How can anyone support this woman after her comments today about Lobbyists at YearlyKos?

[Perky]

Reported by Politico:

A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said in defense of her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”

“I don’t think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don’t think anybody seriously believes I’m going to be influenced by a lobbyist,” Clinton said. Clinton spoke in response to a challenge from former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to his Democratic rivals to stop taking contributions from federal lobbyists.

It was a popular suggestion at a convention of bloggers and liberal activists for whom the central conflict, Daily Kos blog founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga told reporters, is less ideological than between insiders and outsiders -- between those who the Netroots believe too readily accommodated President Bush and those willing to fight him and Washington's entrenched interests.

Clinton’s defense of lobbyists may have aimed at adding nuance to a debate in which Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama have cast federal lobbyists as dangerous influence peddlers while continuing to take money from corporate executives and state lobbyists.

But instead, it seemed to solidify the perception of Clinton as a Washington establishment figure in a year when Democrats are eager for change (Roger Simon has a different view). Her words drew jeers from the audience and invited sharp responses from Edwards and Obama.

“They are not spending that just because they are contributing to the public interest,” Obama said of the health care lobby, a sarcastic rejoinder to Clinton that brought the crowd of about 1,000 bloggers and liberal activists to their feet.

Edwards asked, mockingly, for a show of hands.

“How many people in this room have a Washington lobbyist working for you?” he asked.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5251.html

[AzDar]

1. Sounds pretty disconnected from the 'real-world', doesn't it?

:puke:

[Zensea]

2. Guess it depends on what the meaning of "lobbyist" is

Or "is."
That's what she's saying.
Hard to resist making that comment, so I didn't resist.

[Marr]

3. Neoliberal thinking if I've ever heard it.

"... they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

Yes, yes-- we just need to let those wonderful corporations tell us how to improve things, because when GM wins, I win. Right? Wrong.

I can't believe anyone supports this woman.

[NoPasaran]

4. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers..."

Sounds pretty reality-based to me.

[Zensea]

21. Stop making sense

This is politics not reality.
I'm no particular fan of Clinton, but she does have a point as you note.

[Marr]

28. Yes, I'm sure the social worker lobbyists are spending money like the oil industry lobbyists.

The fact that she'd even slip the corporate lobbyists in there, as if they're no more harmful than unions-- well, that's Hillary for you. There's that neoliberal thinking.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. That does scare me. nt

[tabasco]

32. She thinks we're all stupid.

Typical politician.

[yurbud]

34. corporate lobbyists don't represent those people and she specifically said corporate lobbyists are

ok too.

[kenny blankenship]

41. So that's what the K-street Project was about--social workers and nurses!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

59. Who knew?

:shrug: MKJ

[MissWaverly]

62. they also represent mercury in the water, dirty air and

cheating people out of compensation, like big tobacco and the settlement that was lost by DOJ over basic legal error.

[hootinholler]

84. They represent Corporations that employ a lot of people...

But they work against those people's interest. Sounds pretty DLC to me.

The DLC must go.

-Hoot

[Cha]

12. Trickle that

piss down!

[tblue37]

65. "... they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

in India!

[ikojo]

68. The Senator FOR Punjab and Mumbai nt

[Wiley50]

5. Not Me, but that was true long before today

It would be totally idiotic to have her as our nominee

All of the conserves, all of the independents
and half of the Dems Hate Her

it would be suicide

[defendandprotect]

76. Hillary nomination would end up with Bill Clinton penis discussions endlessly -- !!!!

[illinoisprogressive]

6. spoken like a true pro-corporate DLC insider

[Cha]

14. from, reed, and moosesplat

are goin' "Yeah, baby!"

[Kagemusha]

7. If some lobbyists are so wonderful, why won't Clinton let herself be influenced?

If these are good people with good ideas and good agendas, isn't it a bad, bad thing for Clinton to be hard-hearted and closed-minded to their concerns? To hear but not listen to these great American crusaders?

