Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests

[Tellurian]

and is champion for corporate welfare.

July 16, 2007 8:00 AM

Justin Rood Reports:

Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.

In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who "have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."

"It's an entire culture in Washington -- some of it legal, some of it not," the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.

But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm's U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

:::

"While legal, Obama's bills on behalf of Nufarm and other companies are part of the special treatment machine Washington rolls out for special interests, say good-government watchdogs."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html

...Obama, the TRANSFORMER...Transforming 'special interests' reaping mega profits off the backs of Americans, one corporation at a time..

[Tellurian]

1. Does Obama wear these to work,

while his staff does the 'dirty work'?

[Double T]

2. The LAST THING we need is another President to continue.........

the Corporatocracy. THINK before YOU vote!!

[Ethelk2044]

8. Then you definitely do not want Hillary

The Corporations have her in their pocket.

[GreenPartyVoter]

57. Amen!

[wyldwolf]

3. ** crickets**

[murielm99]

4. But if it was HRC....

Oh, well, maybe it is too early.

I have no favorite yet.

[Tellurian]

7. So, where are the self-righteous defenders..?

Is this thread blinding them with the Audacity of Obama?

:kick:

[wyldwolf]

9. ** crickets**

[bling bling]

24. Maybe the OP has lost her credibility and nobody bothers to read her threads.

Just a thought.

on edit: Or maybe nobody bothers to respond because it's an exercise in futility. The OP is on a mission and anyone who's been around here for while knows it.

That's the problem with crying "wolf" over an over and over. Eventually one might have a legitimate criticism but everyone has long since tuned that person out.

[wyldwolf]

25. posting a news article = OP loses credibility. Riiight.

[bling bling]

27. You obviosly didn't get my point. That's ok. You two are peas in the same pod anyway. n/t

[wyldwolf]

30. I did get your point. But it was a silly point. That's ok. I expect that from you

[bling bling]

31. lol.

[wyldwolf]

33. lol

[Double T]

5. Tough to counter the FACTS and TRUTH.

[Tellurian]

6. Pity the poor State of Illinois..Choking on ahem, Clean Coal, and drinking pesticide tainted water..

Obama the Transformer, transforming the earth, supporting one poison at a time!

[wyldwolf]

10. kick

[Lerkfish]

11. curious post.

in order to deflect charges of hillary being corporatist, the method is to accuse Obama of the same thing. which tacitly admits its a BAD THING.

Not sure one absolves the other.

Also, this is a pure Rovian tactic: accuse the opponent of your own weakness.

it might work with the sheeple republicans, I suppose.

:shrug:

[Lerkfish]

12. Hm...no response.

but that's ok.

[wyldwolf]

13. uh, no. The OP demonstrates the hypocrisy of some Obama supporters.

If the OP had actually made a judgement of the practice, you might have a point. Instead, the OP "took on the role" of the typical leftist, mocking them, in regards to this type of thing.

Even you can't find it in yourself to say Obama is bad for doing it. You have to try to turn it into a Clinton supporter thing.

[Lerkfish]

16. ok, thanks.

As I stated, I found the OP curious. I find the tactic of accusing your opponent of your own weakness classic rovian.

You state instead it was "mocking typical leftists".

That''s a distinction without a difference, I'm afraid.

[wyldwolf]

18. Then it is the lefter-most Obama supporters on DU who are rovian

day in and day out - Clinton is a corporate whore. Turns out THEY are accusing Clinton of Obama's weakness. But, actually, there is no accusation here. The OP is factual.

[Lerkfish]

23. I sense hostility in you, young paduan.

you view this board as all against you and your candidate. You oppose the "lefter-most" members. You consider yourself and your candidate persecuted.

You feel outnumbered and underrepresented. So, you spend all your time poking people in the eye with a stick.

Not really sure, but it seems as if you have this vendetta to OFFEND people who aren't for your candidate...all that really happens is you turn people completely off her.

I know that I personally have been completely turned of of Clinton because of you and other of her adherents here, not that you care, but that's the problem see...you really don't care.

:shrug:

your anger succeeds only in pushing people away from you and your cause.

[wyldwolf]

26. then the force has misled you

[Lerkfish]

29. no, I think clinton zeal has repelled me.

we don't need another person worshipped like a demigod in office.
it hasn't worked out all that well for us.

[wyldwolf]

32. the only worshipping that goes on is by the left for their pet candidates...

When one sees someone as infallible (like Deaniacs in 2004 and now Obama supporters), any evidence that knocks their gods back down a hair is met with hostility.

[Lerkfish]

36. um...wow. project much?

are you able to admit to ANY faults at all on Clinton's side of the ledger sheet? I'll wait.


