http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_...rDHf9ileEnMWM0F


Obama returns lobbyists' donations
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
4-13-7



WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record)'s presidential campaign has returned more than $50,000 in political contributions after discovering the donors were lobbyists.

Obama, who has pledged to change the ways of Washington, has repeatedly said he will not accept money from lobbyists or from special interests political action committees.

But as the campaign prepared to file its first quarter finance report to the Federal Election Commission, it also will return $50,566 from 49 donors whom the campaign identified as lobbyists.

Overall, Obama raised $23.5 million for the primary and $25 million overall in the first three months of the year.

"Giving back these donations is part of our best efforts to ensure we stay true to our commitment to not take money from federal lobbyists," campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.

The announcement was designed to get ahead of the FEC report, which must be filed by midnight Sunday. Many of the lobbyists' names will remain listed in the report because their checks were deposited before they were identified.

While shunning lobbyists money, the Obama campaign still has relied on political and policy advice from Washington lobbyists and does accept donations from lobbyists spouses.

"As we've said and as this illustrates, this policy isn't a perfect solution to the problem of money in politics and special interest sway in Washington," Burton said of the decision to return the funds. "But it is an important symbol of the kind of administration that Obama will have in the White House."

Aides said the contributions were inadvertent, possibly the result of lobbyists being unaware of Obama's policy. They said the campaign recognized the donor as a lobbyist after having deposited their check or as the donation arrived.

Among those in Obama's circle of advisers is Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC, and several other well-connected lobbyists in Washington.

Burton said no lobbyist has performed any fundraising duties for Obama.

John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, is another Democratic presidential candidate who has made a point of not accepting money from lobbyists or PACs.

What do you guys think about an Obama/Edwards ticket?

"While shunning lobbyists money, the Obama campaign still has relied on political and policy advice from Washington lobbyists and does accept donations from lobbyists spouses."

So when a lobbyist from K Street sends his wife out shopping, she may still be buying Democrats. All same same. Business as usual.

As I have said before, it's politics.
Historically, when considering who people trust and respect, politicians rank BELOW used car dealer, and just above lawyers.
That has to ALWAYS be kept in mind, and is EXACTLY why it is in your best interest to be informed and involved.



The Obama campaign gave back that very small amount of money to send a message.
The American people want a change. Obama played politics and gave it to them, even if only symbolically.

Reality check people.
There is no way to be successful in politics, without being a successful politician!

Symbolic change? It changed...but not really!

Obama gave back a few grand to lobbyists in a 'show' of integrity whilst pocketing the few hundred (I'm guessing) grand given by the wives of the lobbyists (cos, presumably, that's different?).
In other words Obama faked having integrity. Yes, I'd say that's very symbolic of how politics works. In other words the system is corrupt.


The reason that politicians are not trusted is that they lack integrity. Playing politics does them no favors amongst the electorate... but then, with all that K street cash, why would they care?

Edit to add: I've just noticed my automatic assumption that lobbyists 'spouses' must be wives.
Just goes to show how life-long exposure to sexism and sexist language leaves it's mark.
It was a wrong assumption and i apologise for it.

Faked is a rather strong word, one his opposition might use, except then the finger might be pointed at them, and they would be called hypocrite.


Obama seems to be doing what it takes to get elected, and he seems to be doing a good job of it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is OK.
I'm simply saying that it's reality. Saying it again......




You don't want your Doctor to be a good appliance salesman, you want him to be a good doctor.
And he can't be a good doctor unless he's good at all aspects of his craft.




As an informed and politically active citizen, what's your opinion of Obama concerning the issues?
And do you think he would make a good president, one that would best represent your interests?

Those should be the questions we ask when we vote.

I do get it Sky, how politics works in these times, that is.
I think what I'm really getting at here - the underlying point - is if a political system is so corrupt the it requires disingenuousness of entrants then the system needs to be changed.

If to get anywhere in this election race Obasma and the rest need to raise tens of millions of dollars in order to get their message across on the corporate media, and if the only people willing to donate such large sums of cash expect (and get) special consideration (i.e, political bias in their favor) in return. And then along comes a candidate with a certain amount of integrity, but in order to get anywhere within that system he or she needs to compromise that integrity, then the political system is seriously flawed and needs to be reinvented from the bottom (grassroots) up.