Maybe I just don't get it.

[Kingshakabobo]

10. Good point! n/t

[Cha]

17. Oh shite..you found the

catch 22!

[DaveinMD]

8. what about

lobbyists for the Children's Defense Fund, the NEA, the ACLU. Not all Washington Lobbyists are evil.

[Perky]

18. .This from someone with a Yankees logo as their avatar?????

Like you would ever recognize evil when you see it....Hell you are a fan of evil..



Sorry But I could not resist.


:hi:

[Cha]

20. Eeee HA!

Go Mets!~

[DaveinMD]

22. I make up for that

by also being a Giants and Knicks fan. Plenty of misery in my sports life. Do you think lobbyists for Teachers are evil? And I say this as someone who supports John Edwards and was there today.

[Perky]

24. No of course I don't

But saying that corporat lobbyist represenet many employees is laughable. They reprresent CEOs and Borads and shareholders but not employees.

[DaveinMD]

25. he said no money from washington lobbyists

I think who the lobbyists work for is more important than where they lobby. So he's saying not to take money from progressive lobbyists as well as corporate lobbyists.

[ikojo]

70. Ummm.....do you really believe that the amount of money put up to buy

politicians by "progressive" lobbyists in any way matches the money put up by corporations and their interests?

If you in any way believe there is a level playing field in the lobbying sphere then I want some of the meds being passed around.

[DaveinMD]

85. that's not the point

He said no money from washington lobbyists. Why should a candidate not take money from good progressive folks who lobby for things we like. And not taking money from lobbyists still allows for taking thousands from executives in oil industry, pharma and and other groups we don't like. That money is just as tainted as the money from the lobbyists.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. I often wonder why there is a need to have lobbyists for the most helpless people in the U.S.

Shouldn't our country be looking out for these people without requiring them to hire lobbyists? Yes it should. However, in this country corporations spend billions on lobbying to get the attention and loyalty of politicians. Once they have the attention of these politicians, these same corporations tell the politicians to use our taxes for them (corporations) instead of for the most helpless of Americans.

And THAT is why the most helpless Americans are forced to hire lobbyists.

Rather pathetic, no?

[arikara]

78. But how much money therefore influence do they have?

As compared to the petroleum, pharmaceutical, insurance, mining industries and corporations like Walmart? None of these care a bit for the environment or children, only their bottom line is important.

[DaveinMD]

89. its the organizations

and executives that have more money. Those are the corrupt donations, not every single lobbyist. We need real reform to get all corporate money out of politics. Public financing is a must.

[pinto]

9. Her point, imo, was that lobbyists aren't all evil and contributions don't buy a candidate.

She noted that some lobbyists represent public concerns and, yes, some represent corporate concerns. And noted her agenda has been consistent with or without lobbyist support. (An echo of her discussion about the attempt to move to universal health care in '93, ravaged by insurance and pharmaceutical interests.)

[Major Hogwash]

55. That may have been her point, but lobbyists are not handing out money because they are nice.

Over the last 35 years, lobbyists have pushed and pushed the envelope farther and farther to see what they can do in order to "influence" a Congressman. It's gotten out of hand, especially this last decade.

All you have to do is watch tv because they are telling the story on tv how the neocons came to power.

Mad Men is a great show describing how Madison Avenue ad men took over advertising and transformed it in the early 60's in order to sell Americans products they don't need or want. Not until they see their advertising campaigns, that is.

It isn't so hard to see how that same method used by other mad men took over K Street in the 90's in order to line the pockets of the Republicans during to help keep them in power.
It is a self-actualizing model - the lobbyists give money to the Congressmen to pass the bills the lobbyists want, so the lobbyists can make more money in order to give more money to the Congressmen in time for their next re-election, to keep the same Congressman passing moer of the bills the lobbyists want passed.

It's the underlying principle that drove Abramoff to do what he did to seek power and to "live in the moment", the byline for the Mad Men tv series.

