Edwards Blasts Obama Lobbyist Plan as 'Fantasy'

[Omaha Steve]

Source: ABC News

By RICK KLEIN

BLOOMFIELD, Iowa

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards derided as a "fantasy" Friday Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., hope that he can work with Washington lobbyists to bring about change as he seeks to sharpen his differences with the Democratic front-runners in advance of Sunday's ABC News Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa.

Edwards said in an interview with ABC News aboard his campaign bus that Obama's statement that lobbyists would "have a seat at the table" under his administration misunderstands the nature of their power over Washington business.


In an interview with ABC News, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., pledge to work with lobbyists in Washington to bring about change is a "fantasy." (Justin Ide US ELECTION/REUTERS)

"I disagree with that," Edwards said on board the "Fighting for One America" bus, as he and his campaign entourage traveled between campaign stops in Iowa. "The idea that lobbyists for insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, are going to voluntarily give away their power is a fantasy. I don't think it will ever happen. I think the only way we're going to bring about change is to take them on head-on, and to defeat them."

Edwards Blasts Clinton, Obama

Edwards had sharper words for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., suggesting that she would bring her own group of "Washington insiders" if she were elected president.


Read more: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3492733&page=1

[youngdem]

1. Obama really should shut the hell up.

He isn't helping himself.

EVERY single time he speaks he seems to showcase his lack of experience and depth.

I know he is a smart man, but I just think he is naive as shit as to how the big boy, grown up world actually works.

He needs to either go back to Congress or join a ticket as the Veep. He sure isn't going anywhere as the nominee.

Jesus Obama, you want to invite the lobbyists to the table to negotiate?

Hilarious. And stupid.

Edwards is right. You are gonna have to pry America out of the fingers of the lobbyists. They are never in a million years gonna give it up. After all, it's their JOB.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. On this issue, I'm surprised Obama doesn't know how seriously bad

the situation is. It's a corrupt way of life and until someone is strong enough to call them all out, it's never going to stop. Giving them a place at the table is exactly what they want. Give them an inch, and they'll take your foot, leg and lower torso.

[youngdem]

36. Yup.

It is exactly as naive as trying to negotiate with the mob on your loan.

[sarcasmo]

76. Obama's Lack of experience appears to be showing on this one.

[McCamy Taylor]

73. But the corporate media will twist it so he sounds like a friggin genius

The corporate media is desperate to get the Dems to nominate Obama. The corporate media has made Obama the candidate he is--a sugary sweet concoction that is all fluff with no nutritional value at all. And just wait, once he is nominated, they will turn on him. Every word he utters will suddenly be wrong, every step he takes will be a stumble. There will be no pleasing any member of the press--after he is the nominated. I-N-E-X-P-E-R-I-E-N-C-E will be the buzz word. The nation will be in the grips of Obama fatigue. Since he is a creation of the press, he can be deconstructed by the press.

Why is the corporate media doing this?

Because, the corporate media wants four more years of Republican FCC lax federal media rule enforcement.

[saracat]

2. And right he is! Edwards is "bringing it" He can win this thing.

[zazzle]

17. Edwards is defining the Democratic Party - that Centrists have blurred for decades!

Notice that the "democrats" on CORPORATE media panels and Sunday talk shows are DLC members and/or Centrists - promoting Dem values as a reaction to Repub values - rather than promoting proactive values of the Democratic Party - the party of The People!
Edwards is taking STRONG stands FOR The People - advocating specific plans and solutions for The People - and defining the Democratic Party as the party of The People. Naturally, the corporate media promotes Dem candidates that rake in the corporate moolah and avoid committing to specific positions.

[Pastiche423]

77. How soon we forget

johnnyboy WAS a DLCer when he was in the senate.

[bettync]

25. I agree!

Edwards is pushing the important issues out there where everyone has to take a look at them. He is forcing the other candidates to tell us where they stand. When the facts come out, it is clear that Edwards is leading on key issues. His ideas show wisdom and a determination to set things right again!

[FreakinDJ]

3. Edwards : Looking good in 08

I think we need this guy.

[deacon]

59. I with you on this. He is the one we should jump behind.

[David__77]

4. What, people shouldn't lobby the government?

Isn't lobbying merely a tool in the hands of private citizens to fight for a certain policy agenda? The problem isn't lobbying, the problem is lobbyists who support bad causes.

[Vincardog]

5. People should lobby the government. Parasitic Corrupt Corporations should NOT.

Keep those straw man arguments coming. We have plenty of matches.

