

[Tunkamerica]

4. cause it's a pointless empty gesture?

he'll go. he has no moral authority to say anything against the chinese. Why call for Bush to do anything? We're all just counting the days till he's gone.

Why did Hillary wait till yesterday to do it? She didn't know about Tibet till yesterday? Or is it because it's all over the news? It would have been a gutsy to do it six, even two, months ago. Now it's just trying to be relevant, despite the evidence to the contrary.

[rodeodance]

14. China is already upset--the ceremony is a $$$ to China. Lehrer news Hr

did a segment on it last evening already.

live interviews from China.

Its the $$ stupid!!

[McCamy Taylor]

5. omg, there is a protest of the networks scheduled, over the media bias

details in this DU thread, along with a very interesting retro video of some heavy duty male chauvinist pig action

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5421458&mesg_id=5421458

How come DU doesn't have any appropriate retro icons like the raised fist power icon or a feminist symbol for when we want to go all 60s?

[chascarrillo]

6. Yes, Keith Olbermann is right-wing, while FOX News and Richard Mellon Scaife are left-wing.

Your argument is solid and persuasive. Kudos.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Your argument is long and decorative, but Dems think KO speaks for Obama not the RW.

That is why KO is so much more destructive to the Party right now that the right wing media. Everyone knows they shill for the GOP so no one pays attention. If KO trash talks Hillary, Dems assume he is doing it for Obama, maybe even getting the oppo straight from Obama. Some Dems do not approve.

[GoldieAZ49]

8. KO is a sorry excuse for journalism regardless of who he supports

that he is on the air at all is a joke, that anyone watches it ...

[chascarrillo]

16. And again, you two, along with Ed Rendell, can stick with the fair and balanced FOX News.

The level of hatred that you all are heaping on every left-leaning news source is so, so revealing.

[GoldieAZ49]

17. KO is a "News Source"?

:rofl:

that explains a lot!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[chascarrillo]

18. Your reaction explains a lot, too.

[madrchsod]

9. hillary has "mother jones" votes?

hillary is as far away from mother jones as is the nearest star is from the earth. they have nothing in common other than they are both women.

by the results of the 50 state strategy and the millions of small donations to barack, i may be going out on a limb, i say he`s earned the so called "mother jones" vote.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. Fiction: Obama takes no lobbyist or corporate money. In fact he does.

Obama takes money from lobbyists as long as they are located in states---even if they are affiliated with lobbyists who work in Washington. He takes money from big law firms that work for lobbyists and corporations.

Hillary tells the world that she takes money from everyone----special interests, private donors, working men and women. Hillary is up front--- honest . Obama takes money from the same sources, but he claims that he does not. That makes them both corporate candidates with one big exception. Obama is a hypocrite---which is just a fancy word for liar.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital.Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from “federal lobbyists.” His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.
Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.
“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

The article goes on to describe how some law firms specialize in advising lobbyists but manage to avoid the title “lobbyist” themselves so that they can donate large sums of money without appearing to be tainted money. Obama also takes money from lobbyists who work outside of Washington, even though the same corporations may also spend money inside Washington. His largest contributor, according to the article was Exelon, a nuclear power giant. He also accepted money from state level lobbyists and attorneys representing firms which have national level interests such as AT&T, United Airlines and the Recording Industry Assn. This makes his claim that he does not accept any “corporate money” or lobbying money nothing but political posturing. In fact, according to the report, over half of the money he raised in the first quarter of 2007 came from donations of over $1000. This is hardly small contributions.

More on Obama's nuclear ties

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama

In December 2007, "three anti-nuclear activists say they were forced to leave the Barack Obama presidential campaign rally Sunday in Columbia when they held up signs outside Williams-Brice Stadium that questioned his stance on nuclear waste." The protesters object to "what they say is Obama’s ill-defined stance on disposal of nuclear waste."

And guess who voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005? Not Hillary even though Obama claims that she is in bed with big corporations:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/04/clinton-obama-a.html

Today, the Cheney-Bush Energy bill is responsible for no fewer than 3 LNG facilities threatening Oregon coastline, rivers, forests, fish, fishermen, farmers, and neighborhoods up and down western Oregon, and most of that natural gas will ultimately go to California.