[flashl]

83. The Abramoff Juggernaut

Whenever I see or hear the name Abramoff, my mind explodes and I lose control, like cocoa puff’s mascot, Sonny the Cuckoo Bird. I do not know him personally nor do I hate him, but I do have strong opinions about everything corrupt that he represents. I watched the Senate Indian Affairs Committee Hearings with great interest and astonishment as the tangled web of the lobbyist’s lobbyist Abramoff unfolded. There were roughly 232 Congresspersons, Federal agency heads, Whitehouse aides, and, THE Whitehouse ALL with direct links to Abramoff’s purse strings. I do not understand how every one is missing one of the GREATEST stories of corruption in the history of this country and in our lifetime!

I strongly believe that more of what we see would make more sense if all of the breadcrumbs were followed from the Abramoff saga that leads back to the halls of Federal agencies to Congress and then to the Whitehouse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. I didn't support her before, don't now, never will.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Unions are 'lobbyists'. nt

[pinto]

16. As are the ACLU, AFL-CIO, teachers' unions, AARP, etc.

Good point.

[OzarkDem]

63. Lots of good health care lobbyists, too

There are a lot of good non-profits who lobby and establish PAC's to donate to candidate's campaigns.

[Forkboy]

15. How can anyone read Politico?

:)

[CatWoman]

19. you always

ALWAYS make my day!! :rofl:

[Perky]

23. Ihave read the mediamatters stuff

I glance through their pages briefly every day.... An I do not see any huge bias in theier news articles. ALl over their blogs...but so what... It all opinion..


I take everything from all sources with a grain of salt.

[Perky]

27. AP has virtually the same quotes and context

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_BLOGGERS?SITE=CATOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-08-04-19-11-48

[Forkboy]

35. You should read it there then.

;)

[dorktv]

26. um, if you talk to a Congresscritter to ask them to vote a certain way

you are indeed LOBBYING to have them change.

And unions have lobbyists, judicial organizations have lobbyists, environmental groups have lobbyists, and so forth. People who are paid to spend their time trying to talk congress into doing what we want.

Duh.

[warren pease]

29. Interesting quote on lobbying, PAC money and such...

Hillary might learn from the master:

"When these lobbyists and political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government." -- Bob Dole, 1983 (before he because the undisputed world champ of collecting "special influence" money)


http://www.realchange.org/dole.htm#quotes


wp

[ellacott]

33. How many of those "good" lobbyists have given to HRC

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the contributions from lobbyists.

[napi21]

36. Many groups have lobyists in DC, and they really aren't all bad!

I recall many years ago paying a lawyer to lobby a congressman to support our position for antique cars! Now it was on a very small scale compared to today. We paid a whole $150.00! But he presented our position and convinced the congressman to sponsor a bill. Yes we did get what we wanted, but the only person who benefited was the lawyer with the $150 and I'm sure that was not even close to what he usually made per hour.

Yes there are some crooks masquarading as lobbyists and there are some crooked congress critters in both houses, but they aren't all like that!

Don't you realize that lots of the groups WE support have lobbyists too?

The problem occurs when there are kickbacks or when a congress critter votes for something he/she knows is bad for the country but does it for a corp. benefit.

[TZ]

48. Thank you for that..

I have a relative who is a lobbyist so I know that aren't ALL the evil bastards that everyone makes them out to be. In fact how many environmental groups have big lobbyists? I hear Republicans complain about THEM on a pretty regular basis.
I'm not a fan of Hilary myself but I think she gets slammed unfairly alot. All this crap about her supporting corporate interests and such..When did it become that anybody who is a white collar professional that works for a large corp can't possibly be a democrat or is not liberal enough? As a professional myself and LIBERAL Hilary does seem to understand that those of us in this area are just as much valid democrats as those who are union workers.