[David__77]

7. I'm not disagreeing.

I'm just pointing out that the very word "lobby" has been demonized. I've lobbied for various policies before as a private citizen. Perhaps then Edwards should propose a law to prohibit corporations from engaging in or funding lobbying efforts.

[loudsue]

20. That was the same point Hillary made at the YouTube forum...

and was summarily booed.

:kick:

[saracat]

21. Hardly.She said Lobbyists were people too.They are not.

They are highly paid schills for corporate or special interests.She was talking about "paid" lobbyists.She mentioned AFLCIO and AEA. She was not talking about citizen lobbyists.

[MGKrebs]

63. You don't know what you're talking about.

I know several lobbyists: They work for environmental groups, the ACLU, and family planning organizations.
They are most definitely people, they are assuredly not highly paid, and they devote their lives (much more than I do) to representing citizens.
I dislike being mean, but you are reinforcing a fundamentalist approach to government, where anything that can't be done perfectly should be condemned completely. It is childish and dangerous, as far as an obscure internet posting can be anyway. I hope you can reconsider such a crude and demagogish point of view.

[venable]

66. your argument is lucid, but it ignores the central fact

that many powerful lobbyists, ie the ones that the candidates are talking about, represent interests almost always contrary to the public good.

These are the people that Obama is talking about, and I know this because this is the group under discussion, and that Edwards doesn't trust.

[MGKrebs]

68. If the problem is "capitalism" or "corporations" or whatever, then let's say that.

We cannot hope to solve the problem if we can't even accurately identify it.

People need to be allowed to organize and exert their opinion. Opposing lobbying BY DEFAULT cedes the field to the already-organized corporations.

[venable]

69. Unless you target the major, greedy, commonweath-corrupting lobbies

which is absolutely what Edwards is talking about. It's in every single speech. He names them by industry.

He is not talking about NOW, or Sierra Club, or Greenpeace, or unions.

[karynnj]

91. Edwards trusted them enough to work for a Hedge Fund

What does Edwards actually propose to do? Why would he be against an approach like Obama's that seeks to change the way lobbyists and legislators interact to reduce abuses. Given that Obama wrote provisions of the ethics bill that are a step in the right direction and got them in the bill over Schumer's objections, this almost seems like Edwards attacking an Obama strength. What did Edwards do when he was in Congress?

[MadAnne]

79. Exactly.

When they are on our side we call them advocates. Still they are paid to lobby.

[karynnj]

90. No it wasn't

Hillary argued that accepting campaign dollars from lobbyists was ok.

Obama is saying that we need to change the rules for lobbying. Given his work on the ethics bill, it would be to make things more transparent and to further make it harder for lobbyists to control legislation.

Edwards is saying that we need to confront the lobbyists.

However, changing the way public officials deal with lobbyists - changing the rules - may be the effective way to change the status quo. What exactly does Edwards propose doing? You have a right to lobby your representative - as does the owner of a business. Where it gets dicey is when corporate interests via their lobbyists provide personal goodies or campaign contributions to legislators who do what they want. There I find the legislators the more culpable, because they are abusing the trust people put in them.

[Vincardog]

23. DAvid is against Lobbyists. Not citizens lobbying "lobbyist" implies paid operative.

[MadAnne]

80. Well then, DAvid

would be against Planned Parenthood, Naral, Sierra Club, ACLU, United Mine Workers, etc. They all have paid lobbyist. You would be hard pressed to find any organization that doesn't have paid lobbists.

[donkeyotay]

8. Lobbying as speech isn't the problem; lobbying as bribery is.

Obama's blowing smoke up our skirts if he thinks he can "negotiate" with the people who buy legislation and legislators. But silly me, we all know THAT doesn't happen. We haven't been provided with a smoking memo and canceled check yet.

[David__77]

9. I have no idea...

...don't all the president do this to some extent? We know Bush has, but I don't know about Clinton. Getting input is one thing. I certainly don't want the driver seat to be given over.

[cascadiance]

75. This is precisely right. If campaigns were funded by public financing, we'd not need ANY bribes...

... from these groups!

Then, it could be mandatory that lobbyists don't have ANY ways to financially twist arms of those in Washington, and the only purpose they would serve is to represent interests in TALKING to legislators so that legislators can make better informed decisions that affect these various groups of people (whether they be NOW, PETA, or corporations), from the PEOPLE's perspective. Lobbyists would have to show how doing things the way they'd like them to be done isn't going to adversely affect the people. That part is missing now, as it is purely now how much money can you give my campaign so I can get reelected and I'll do your work for you, damn the public. Everyone in that situation loses (both the public and the smaller funded groups like NOW and PETA) lose out to the well funded corporate interests and those of the congress people itself that feed off of this system.

