Obama And Lobbyists: The Facts

Barack Obama, now the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, has made a case in this election concerning what he claims is his outright disgust for lobbyists.  Although that it is true that Obama has not taken any money from special interests or lobbyists since he announced his candidacy, Obama did in fact have a "cozy" relationship with lobbyists before his Presidential bid, to say the least.  

So why does it matter if he no longer takes lobbyist money?  It matters because it reveals Obama to be something he claims not to be----just another politician.  He didn't mind taking lobbyist money until he realized it might challenge him politically.  This reminds me a whole lot of Mitt Romney, who was pro-choice until he decided to run for the GOP nomination.  Both Obama and Mitt made the calculated, political decision rather than a sincere, honest conversion.  They want votes.  In part, that's why I admire people like Clinton and McCain, not that I agree with them 100% of the time, but because they at least stand up for what they believe in.  They don't change just to try to gain points with an electorate.  You may not agree with them, but at least their consistent and sincere in their positions.  

So here is Obama's history with lobbyists:

-In Chicago, the AP reports, 

"Barack Obama played poker and basketball with lobbyists when he was a state senator. He took their campaign donations and worked with them to write legislation ... A look at Obama’s seven years in the Illinois Legislature reveals a complicated relationship with lobbyists - particularly for someone who now makes criticism of lobbyists a centerpiece of his presidential campaign."

-David Boniers of the Edwards's campaign had this to say:

"If you look at his record in Illinois when he had a major -- sponsored a major health bill that's what he did. He watered down with the help of the corporate lobbyist and they got a weak product out of that."

-Now on to his Presidential ambitions, the No Quarter political blog reports:

"Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents."

-Domenico Montanaro of NBC, reports on the role of lobbyists in the Obama campaign:

"Obama's co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others.   Michael Bauer is a state based lobbyist in Chicago. And in Nevada, Obama's campaign also has three state based lobbyists who play senior advising roles in August last year."

-Domenico also reports on Obama's national co-chair, Jim Hodges of South Carolina:

"Hodges is the founder of Hodges Consulting Group, a state-based lobbying firm he started in 2003. The firm is a subsidiary of Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P, a law firm that represents clients in North Carolina and South Carolina.  Hodges Consulting describes itself on its Web site as “well positioned to offer highly effective lobbying services and unparalleled state budget expertise. Hodges Consulting Group can also provide federal representation to clients.  Hodges is, in fact, a registered federal lobbyist, a search of the Senate Office of Public Records Lobbying Disclosure Act Database shows."

-Oh, yea, and by the way, Obama does take lobbyist money it appears, just not at the federal level, as NBC's Domenico also reports:

"Though Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists. Obama has justified taking money from state based lobbyists and working with them."

It seems the media does indeed have a lot of dirt to report on.  Why leave it just to independent researchers on the internet?  The American public deserve the truth----a complete, un-biased vetting of all candidates running for public office, especially the Presidency.

Bill Is Absolutely Correct

Today, at a campaign rally, Bill Clinton once again laid out the truth about Obama.  I hope that New Hampshire and the country takes notice:

"They want you to believe it’s change versus the status quo or change versus experience.  Hillary wants you to believe it’s words versus deeds, talk versus action, rhetoric versus reality. You gotta decide who's right.  There’s a difference between talk and action.  It makes a big difference if you’ve actually changed other people’s lives, and if it’s the work of your life."

Bill also tackled the issue of Barack being against the war, before he was for it, before he was against it again:

"Senator Obama’s tried to beat the livin' daylights out of Hillary and everyone else about this. But in 2004 at the convention he said he didn’t know how he would have voted.  It’s inconsistent with the narrative, that he was always against the war, and everybody else was for it.  It was far more complicated.”

I Hope The Media Takes Notice

After months and months of Hillary Clinton and her record being negatively pounded by pundits and analysts in the media, the Clinton campaign is at least trying to get the media to pick up on Obama's record----and rightfully so.  I'm quite frankly sick of people like Chris Matthews who gush openly about Barack Obama and show an obvious bias towards him, yet attack Clinton for things that are proven false.  I'm not saying that the media should not be tough on Clinton, but rather saying they should be equally tough on all candidates, and that includes Sen. Obama.

I hope that now that the Clinton campaign is trying to bring issues to the forefront, the media picks up on it.  What I'm afraid of is that, instead of questioning Obama on his record, they will attack Hillary for pointing out Obama's record.  Of course, the media loved it when Obama went after Clinton's record earlier in the year.  But, if we can't get a fair and balanced media, we are doomed.  Instead of reporting on facts, they report on opinions, mostly their own, and on what makes a good story.  The truth gets pushed to the side to make room for the "media babies" like Obama and McCain.  Just remember, in 2000, Bush was the media's baby...and we all know how that turned out.  

Here is a short clip of an article from NBC's Mike Murray on the Clinton campaign trying to point out aspects of Obama's record that have been skipped over by the media and Obama's campaign's spin in response.

"After what she called Clinton's "real actions, real results" (on health care for children, foster care, and other issues), Clinton New Hampshire co-chair Kathy Sullivan pointed out that Obama opposed the Patriot Act when running for the Senate in 2004, but voted to extend it while in Congress. She also noted that he opposed the Iraq war, but also voted to fund it (until last year). Sullivan then implored the reporters to ask why Obama "has changed his position on critical issues... Inquiring voters want to know the answers to those questions."

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer later added, "People don't want talk. They want action."

Asked in the Q&A whether the conference call was a sign of desperation, after Obama's win in Iowa and his gains in the polls here, Sullivan replied, "When did looking at someone's record become an attack? That is actually vetting the candidates."

Asked for a response to the conference call, Obama spokesman Bill Burton emailed First Read, "The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire.

Singer, the Clinton spokesman, responds to Burton: "There’s nothing false or negative about pointing out basic facts in Senator Obama’s record.  It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama doesn’t think voters should have a chance to examine his record."

Let's hope that the media picks up on this so at least the voting public gets the information they need to make a well-informed decision, not only in Tuesday's primaries, but also in later voting.  After all, we are choosing a President here---we should elect a leader based on facts and his/her record, not because he/she can give a good speech or is seen as more popular.  

For the full NBC article, click here.