Let’s see who was for this mess and who was against it:

Opposed the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill
Hillary Clinton
Ron Wyden
Earl Blumenauer
Peter DeFazio
Darlene Hooley
David Wu

For the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill
Barack Obama
Gordon Smith
Greg Walden

Here is what the law did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

Note that it was a bonanza to the nuclear energy industry, as well as Bush-Cheney long time supporters in the coal and oil industries.

Now, Obama is in Pennsylvania running ads that say that he does not take any oil money.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7828_obama_a_little.html

Barack Obama is running an ad in Pennsylvania and Indiana that makes this claim:
I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore.
The trusty FactCheck.org points out something Obama ought to know: of course Obama hasn't gotten money from oil companies; corporations were prohibited from donating to presidential candidates in 1907. But Obama has received $213,000 from people who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry. Also, two oil execs bundle money for Obama. George Kaiser, chairman of Kaiser-Francis Oil, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama, according to the candidate's website. Robert Cavnar, president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, has raised the same.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

Our problem comes with this statement:
Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.
It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Obama also has ties to the pharmaceutical industry. (Keep in mind that he has publicly criticized Hillary for her big contributions from the medical industry even though these were mostly from providers---nurses, doctors, techs---whom polls show are in favor of universal health coverage which Hillary represents)

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/01/06/the-page-finds-that-obamas-co-chair-really-is-a-lobbyist/

In one of last nights debate exchanges Senator Clinton charged that Sen. Obama’s New Hampshire co-chair Jim Demers is a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. Obama said the charge wasn’t true. Meanwhile Mark Halperin find’s that Jim Demers is indeed a registered lobbyist for both Pfizer and PhRMA.
So, basically, either Obama did not know his campaign co-chair was a registered lobbyist, or he lied?

http://www.sos.nh.gov/lobname.html

The above link shows that Demers really is on the list a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical companies. That means that Hillary was telling the truth.

I love Edwards denunciation of corporate money’s influence on politics. It shows why the corporate media drove him from the race and nurtured Hillary and Obama, the two corporate candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

And the problem is you can't be with those people, take their money and then challenge them. It doesn't work. You have to be willing to actually stand up and say no -- no to lobbyist money, no to PAC money, no corporate lobbyists working for me in the White House. If you intend to take them on, and if it is personal for you -- and this is extraordinarily personal for me -- if it's personal for you, then you can be successful bringing about the change.
Teddy Roosevelt -- just one quick example -- Teddy Roosevelt -- Teddy Roosevelt, a great American president -- he didn't make deals with the monopolies and the trusts. Teddy Roosevelt took them on, busted the monopolies, busted the trusts. That's what it's going to take.
We have a battle in front of us. We do. I don't think we have a problem with politicians in Washington spending enough time with lobbyists and going to cocktail parties. They do it all the time. They do it every single day, and I'll tell you who's paying the price for those cocktail parties: Natalie Sarkisian, every single American who doesn't have health care coverage, everybody who's going to the gas pump and paying so much money for their gas. When are we going to have a president who actually takes these people on? That's what I'm going to do.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx

Here is how Obama spins it.

Obama, however, has justified taking money from state based lobbyists and working with them.
"Because I have no power in this state, so I'm not influenced in any way by somebody who's lobbying at the state level,” he told NBC's Sacramento affiliate in August. “The main thing that we're trying to avoid is any perception that somehow those who are doing business in Washington have an influence on my agenda."

Except that AT&T money is AT&T money. Even if you launder it by sending it through Sacramento. Or, think of it this way. When the Senator from Illinois is running for president of the United States, why would a lobbyist out of California get all his buddies to start giving the maximum amount? It isn’t because they think he is going to do anything in Sacramento.

Speaking of AT&T money, Axelrod was on Countdown last night claiming that Penn's work for Colombia was a big conflict of interest for Clinton. What is Axelrod's consulting work for corporations that do business inside the US like AT&T if not a conflict of interest?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Axelrod

The Socialists Workers are absolutely correct when they identify both Hillary and Obama as being indebted to corporations and lobbyists for the a whole lot of money. No one except a billionaire like Ross Perot can fund their own presidential run in this country. Obama is lying when he claims that he is mounting a campaign from the piggy banks of America's youth. He is using corporate money just like Hillary. The only difference is that Hillary tells the truth about where her money comes and promises that she will serve the people's interests first. Obama hides where his money comes from.