[karynnj]

92. Why do you think that is what Obama means?

What he DID was to tighten some of the rules on lobbyists in the ethics bill - and they must have had some impact - as Schumer fought it. What did Edwards do in his 6 years in Congress on this issue?

[calteacherguy]

47. Correct! Edwards has misinterpreted the problem!

The problem is not lobbyists...lobbyists represent interests, and it is ultimately American people who have the interests.

The problem is too much big money power in the hands of a few. Edwards is suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A good leader listens to a wide range of viewpoints, even those he or she disagrees with. Shutting down dialogue with those who represent a wide variety of American interests is not the answer to the money problem. A good leader should listen to all, then do what is best in their judgement for the American people as a whole.

The problem is money, not lobbyists.

[Inspired]

64. Defending lobbyists now, are we? Too funny! n/t

[LSK]

71. well this isnt 1802 anymore

You can go try and lobby, but without the big cash, good luck.

The system is broken. When the oil lobby throws millions into your campaign, who are you going to listen to????

[karynnj]

89. and politicians who accept what are really bribes - legal or otherwise form lobbyists

Good lobbyists explain detailed industry circumstances to legislators, who need to balance that information with other information. The problem is when certain politicians are willing to take legislation written by the lobbyists - to benefit their clients and push it in Congress.

Obama is correct in a having a nuanced position where he says he would change how lobbyists work - rather than just saying that he will fight evil lobbyists.

Obama is coming from a position of strength here - he was the main person who got some of the stronger provisions which restrain lobbyist contributions into the ethics bill - over Schumer's objections. He also had a role in getting an ethics bill in the Senate. (Edwards did nothing on this issue while in the Senate.)

[bluestateguy]

6. I'd like to see the new president refuse to meet with any lobbyists

For awhile anyway.

[potone]

10. What I find annoying about these stories is how they are framed.

Edwards "blasts" Obama and has "sharper words" for Senator Clinton. Why is every disagreement framed by the news media as an attack? One of these candidates will end up getting the nomination and the others will back whoever gets it. This inflammatory rhetoric makes it sound as if they are all at one another's throat, and that will make it harder for them and their respective supporters to rally around the winning candidate.

[redqueen]

18. I think you answered your own question there. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

29. true! the hyperbole seems dedicated to just causing controversy

can't the wonderful JE just point out that Obama is showing naivety without making up descriptions so harshly like, "blasts" and "harsher words for" Clinton!

I back JE all the way, but you make a great point. Whoever is OUR candidate, I will back FULLY. NOT ANOTHER REPUKE IN OFFICE IN MY LIFE IF POSSIBLE!

[ryanmuegge]

11. Corporations are too powerful now to regulate.

No matter what anyone does, it's going to be tough to put the genie back in the bottle.

[texastoast]

32. Maybe

But what are the options? Certainly not giving up.

[ryanmuegge]

58. No doubt. And I hear a lot of "let's just live with it" talk from some of the other Democrats.

We've had enough of that.

[knight_of_the_star]

37. Not if we get someone in the WH who will fight hard and play rough

Just enforcing the laws on the books and putting in cabinet members and officials to vigorously enforce the law will put a serious crimp in the corporations.

[ryanmuegge]

12. Corporations are too powerful now to regulate.

No matter what anyone does, it's going to be tough to put the genie back in the bottle.

That doesn't mean that politicians shouldn't try, but it's just not realistic.

The more Obama speaks, the more it becomes obvious that he's for business as usual. Look at where that's got us.

[waiting for hope]

13. K&R!!

Edwards is taking no prisoners ...

Go, Johnny, GO!

[bobthedrummer]

14. To hell with seats at a table where IMPEACHMENT and prosecution

were taken off by Nancy Pelosi and the new leadership that we, the people put in DC last November despite everything else. To hell with voting for any candidate and platforms setting a table where corporate criminals are invited to sit and we, the people aren't.

IMPEACH THEM ALL-CHENEY FIRST.

[ultraist]

15. Obama will give lobbyists a seat at the table?

And yet, he jumped on board with Edwards at YearlyKos that candidates should not accept federal lobbist donations when Edwards challanged all candidates to refuse federal lobbyist donations? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6ttdmO0d8


Sounds like Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[calteacherguy]

46. Not at all. There's a difference between taking money and listening to a point of view. nt

[jsamuel]

16. He is really driving home the differences between them. Obama wants to expose lobbyist donations

while Edwards wants to stop them.