Don't get me wrong. Corruption has to be rooted out.
I'm saying that one aspect of being a politician, is self promotion.

They have to sell them selves to us in much the same way we buy our shoes.
Clearly not everything Nike tells us is 100% truth. They're OK just as long as it's all 0% false.

Accentuate the positive, delineate the negative.

It's not lying. That would be illegal.
It is entirely possible to be very deceptive, and not tell a single untruth.

Have you med my ex then?

Nope, but I've dated a few women, even married a couple.
I've become far too cynical because of it too.
Deception wrapped in honesty, I'm sad to say, is the normal.


One can be completely honest, and still not tell the truth.
Pretty sad isn't it?

It's not that one can be honest and not tell the truth (contradiction in terms there) but that one can avoid lying and still not tell the truth, but the point is well taken, and yes, it is very sad.
Bad enough in politics but when it affects your personal life it can get really nasty.

My new approach to BS in my personal life - 'There's the door.' Keeps things nice and straight forward. He knows where he stands and I get truthfulness.

But enough of that, what of politics, the environment and peak-oil... Shocking state of affairs don't you think!?!

I'd prefer an anti war ticket, thanks.

Might be interesting, though. Obama's got height and reach, but Edwards'd be the power-puncher.

Well Jubal, I think out of all the runners with the chance to win, that would be the best ticket for our interests.

When I say our interests I am talking about poor people. I have never found common ground with anyone who makes more then 50k a year, lives in a house that costs $400 to heat/cool and yet will complain about people dieing else where in the world and people starving in their very towns. I admit there will probley never be a President who would support us fully, but at least with these guys we might start getting the table scraps again.

Which brings me to another point. I have figured out why the Elite Democrats of the NE dont do anything about BUSH and his elk. Have you seen the stock of General Dynamics? RFMico? Any of the hot spot stocks of Military Contractors? They are actually paying out dividends while the rest of us starve. I know most Repugs are poor, so who ultimately benefits from all this war in America? I have been to Conn and Mass lately so I know the truth. Some even boosted about it to me.

Now I know how the Democrats got all the money. The war paid for it. I think I kinda know what Max means now, but fuck it Max. Gotta think about my plate first and screw respecting the life of others right? Isn't that the example you have here? I have found the internet to be a lot like driving. Because the person feels like no one knows who they really are, they act like they really are.

I wouldn't vote for either of them, but that's just me.


That must be me. I make over $50,000 per year, but my house doesn't cost $400 per month to heat and cool (yet). I don't complain about people dying here and elsewhere, I try to do something about it. But I agree that I haven't found much common ground with you yet.


Probably because they're anti-hunting.


Rich people are benefiting. I don't think party has much to do with it.


I think there are examples of many different viewpoints here.

IMO,

First priority is to change the direction of the country, to get it headed back towards Progressive policy that is more about the people.

This means that first the Neo's have to be voted out of office, and right now the most dangerous aspect there are the Neo-cons that have a strangle hold on the Republican party, that have actually reshaped the party to suit their needs. (Tom Delay)

If these people, the root cause of the evil happening today, of all the things that bother us, if these people are not rooted out, exposed, prosecuted and removed from political power, not much else matters. To do otherwise would be like changing the tires on a car that doesn't run.


As I have stated many many times now, this is a process, and the process is going to take some time. The country has been asleep at the wheel for decades, and in this time the Neo-conservatives and Neo-Liberals have, like a cancer, managed to weedle themselves everywhere in the American political system. This means that unfortunately we can't sinply grap the head and pull it out. Like most weeds, the root will snap off and simply grow back.

Patience and persistance, and many informed and active Americans is what we need.
Anyone who does not have the patience to be persistant over the long haul, is more harm to the progressive movement than they are of value.

We cannot afford simply to consider today or tomorrow.
We must also consider the rest of the Century.

Please elaborate.



You believe that these two guys, out of all of the other candidates, have the interests of the poor folks at heart? Do you ever wonder what kind of strings are attached to all that money Obama is raking in?



Elite Democrats of the NE? Does that, perchance, mean the NorthEast?