In the meantime...on my part, I think all the candidates have faults and the only one who matches my nonwar antittorture position the closest is Kucinich, as far as I can tell. I'm unhappy with all the top three contenders: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards because they are not coming out strongly enough against the war and torture. I would prefer a true progressive candidate.

however, I will support whoever ends up as the nominee.

you see, that's because I DON"T sit in adoring worship of a particular candidate.....not that's there's anything wrong with that, per se...but for people like me, watching from the sidelines, you mudslingers don't realize how pathetic you become going after each other instead of working together. It frankly disgusts me.

[wyldwolf]

37. Not projection at all. In fact, I posted recently that I know Clinton's faults.

:shrug:

To the average Obama fan on DU, "corporatism" was bad UNTIL Obama did it, then it was justified.
Merit pay for teachers was bad UNTIL Obama came out for it, then it was justified. Etc.

Find me ONE instance where a Clinton supporter condemned a practice only to find Clinton did it herself. One instance.

Clinton supporters don't have the lofty and unattainable criteria "progressives" have when choosing a candidate.

[Lerkfish]

39. um, not really sure you wanted to phrase it that way.

"Clinton supporters don't have the lofty and unattainable criteria "progressives" have when choosing a candidate."

That could be read in a negative light, but I get what you were trying to say.

I edited to add: but honestly, you're still just mudslinging obama supporters here.
Even though I'm not an obama supporter, that gets very tiresome, its gratuitous, its counterproductive, and it does little towards contributing to civil discourse.

[wyldwolf]

42. answer me this

Unless you are blind, you would have to agree that much more mud is slung at Clinton, her supporters, and the DLC in general than any other group on DU. Hell, I can hardly get through a thread without at least one reply to a post of mine getting deleted for breaking the DU civility rules.

So you're actually going to finger wag me about mudslinging obama supporters?

Sounds like you either need to start a thread on the very topic of mudslinging OR pick an anti-Clinton thread at random and preach to them, too.

[Lerkfish]

44. um, no actually I don't have to do that.

I'm not blind, and I don't have to agree with your perception of how Clinton is or isn't treated.
Your perception of criticism of Clinton is directly proportional to your emotional investment in her as a candidate. In other words, you're going to be hyper sensitive of criticism because of your fanatic devotion to her. You're going to take criticism of her as something personal against yourself. And when you do that, you're going to lash out in retaliation against any critic, and feel justified in doing so.

I don't have to adopt your same level of fanaticism of Clinton to objectively observe ANYONE who is pushing for or against a candidate. Your attitude is that unless someone sees something PRECISELY AS YOU DO, they are blind.

And I'm saying I do not see things as you do. Live with it.

[wyldwolf]

46. right. whatever.

[dionysus]

62. ooooh you shut him up! bravo!

[ripple]

54. Your one instance...

Liquified coal technology. Obama was lambasted by Clinton supporters for suggesting that it might be an option, only to have Clinton suggest the very same thing.

[dionysus]

61. the underoos and chewbacca suit are calling you.....

[SaveElmer]

14. Simple pointing out hypocrisy...

If Obama wants to come off as Mr. Pure on campaign finance and ethics in Government, he is going to have his record scrutinized for examples of that which he decries....

So lets see...as this article points out, he is not averse to helping lobbyists if he deems it politically expedient...

He won't take money from federal lobbyists, but will take money from their wives....

And of course will take money from state lobbyists...

And one of his top honchos in New Hampshire is a former lobbyist for the gambling industry...

[Lerkfish]

17. but you don't get my point: If you consider his corporatism BAD

but Clinton's corporatism NOT BAD, then instead of highlighting someone else's hypocrisy, you merely expose your own.

[SaveElmer]

19. I don't criticise either one of them for playing by the current set of rules...

Surely the Republicans are not going to let up in their fundraising, so I am unwilling to have the Democratic candidate do so unilaterally...until the day when something can be done to permanently correct the campaign finance system in this country, I want Democrats going toe to toe with the Republicans...

However, when one candidate says he is going to play by a different set of rules that he views as more ethical, and then doesn't, criticism should come his way...

[Scriptor Ignotus]

21. if he deems it "politcally expedient"?

you mean like, if he deems it "of value to his constituents"? how dare an elected representative do such a thing!

[bvar22]

15. A POX on BOTH their Corporate Houses!

[Bullet1987]

20. BINGO!

If you consider his corporatism BAD but Clinton's corporatism NOT BAD, then instead of highlighting someone else's hypocrisy, you merely expose your own.