[zazzle]

19. Good point!

[JudyM]

22. What's needed is a rule against lobbyists' gifts and donations, and transparency in the government's

books. It's simple stuff: our elected politicians are making enough money and they are supposed to be working for us. They ought to be able to listen to lobbyists' points (some lobbyists represent good causes, like pro-environmental groups) and make their ultimate policy decisions without the APPEARANCE of impropriety. When they receive expensive gifts, trips and donations there is an appearance of impropriety.

There can be no question that the more lavish gifts/donations are given with an implicit expectation - or hope -that the 'favor' will be returned by the policymaker. There is no other function served by these gifts/donations, so let's cut the mass delusion and just put an end to it.

[calteacherguy]

52. Best post of the thread!

:thumbsup:

[JudyM]

72. Well, thanks, Calteacherguy! It just seems so obvious, doesn't it....

:hi:

[nolabels]

74. We will need a way remove money from influencing elections

There is enough laws on the books to stop bribery but not enough laws to get good honest people elected. If politicians have to spend too much time figuring out how finance their elections then they will probably not have enough time or power to wrestle with all the competing interests

[donkeyotay]

82. Yes, let's end the mass delusion. Corporations give money because...

they expect nothing and get nothing in return? They do it because they're patriotic? No, corporations exists to make moneyand they are getting good returns on their political investment. They are buying representation, our representation. The mass delusion in Washington is that no one is actually INFLUENCED by this money, and it's just a conincidence that they keep writing legislation that benefits their donors, not the citizens they supposedly represent. Call it what it is, whether Washington can tell the truth our not. It's legalized bribery.

[JudyM]

83. Exactly! Legalized bribery. Or the pink elephant in the room. n/t

[citizen53]

26. Edwards on Lobbyists in 2004:

Q: Is there anything intrinsically wrong with being a lobbyist?

EDWARDS: No. There's something wrong with the impact that Washington lobbyists are having on our system of government. The lobbyists are taking democracy away from the American people. Lobbyists who make huge campaign contributions are lobbying the Congress every day. We need to restore the power in this democracy to the American people so that these insiders are not continuing to run this government.

What I would do is ban their contributions. I would shine a bright light on their activities so we know what they're doing. And I would make them tell us everything they're doing: Who they're lobbying for; the money they're spending; who they're trying to influence. The power of the American people to have their representatives decide only in the interests of the American people has been taken away. I've never taken any money from Washington lobbyists, but no one should be able to take money from them.

Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004

http://house.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Edwards_Government_Reform.htm

[jsamuel]

28. Thanks for that great information!

[benny05]

30. Welcome to the DU!

:hi:

Thanks for the information and joining us in conversation over here.

[citizen53]

39. Thanks for the greeting...

I hope to figure it out. :)

[Yael]

61. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Thanks for the quote!

[UrbScotty]

27. Kind of like criticizing Vince Lombardi for not winning any Super Bowls

Criticizing him for not doing something taht he IS doing.

[David Zephyr]

31. I have to agree with Edwards here. Also, Fred Thompson was a 20 year lobbyist.

I don't think talking about working with lobbyists, especially when there's a chance that the GOP nominee will be a career lobbyist (Fred Thompson). It wasn't a bright move by Obama.

I just keep shaking my head, because the only campaign that continues to act like a real, serious presidential campaign is that of Hillary Clinton. I'd never thought that she would be the grown-up with the kick-ass campaign, but she is.

In any event, Obama left himself open to this fair charge by John Edwards.

[Darth_Ole]

34. Hang on here, folks...

I may have missed it, but does anyone have a link to the original quote from Obama? Something with context perhaps? As it is, this reminds me of everybody assuming Obama was going to "invade Pakistan" until they actually read or watched the speech...

Obama doesn't take PAC or lobbyist money, and he's even said members of his administration will be barred from talking with former employers and when they leave his administration, they can't lobby for the first two years so we can end the revolving door system we have now...

So again, somebody find me Obama's original speech and then convince me that Edwards' position is substantially different...

[jaybeat]

40. Here's what I found...

Obama finds his stride at NAACP debate (Chicago Sun-Times)

July 13, 2007
BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist

DETROIT -- Sen. Barack Obama is indeed a quick study. After looking surprisingly unpolished in a nationally televised forum targeting black audiences nearly two weeks ago, Obama held his own against his closest rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, at the 98th NAACP National Convention at Cobo Hall in Detroit on Thursday morning.