Oh, right. Visiting two states makes you an expert on the Northeast. I've been to Florida and Maryland, so I'm an expert on the south. I bet you hate it when stereotypes are applied to you - but here you are stereotyping a whole region that you don't know diddly about. As it happens, MasterMind I live in rural northern NH. Most people in my area are working 2-3 jobs to get by. I was juggling 5 jobs at one point about five years ago. There's a mill town up the road from me, where the economy is in near collapse from the closing of the paper mills. NH has lost almost all of it's northern manufacturing base. I bet you haven't been to Aroostook county in Maine, where you'll encounter some of the most dire poverty you've ever seen. Or to the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont.
There are few things worse than a snob, and you, MasterMind are pious and snobbish in your poverty. Poverty doesn't give you some kind of nobility, by the way. There are plenty of people who have been desperately poor in their lives who aren't engaging in some kind of snobbish superiority about it. That, by the way, includes me. I've been desperately poor in my lifetime - I've been homeless - but I'm not here to play my poverty is better than yours. Stereotyping is dangerous, as is making stupid regional comments.



You are a flaming idiot, MasterMind. Apparently the realities of this war haven't penetrated that empty space between your ears. If we weren't spending $3 bilion a week in Iraq, there would be a lot more money available to help fund education, housing, etc - right here at home.

I'm here all week.

Thank heaven!

Jubal:

How can you claim "That must be me" when you, yourself, point out how its not you. That doesn't make any reasonable sense. Rich people and the party they are apart of has everything to do with it. Its the Rich people and there greed that are pushing this damn war and the poverty that has stricken America. I was under the impression that most Repugs are stupid rednecks who just keep voting for Bush but hurt themselves (wonder who told me that) and that Democrats are these wealthy do gooders. If I am wrong, then I am, but prove I am wrong before you make fun of me and ridicule my statements.

Max:

Maryland isn't a southern state at all. That statement though does only come from my observance and speaking with some of those living there. Did I claim otherwise? It was personal Opinion and I thought just from glancing at it one would know that. Maybe it is my bias since Edwards is from my home state, but I like him and he has done a lot here to help improve the life of people here.

Jubal:


I wasn't sure whether your criteria were disjunctive or conjunctive.


You are. Both parties have members from throughout the socioeconomic spectrum. And the only thing I made fun of was your spelling of "ilk," which made a pun possible. It really wasn't intended to ridicule you.


It's south of the Mason-Dixon line. It was a slave state. It remained in the Union during the Civil War, but only just. So I suppose it depends on your definition of "southern."

You've managed to completely miss the point. Congratulations.

Is this tag team time or something?




I guess comedy makes everything okay then, eh?


Well then, I admit I was wrong. There are no wealthy Democrats who own massive stock portfolios who secretly want war, vote for war, yet say otherwise to everyone else.

So tell me Jubal, what are you theories on how the Democrats are coming up with so much money all of a sudden?

No, I'm answering your posts. You stated categorically that Maryland is not a southern state. I tried to demonstrate that by some of the usual measures of southern, Maryland is a southern state, and by some measures it isn't. Therefore, it depends on your definition of southern.


It helps sometimes.


It's quite possible that there are. I certainly never said there aren't.


I don't think it's particularly sudden. There have been rich Democrats as long as the party has existed. The same is true of Republicans.

It's not a tag team, but it sure is a waste of tiime. I think I'll go hang out with the other intellectual elites here in the Northeast, after I laugh all the way to the bank.

I'll come along if I get to flog a peasant. I haven't flogged a peasant in a month of Sundays.

Oh, hell yeah! What could be more fun than laughing all the way to the bank, then flogging a peasant while asserting one's intellectual elitism?

Sounds simply wonderful.
Is there a sign up list?
Or is this a private party?

Re: Obama/Edwards ticket...


I don't like it. Obama should not make the same mistake Kerry did. A couple of one-term junior Senators with limited leadership are prime targets for GOP jackals. If Obama gets the nomination, he should pick a running mate that can shore up his leadership and national security credentials to win the swing voters.

I think Wesley Clark would be a good choice, just from a political standpoint. I still say if he had been Kerry's running mate, we might never have lost the last election.

It's Kerry's advisors who told Edwards to shut up about any important issue and try to win by triangulating.