[BlooInBloo]

37. DUers looovvees them some Drudgico.... Here's a better version about what happened....

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/clinton_and_the_lobbyists.php

"Hillary Clinton got some boos for her defense of lobbyists and, indeed, her initial response -- which amounted to pointing out that some Democratic-leaning interest groups have lobbyists, too -- wasn't very compelling. The second time around, though, she got the right answer, namely that lobbyists do their jobs because they get hired by people and Obama and Edwards take money from the executives and so forth who do the hiring, so the whole distinction is basically meaningless.

As best I can tell, that's totally correct; refusing to take money from lobbyists is just a kind of meaningless grandstanding. "


Yglesias' blog is an excellent ykos rundown in general, just btw.

[bigtree]

47. you won't get very far with that here . . . too reality-based

needs more cowbell

[BlooInBloo]

77. :) I keep tryin tho.

[Katherine Brengle]

38. Who will be left to take donations from?

I'm no fan of corporate and special interest donations in general, but our campaigns are so ridiculous and out of whack these days, they require a massive and constant flow of cash. Individual donors are unlikely to ever manage that kind of fundraising.

Without the money, these candidates don't have a chance in hell.

[MadHound]

42. So use the one tool left to the citizen

The vote. Don't vote for any candidate that takes corporate money in any form. Sure, that narrows down the Democratic field considerably but the alternative is continuing to perpetuate the very system that got us into this mess in the first place.

[Katherine Brengle]

43. Name one.

Seriously.

[MadHound]

45. Dennis K, and Mike Gravel

Then there is the entire Green party:shrug:

Options are out there

[bigtree]

49. maybe not direct contributions, but there are other ways that lobbies influence legislators

one corporate in-kind contribution to DK:

Sponsor of Most Trips: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/travel.asp?CID=N00003572


a 2005 brochure listing the AEEG's steering committee members. (http://www.yourenergyfuture.org/brochure_4_19_05.pdf)


They include:

National Manufacturer's Association

US Oil and Gas Association

Peabody Enegry

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer's

TXU Electric and Gas

The archived AEEG website has a more comprehensive list of members. (http://web.archive.org/web/20040727075437/www.yourenergyfuture.org/members.cfm)

In 2001, the AEEG ran a massive advertising offensive helping prop up the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill. In fact, according to a 2001 Washington Post story, a leaked memo by Republican lobbyist Wayne Valis states that there is only one condition to becoming a member of the AEEG, and that is:

"'To join the coalition, you must agree to support the Bush energy proposal in its entirety and not to lobby for changes to the bill,' Valis wrote. 'Should the bill change, you must support the changes in the legislation or drop out of the coalition. If you are caught attempting to lobby behind the back of the White House, you will be expelled from the coalition. I have been advised that this White House 'will have a long memory.'"

While individual names are also not available on the AEEG website, a bit of research reveals the two key individuals attached to the organization. They are:

Bruce Josten, executive vice president government affairs, US Chamber of Commerce was one of the founders of the AEEG and also serves as the AEEG spokesperson.

Luke Popvich, vice president, external communications, National Mining Association also serves as an AEEG spokesperson.

http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/22/0/feed


kinda takes the gloss off, doesn't it?

[MadHound]

51. Nice try, but you're using outdated material, and data that is for the '06 Congressional elections

Why don't you try to be more up to date, you know, the '08 Presidential election:shrug:

Sorry, but my previous statement still stands. Meanwhile Hillary has no compunctions about taking corporate lucre, both directly and indirectly in any form she can get it.

[bigtree]

53. so he's on a hiatus. How hard can that be for someone with his yearly income and net worth?

What a sorry cop-out. You know this info comes out after the fact to these organizations. So, either he's born-again or he's just not telling us what in-kind contributions he's receiving and accepting in this campaign.

And all of the unions and interest groups that he's accepting money from have their hands clean too, I suppose. No corporate ties? I'm not on a campaign against Kucinich, but I won't be snowed into believing that he's as far removed from corporate influence as he and his supporters claim.