I think that this is what Joe Cannon should be writing about and not when which candidate become the biggest peacenik. Money in politics is a very important topic, and it is not something that we should cover up.

[dwahzon]

10. Thanks for

digging out the report about the FBI's surveillance of Dr. King. We do need to be reminded that the government has long attempted to manipulate the media to tear down public figures who threaten someone's view of how things should be. In fact, there was http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13869">an article http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/7/85839/18413">diaried at dkos that talked about character assassination which you might find of interest. Actually I think the person that wrote that should be reading your article.

But comparing Hillary to Dr. King goes a little far. Hillary had fabulous press coverage all through out 2007 when she was the "inevitable" candidate, the front-runner without a single vote having been cast. As for her fighter image and it is an image, a created image, go look at her Senate legislative record for proof. Not much fighting. A whole lot of going along with the Republicans.

Now is she promising to turn over a new leaf and become a fighter? Sounds like she is. But I prefer someone who's actually demonstrated the ability to fight and fight effectively and that would be Barack Obama. When his legislative record in the Illinois legislature and the US Senate is examined, it clearly demonstrates his ability to form majorities in support of bills that address very sticky and important issues and get them passed into law.

I'd say even that he's part of that Mother Jones part of the wing. See his ethics reform bill which was passed. Do you really think that his transparency in government initiative is going to come easy? No way. But in enacting it, he will allow all those of us in the Mother Jones wing and elsewhere to see what's going on and make our will known to our elected representatives. In fact, we had better start planning on how we're going to process all the information that starts to become available via that process.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Would Mother Jones

Vote for Cheney's Energy Bill? How about the Patriot Act? Would she host fire breathing gay haters to openly bash a minority to gain her some votes, and refuse to aplogize? Would Mother Jones have voted to fund the war, for year after year? Would she have ignored the obvious at Gitmo and Abu?

I think not.

[nonoxy9]

21. And Mother Jones would have trusted Bush not to attack Iran, too!

[McCamy Taylor]

23. She would not have imprisoned the Japanese during WWII either.

Or launched the Bay of Pigs invasion. The best loved Democratic presidents and politicians fuck up as they try to wear their many hats.

Democrats do not expect perfection from their political leaders, just better than piss poor.

[The Wizard]

11. The corporate media

is in a class with Pravda, TAAS, and Izvestia of the now defunct Soviet Union. The citizens knew they were getting propaganda and totally ignored or marginalized the "official news." What presents itself as news in the U.S. today is akin to scented urinal cakes.

[reprehensor]

13. The War on MLK continues.

Now, CNN wields the sword. Last weekend they brodcast a piece so egregious, and so full of lies and deceptions that it boggles the mind.

Here is the web-page dedicated to the hit-piece;
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/black.in.america/

I covered the falsity of James Earl Ray's guilt here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3101300

But more germane to your topic is this testimony on Grade-A propaganda;

The Testimony of William Schaap on YouTube;
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BA69081DC9C0AE84

The media sells the lies.

[bpeale]

15. this is a great, well-researched article. thanks & kudos to you!

[Barb in Atl]

19. Yah, sometimes Keith goes a little far....

I watch him regularly and he can be harsh on Hillary. I really thought the heel dragging thing last night was uncalled for. But I am fairly confident that were the roles reversed, Obama would be out of the race by now. And if he did not, I can only imagine the journalistic beat down he would endure - equal to or more severe than the one that Hillary has to face because he's a newbie. She's got some clout, still.

My brother came up with a great idea. He thinks that, for the good of the Democratic party, Obama should withdraw and watch the uproar and outrage that would ensue. I'm not in favor of that tactic. I think it would backfire badly.

[InfiniteNether]

20. Nicely done. I was hoping you would do a piece on this.

Maybe you could do a series on COINTELPRO, please, kind sir? Hoover also went after the anti-war movement and placed agents provocateur in several liberal groups, including labor unions, all under the front-story of fighting "communists". DUers need to know about this.

[mdmc]

24. God Bless