David Corn: Obama/Edwards vs. Hillary: Are Lobbyists the Enemy or Not?

[babylonsister]

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/11/obamaedwards-vs-hillary-are-lo.html

Obama/Edwards vs. Hillary: Are Lobbyists the Enemy or Not?

By David Corn | November 12, 2007 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

At the Democrats' big shindig in Iowa on Saturday night--the annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner--it took John Edwards about three nanoseconds (or maybe four) to come out blasting at Washington lobbyists. As he has been doing on the campaign trail, he decried "government for the lobbyists by the lobbyists." He exclaimed, "We do not believe in letting lobbyists write the laws." He asserted that Washington is "awash with corporate money" doled out by lobbyists to win their way with lawmakers in a system that is "broken" and "rigged." He said he would "beat those interests" if elected president.

Barack Obama, later in the (long) evening, also whacked at the influence-peddlers of that nation's capital. Poking (somewhat gently) at Edwards, he proclaimed,

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists--and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

What did Hillary Clinton say about lobbyists when it was her turn? Nothing. She did not mention the L-word. She did declare that she, too, is a fighter. She noted she had fought for kids, for families, for health care, for soldiers, and for first responders. But in her speech, her target was Bush and the Republicans. As was customary for her, she presented no critique of the system in Washington and castigated only Bush, the GOP, and their cronies. After all, her campaign is full of lobbyists who are assisting her with fundraising and strategy.

So while her two main challengers are raging against the (Washington) machine, HRC has nothing bad to say about it. The problem, as she describes it, is only with the Republican folks operating the machine. This may be the key distinction between Clinton and her leading challengers--especially since all three say they favor ending the war in Iraq. But as of yet neither Obama or Edwards has been able to turn this particular divide into an issue that stops the Clinton machine. Yes, there's still time. But given that HRC is fiercely bashing away at Bush and the Republicans, Democratic voters may not care (or even realize) that she's letting lobbyists off the hook. (See my colleague Jonathan Stein's interesting encounter on this point with one undecided Iowan here.)

Each of these three candidates insist he or she will be be fighting for you. But fighting whom? Only two of the three vow to challenge the corrupt institutional powers-that-be of Washington. In Iowa, though, Clinton's promise to headbutt the Republicans may well suffice for Democratic voters. If so, Washington's lobbyists won't have to worry.

[JDPriestly]

1. Lobbyists = corruption.

It's a simple equation. We can't afford what the lobbyists' corruption is doing to our country. We pay for every penny that our candidates take from the lobbyists and big money inetrests in
-- increased pollution
-- less affordable and accessible healthcare
-- underfunded schools
-- outsourced jobs
-- lower pay
-- devaluation of the dollar
-- more wars, more wars, more wars
-- privatization of our resources
-- threats to Social Security
-- less influence in D.C. for us little guys

We need a candidate who promises not to take money from corporate lobbyists. The lobbyists are ruining America.

[AtomicKitten]

2. The "L" word.

I just saw Sicko for the first time, and Michael Moore really hammered Hillary's connection to the "L" word. He's right, though: We can't expect candidates to fight for us when they are in the back pocket of lobbyists.

[mod mom]

3. Democrats + Lobbyists + Corporatists=DLC nt.

[bvar22]

4. *

"What are they going to do...
Vote for a Republican?!!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha"



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. No, those who can afford lobbyists are the enemy. n/t

[cmkramer]

6. Doesn't it all depend on what they're lobbying for

The Sierra Fund lobbies. NARAL lobbies. The Human Rights Campaign lobbies. That's what Hillary is talking about. There are many groups that lobby and many of them support core Democratic values.