[MadHound]

58. Speaking of sorry

It is the sight of the top tier candidates scrambling for justification and rationalization for their candidates corporate whoredom. Not only do their accepted donations differ in material and kind from those of Kucinich, but the amounts that they've sold out for are orders of magnitude greater than anything that Kucinich and others have ever seen.

And your criticism of accepting donations from labor unions is a sad sign of how far the Democratic party has fallen. Once, like the left wing of the party, unions were considered the base of the party. We were Democrats, party of the working stiff, the ordinary person, the poor and downtrodden. Sure, unions have had some huge problems for many years but at least they are, in spite of these problems, more reprasentative of the working man than the acceptance of money from corporations like Faux and Murdoch. Which is more corrupt, the United Food and Commercial Workers or Rupert Murdoch? Who is more reprasentative of the people, the NEA or Faux? Sorry, but trying to draw comparisons between the two to bolster your arguement is, on the face of it, ridiculous.

Oh, and what you are suggesting is the Kucinich failed to report his contributions, ie a crime. This is patently false and inflamatory, a poor tactic for rationalizing Clinton's sell out to corporate America. Perhaps you could simply be projecting?

The records are out there, the paperwork to confirm these claims is readily available. But rather than admit that there is somebody running who is free of corporate interests, you refuse to believe the facts and instead try and tar all the candidates with the brush that has tarred your own. Bad form there, and a baseless charge that has been verified to be false. Sad that this is what the supporters of the corporate whore candidates have stooped to, massive smearing and false charges.

[bigtree]

64. I knew you'd hit the labor remark. Bad form, perhaps

I support union membership, but I have plenty of problems with union leadership and their coziness with business (some of them).

And I will acknowledge that Kucinich goes further than most in refusing corporate cash. But, these interest groups he accepts support from (which may have done good things) don't always represent all of those they claim to speak for in every action they take.

And the crime thing? I'm merely pointing out that the info on that won't be anymore forthcoming than the travel info I provided did (The campaign was in 2006 and the report came the next year.)

And, which of our candidates is taking money from Rupert Murdoch? I missed that.

[MadHound]

75. That would be Hillary taking money and support from Murdoch and his minions

Twenty thousand, at least that we know about. It appears that ol' Rupert is hunting around for another president for his back pocket.
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_news_corp> This is actually somewhat old news given that Rupert has been playing footsy with Hillary for months now. Perhaps he preferred the rule of "kinder, gentler" corporatistas as opposed to Bushco's "bad cop" brand of oily corporate whoredom:shrug:

Yes, I have problems with some of the unions, corruption, too cozy with business, etc. However even as bad as they are now, they still represent more of the interests of the average person than 99% of corporate America.

As far as Kucinich, he has made a point of not taking corporate cash this election cycle. And as far as interest groups go, well, your statement can be applied to a lot of interest groups that donate to all the candidates. You try to avoid the misrepresentation, but even your best efforts sometimes fail. At least he is trying, the top tier candidates are not even making a pretext and some, like Hillary are even boastful and lying to our faces. Corporate cash doesn't influence her, please. I give her credit for being able to keep a straight face and a short nose while making that statement, but that doesn't translate into suspension of disbelief on my part.

[bigtree]

87. Edwards has a good point

good for him

[Gloria]

39. Her attitude simply turns me off completely...she's already turned my

stomach. No vote from me.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

60. Have fun choosing from the Repubs, if she wins the nom.

MKJ

[scarletwoman]

40. Right. Because corporations spend millions & millions on lobbying just for the hell of it.

How stupid does she think we are?

[creeksneakers2]

82. Corporations get access and influence

They aren't going to get Hillary Clinton to sell out.

There are things that are good for corporations that are also good for America. Its not a black and white situation.

[scarletwoman]

90. Corporations write their own damn bills and get congresspeople to sponsor them.

Yeah, gotta love that "access and influence".

I'm not worried about H. Clinton "selling out", she's already owned. It's a done deal.

[B Calm]

44. I still can't get it out of my head that she was a Young Republican in college!

[Major Hogwash]

52. I didn't know that.

Was she in college during the Vietnam War?