DING DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!!! Some people just want to smear the new guy because they're afraid of him...that's why they go out of their way to find hit pieces. It's not only Rovian, but amazingly Double Think as well...it's totally contradictory because she (Tellurian) supports a highly corporate candidate.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

22. RESPONSE

With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic. Sen. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., has introduced none, although she has co-sponsored 19 that were introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Seven were to benefit the Honeywell Corporation, whose lobbyist has contributed $6,500 to Clinton since 2005. Sen. Joseph Biden, Del., has introduced none.
...
"Sen. Obama helped his constituents obtain foreign products necessary for their business at an affordable rate," said Ben LaBolt, noting that Obama made sure all the products "met strong environmental standards" before pushing to make it cheaper to import them.
...
A review of campaign finance records turned up no record of contributions from Nufarm to Obama.
...
also, from google finance, Nufarm had net profit margin's of 5.52 for 2006%. Are these the MEGAPROFITS of which you speak?
...
FYI - Nufarm is involved in the BIODIESEL INDUSTRY. STUPID EVIL CORPORATIONS!!! Don't you dare wean us off our addiction to foreign oil!!!

[wyldwolf]

28. there are constituent considerations for everyone.

It is a funny thing to watch, indeed, each election year when the choice of the netroots (or activists before the internet) is suddenly caught doing what his/her followers have condemned.

[SaveElmer]

35. So what Obama meant to say was...

"We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends(unless they're mine) and high-priced lobbyists(unless I like them), but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American(especially Illinoisans).That's the kind of president I intend to be."

[zulchzulu]

50. Thanks for the complete smackdown...

Look at the HillShiller Twins run out of ammo. Pathetic...

:rofl:

[Capn Sunshine]

34. Ah yes Justin Rood- whose agenda is to destroy the Democratic party

So the long awaited "third party " will rise.
That guy.

Hey, when are we going to see the Romney talking points on Obama here?
It's about the only source you haven't tapped to muddy up things.

Meanwhile, Obama raises record funds from individual donors. The little folks on the street that don't post on DU all day. They don't live inside the beltway. They know the truth. They back it up with dollars , and nothing any of you post here will change that.
Scoreboard.

[wyldwolf]

38. so he made all that up, then? Complete fabrication?

psst! Obama LOVES the third-way. He's probably the most famous non-card carrying member of the DLC today.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

41. he didn't make it up

it's called reeeaaaaching. reaching for a scandal. reaching for hypocrisy.

This particular article is not really that amazing to me. He hooked up a company to provide goods for his farming constituents. This is supposed to be a scandal? This is hypocrisy? A company donated $1K? Another's employees donated under $5K? Color me underwhelmed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. More mythology. BO raised $40+ million from big donors and $22+ million from maxed out donors

==Meanwhile, Obama raises record funds from individual donors. The little folks on the street that don't post on DU all day.==

That is the myth. The reality is he beat HRC by almost $5 million among those giving over $200 and was on par with her among those giving the maximum of $2,300. Dean ran a truly grassroots campaign fueled primarily by small donors; Obama has as much fatcat support as HRC. What small donors do for him is provide the margin over HRC. It is a myth, though, that the Obama campaign is a grassroots-powered campaign like Dean's was.

Obviously, those fatcats giving BO all this money know what they are doing. They are not giving him all this money for fun. They give him money for the same reasons they give HRC money...

[democratsin08]

40. lets not kid ourselves

every candidate, democrats and stupidicans are owned by special interests. they have little in common with us.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaveElmer]

47. Wow...you are so scaaary...

Are you gonna wow us with more selective quoting?

[mistertrickster]

48. Nice smear job from our Hillarybots. Good Giddling Gosh, how much big Pharma $ has the ice queen

sucked down.

America has had enough of the Clintons'. Never forget that BJ Bill was why Gore lost (even though he won) and why we've endured (barely) seven years of the Worst. President. Ever.

He should have stepped down after his uncontrollable sex addiction was revealed and let Gore be president.

Hillary is the only candidate who CAN LOSE in November. Kuchinich is more electable than she is.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. What is a "hillarybot"? nt

[mistertrickster]

53. RoBOT like support for Hillary. Like a BushBOT. nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. Thanks nt

[TeamJordan23]

49. When is Hillary going to release her earmarks? nm

[illinoisprogressive]

51. from Hillary is 44??? bwaaaahahahahahahaha

[wyldwolf]

55. no, from abcnews. Guess you didn't read the whole OP

[illinoisprogressive]

58. str---eeee----t---chhhhhh. See if you can stretch again.

[Tellurian]

59. Hypocrites wear rubber gloves..

"On the same day Obama stridently vowed to Union officials, "he won't shop" at Wal-Mart. His staffers were busy shuttling around Wal-Mart in Bedford, N.H., buying $182 worth of office equipment.”

And what about: "Obama for voting “Present” twice in the Illinois State Legislature on Abortion rights, instead of voting in favor of women’s rights, and taking a stand?"

[dionysus]

60. you Hillbots dupe the same article over and over.

and you even kick your own thread. feh

[draft_mario_cuomo]

63. You mean just like the "Obamabots"?

;)

[zulchzulu]

64. The more they post this kind of crap, the more people figure Clinton must be the same way

This story is going nowhere...

Another swing and a miss...