Obama, who is pitting change against experience in the 2008 Democratic primary, got off more than a few crisp one-liners while crafting a message that at times elicited thunderous applause that drowned out some of his words, but obviously bolstered his confidence in the debate arena.

"If you are poor in this country, it is hazardous to your health. If you are black and poor, that's downright deadly," Obama said in response to a question about health care posed by a delegate and given to the candidates in advance of the forum.

"We will not close the gap until we create a system of universal health care. The way to do that is to ignore the insurance companies and drug companies. In negotiations, it's OK for them to have a seat at the table, but they can't buy every single chair."

It was the kind of retort that Obama, who tends to be long-winded when addressing policy questions even when the cameras are rolling, has had a difficult time firing off in past debates. On Thursday, Obama seemed to have found his stride.

The crowd erupted into shouts more common at a tent revival than a forum when Obama pointed out that though convicted, Scooter Libby didn't have to spend one day in prison, while poor people who are found guilty go to prison for years.

To my ear, it does sound like he's leaving out a key piece, namely, HOW do you keep health care (or any other industry's) lobbyists from "buying every single chair." Maybe by, uh, making it illegal for politicians to accept lobbyist's contributions, along with the other things in Edwards' proposal? You can talk about health care, energy reform, tax reform, etc., all you want, but you won't have the votes in Congress to effect real change that benefits real people unless you stop the cash flow. (Are you listening, Hil?) Senator Obama certainly knows this; is he playing us for fools, or just leaving out the details?

Either way, I think Edwards' efforts at drawing distinctions between himself and Clinton and Obama are working.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[huskerlaw]

35. Exactly.

Most of Obama's plans sound good, but lack the ability to be implemented in the real world. And most of Hillary's smack of politics as usual.

In typical Edwards fashion, callin' it like he sees it.

:applause:

[knight_of_the_star]

38. I'm starting to like him more and more

Still waiting for the General but Edwards could be the one for me if he doesn't jump in.

[Cant trust em]

41. This is the first time I've disagreed with Obama

After the Jack Abramoff scandal, what traction do you get by giving lobbyists anything?

[calteacherguy]

42. Obama is right, and Edwards is being silly.

It's really getting hard to take Edwards seriously anymore. Is he also going to ban lobbyists from the Sierra Club, the National Organization for Women, the National Education Association, ect?

Real leadership means talking to everyone, and excluding nobody. It means listening to all points of view, then making your own decision. Edwards is showing he is not a real leader, just a cheap panderer.

[Dr Fate]

44. Tell that to swing-voters who have nothing but negative perceptions of ANY "lobbyists."

Go ahead- stand up for the "lobbyists"- ANY lobbyist- and see how far it gets you with regular joes.

[calteacherguy]

45. Excluding an entire group of people from having a voice is not leadership.

I agree the influence of lobbyists must be curbed, but it's a money problem. There is nothing wrong with listening to a wide range of viewpoints. In fact, it is to be applauded. Hillary had a good point when she said many Washington lobbyists represent everyday Americans. Many of them of course, do not. However, that's not the point. The point is good leaders listen to even those they disagree with.

Edwards disappoints me more and more with his cheap political pandering everyday. I'm looking for a leader who, unlike Bush, will listen to a wide range of interests and viewpoints. It is only then that true leadership can emerge.

[Dr Fate]

48. Scapegoating lobbyists can make a candidate appealing enough to win a leadership position.

Hillary did not have a good point when she said Lobbyists represent everyday Americans, in fact, she was full of it. You wont find a single poll where any sizable amount of the electorate holds that perception.

These voters know that a politican does NOT need the current system of lobbying in order to be exposed to a wide range of viewpoints- that is a crock-and it is the last thing they should or would applaud.

I dont expect Hillary to go around repeating pro-lobbyist positions over and over, and I doubt she will be running an openly pro-lobbyist campaign if she wants to keep her current numbers.

Pandering? I for one am GLAD that someone is finally "pandering" to regular people who are not rich and influential- it's about time someone said some things that I can find agreement with.

I'd rather Edwards pander to me, a man without access to a lobbyist, than have Hillary pandering to lobbyists themselves by telling me how great they are.

Real leadership does NOT require a bunch of slick lobbyists telling one what and how to think- and I think your average joe would agree with Edwards on that point.