[B Calm]

56. Yes.. google is your friend.. Try Hillary Clinton Young Republican

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

69. Or, you could read her autobigraphy, where she discusses this at length.

MKJ

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

61. So was I. It took me about four years to see the light.

MKJ

[Dervill Crow]

81. So was I. I wonder how many DUers are recovering repuglicans. nt

[dkofos]

46. HRC will be the second best repube president the dems ever elected

Bill was and still is the best.

[onenote]

50. and maybe she'll appoint another "repube" scotus justice like Ruth Ginsburg

wouldn't that be just awful

:sarcasm:

[Onlooker]

54. Pathetic

With comments like that she shows how out of step with reality she is. With those comments she offset the stupid comments by Obama (bomb Pakistan, meet with fascists without preconditions).

[area51]

57. k&r (n/t)

[yella_dawg]

66. "yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people"

Cool! If I own lots of slaves, does that mean I get a bigger voice in Washington?

This story perfectly demonstrates my feelings about Hillary.

[ikojo]

67. Bbbutttt she is a DEMOCRAT and as you know

we must jackboot walk the party line and support the corporate candidate of the moment.

[Harper_is_Bush]

71. What did she say that wasn't true?

[suziedemocrat]

72. "Real Americans" and The Indian Goverment and Rich Indians

http://intl-programs.uiowa.edu/accents/2006/spring/Outsourcing.html

Why don't I trust her?

Indians wish the issue of outsourcing could be kept out of U.S. electoral politics entirely, because they fear protectionist backlash. But they realize the issue will not be kept out, and so must be addressed within the political system. The Indian government, aided by wealthy non-resident Indians, has formed a Political Action Committee in India to lobby Congress. To similar ends, a Caucus for India in the U.S. Senate was formed, led by Hillary Clinton, whose campaign received much support from non-resident Indians. (There was already an India Caucus in the House.)

[Deja Q]

86. Gee, can't Indians make their own businesses so we can have proper trade again??!

Apparently not.

[suziedemocrat]

88. Walk a mile in my shoes before you mouth off!

I am working on a project staffed mostly with H-1B Indians, even the low-level managers are Indians. I am a contractor who gets paid by the hour, except on this project, where I get paid for 9 hours even though I work 10, and Friday I was told I should work an additional 8 hours without pay, and if I quit they will go after my back wages or sue me for $5,000. A commentator said that they are like scabs eroding the hard-earned rights of union workers. You make me sick to expect me to work for free and this is one reason I no longer like to come here.

[followthemoney]

73. Attention lobyists: I won't do anything for you. Send me big bails of money.

I promise not to be influenced. I won't even run for office.

Is that good for you? If not, tell me how I can be more accommodating.

Cash only, please

[MindMatter]

74. The video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Ev95ZK664

[bvar22]

79. Just say NO!

The only solution is Publicly Financed Elections, but BIG MONEY politicians will NEVER support this alternative.

[Terri S]

80. Well, I, for one, don't support her

and for many reasons. This answer, quite frankly seems to me to be the only way that she could answer and continue to take money from lobbyists and not look like a hypocrite. I must say, though, it made HER look naive to say she could take money from lobbyists and not be beholden to them. If not naive, then certainly disingenuous!

I honestly don't think this alone should keep anyone from supporting her if they actually support everything else she does. I don't. But there are no perfect candidates anymore than there are perfect people, and they need to be looked at in totality. She fails on so many levels for me.. but that's just me. This alone would not persuade me to completely rule her out if she was strong in many other areas that I think are important for a candidate and president.

[farmboxer]

91. They also represent big Pharma

who kills millions! Don't belive me? Check out the facts. Prescription drugs kill millions, we don't even know about. Kevin Trudeau tells it like it is.

There are some lobbyiests, such as for labor, etc., but the drug companies make me puke! I don't know how I will vote anymore, can't vote for a damned Repug though! Kucinich is looking better every day!