[calteacherguy]

49. You are denying the nature of Democracy.

It is the nature of Democracy for people to form interest groups. I belong to several, mostly environmental, but also union. I pay my dues expecting that lobbying will be done on my behalf as part of the larger interest group. It's the way Democratic politics works in a pluralistic society.

The problem is how money is distributed to candidates and campaigns, not lobbying. We need real campaign finance reform that limits contributes from interest groups. Lobbying is simply promoting an agenda or political viewpoint. That is not the problem. The problem is money, and the supreme court decision that gave corporations rights that should only belong to individuals (but that is another topic).

Edit: And "scapegoating" is a good word for it.

[Dr Fate]

50. The nature of a Democracy I want has nothing to do with back-slappers with big check-books.

I cant speak for Obama or Hillary and her supporters for their vision of how a Democracy should work, but I know that lobbying as it functions today aint working for me and my family- or the majority of Americans- ESPECIALLY swing-voters who really dont get involved in one political dog-fight over another.

Lobbying IS percieved as a huge problem-if you think sticking up for them helps your candidate, go for it- good luck with that one...

[calteacherguy]

51. If you read my post you would see that I agree with you on the big check-books. nt

[Dr Fate]

53. It's not me you need to convince. It's the swing voters and apolitical, regular joes.

Mention the word "lobbyists" them in any CONTEXT- be they working for Walmart, Unions, Save The Whales, or what have you-and see what response you get.

My solution is to require any and all conversations with lobbyists to be fully transcribed and available on the politician's website, but that is just me. (I know, I know, that wont work becuase our poor congressmen need access to "unvarnished, candid advice" or some other sob story)

[calteacherguy]

54. I like your solution.

"My solution is to require any and all conversations with lobbyists to be fully transcribed and available on the politician's website."

Why didn't Edwards propose that instead of the scapegoating and cheap political hits on other Dems?

[Dr Fate]

55. Edwards is responding to an opponent in a political contest.

He is making a calculated & direct response to Obama's stated position- which is what happens when you have opponents in a political contest.

I would LOVE for him or anyone to propose my idea-but Eddie's position/"pandering" as to lobbyists is closer to mine than any of the other viable candidates. It's the best I've gotten on that one so far.

For the record, I LOVE Obama and may still support him over Edwards- I find points of agreement and disagreement with them all, some more than others.

Also, I am glad you and I came to a partial agreement on this issue.

[brentspeak]

56. Nice to know that Obama wants to give all the marginalized corporate lobbyists a "seat at the table"

Those poor, oppressed beltway lobbyists. Obama is such a great guy, looking out for the dispossessed K-Street crowd....

:nopity:

Edwards 2008 :patriot:

[Dr Fate]

57. This is why Obama's (& Hillary's?)position is a mistake- it is very easy to frame it that way. n/t

n/t

[venable]

67. oh come on. If you think Edwards is talking about NOW, then you are just making stuff up

you know full well who he is talking about, and it is obstructionist and obfuscating and muddying to even pretend otherwise.

He's talking about the vastly wealthy lobbyists that work against the public good. You know that.

'Hard to take Edwards seriously' - I say exactly the same about you, if you so choose to misrepresent what is actually even being discussed.

[goodhue]

43. I'm liking Edwards more and more everyday

[deacon]

60. It's official. I am now backing Edwards.

[jsamuel]

70. Welcome aboard!

[Yael]

62. There is no question that he is our best [ONLY!] chance

[Darrell Davis]

65. Edwards, Obama and so on..

I think that we all are playing the political game as we continue to spout polls and opinions about the "other" way to go. I don't hear any of the Democratic front runners doing any more than saying what corporate America allows them to say. If you are not pushing the constitution, impeachment or the murder and robbery that is this administration, you are only running to sell books or boost your speaking fees!

[Nutmegger]

78. R&K for John Edwards!

:thumbsup::kick:

[MadAnne]

81. You all are confusing contributions with lobbists. n/t

[JudyM]

84. Corporations lobby individually and thru industry groups and they donate through their "PACs" -

Unless you know something I don't ... and if so, please let me in on it. :-)

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[MadAnne]

85. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying

Big corporations aren't the only ones who have lobbyists. I think public financing of elections is the answer to money swaying votes.

[JudyM]

86. Agreed, but lobbyists (corporate and non-corp) can continue to make donations, same difference. n/t

[MadAnne]

87. Campaign finance reform

the reform that makes all other reforms possible.

[CTLawGuy]

88. There's a difference between

listening to lobbyists and taking money from them, thus needing to do things to ensure they give you money in the future. It's ok to listen to the lobbyists if they haven't bought you.