Obama Camp Ducks Questions on Lobbyist Denial
06 January 2008 4:21 pm by Taylor Marsh
Obama Camp Ducks Questions on Lobbyist Denial updated & bumped
It’s not like he hasn’t ducked issues, questions and taking a stand before.
Who is Jim Demers? Easy, he’s a registered
lobbyist for Pfizer and PhRMA. He’s also Obama’s national co-chair. So why
in the debate did Mr. Obama say “That’s not so”?
In Saturday’s debate, in the face of an explicit charge from Clinton,
Obama denied that his New Hampshire co-chair Jim Demers is a lobbyist for
the pharmaceutical industry: “That’s not so.”
Today, according
to TIME, Obama campaign repeatedly declines Sunday to explain
Obama’s debate denial.
At least TIME’s Mark Halperin is asking the question.
Larry Johnson does a lot more than that with this post: Obama, What Drugs Are You Using?
… And to make matters worse, Obama denied that Demers is a lobbyist. Jesus!! He can’t even lie with panache or creativity. No, wait. He’s looking up the meaning of “no”. … ..
More evidence comes from MSNBC
in pdf
form they dug up through a search of the Senate Office of Public
Records Lobbying Disclosure Act Database.
Hodges Consulting describes itself on its Web site as “well positioned
to offer highly effective lobbying services and unparalleled state budget
expertise. Hodges Consulting Group can also provide federal representation
to clients.”Though Obama has also said that he won’t take federal PAC and lobbyist money
on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists as previously
reported by First Read. …
I guess Mr. Edwards missed that one in the research he did before signing on
with his pal Barack. Edwards is either stupid or a phony or just plain lazy. He’s certainly not stupid or lazy. Let’s just call it a pick and choose character moment for Mr. Edwards.
Mark Halperin
interviews Clinton today on that very fact.
As SusanUnPC
points out, the transcript
of the debate doesn’t include Obama’s denial. It’s only on the video that
you can see it, but barely hear it.
The truth is that anyone covering Obama’s record isn’t shocked by this. Obama’s
words from the debate:
OBAMA: I just want to add, I agree with John, which is why I prohibited
lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress…
The truth via ABC
News:
Under new congressional ethics laws, lobbyists can spend all they want on
holiday parties as long as everyone is standing up.“You can no longer eat sitting down,” Ellen Miller, co-founder
and executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to
making government more accessible on the Internet, said. “There really
has to be finger food. I think you can eat food that’s on a toothpick, but
if it requires a fork or knife, forget it.” … ..
Charles Gibson made fun of Obama’s legislation last night. Remember John Edwards’
response? Paraphrasing him, he said, You can eat a lot less standing up.
Classic line. And Edwards said it with a straight face.
To illustrate how slow the traditional media and everyone else has been on
this story, because vetting Mr. Obama is seen to be obscene or the work of partisans,
take this article from May 2007.
Barack Obama has backhandedly slapped Hillary Rodham Clinton for accepting
contributions from lobbyists and PACs, eschewing cash from both groups because
he doesn’t want to be beholden to special interests. So it was with
great interest that we read in the Boston Globe that BHO has enlisted New
Hampshire lobbyist Jim Demers (who represents trial lawyers, firefighters
and a major video poker/slot machine vendor, according to his firm’s
Website) to be one of his New Hamsphire co-chairs.Demers has already helped Obama organize events in the Granite State and
has helped establish his organization. … ..
There’s a reason Mr.
Obama likes words:
And, you know, so the truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people
get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they
can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold
energy policy. Don’t discount that power, because when the American people
are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if
they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can’t be done,
then it doesn’t. I’m running for president because I want to tell them, yes,
we can. And that’s why I think they’re responding in such large numbers.
This is Obama in a nutshell. Words.
Words can allow politicians to hide behind hope when the record says something
different from what they’re saying in public. Words can conceal reality. They can cause confusion, which is what the
Obama campaign had planned from the start and because nobody scrutinized his record, or people ignored those of us who were shrugging it off as partisan, we get treated to an out right untruth in a debate just days before a pivotal primary.
Words are especially helpful when Mr. Obama rails about
lobbyists in public while in private tokes up on their power. We have a word
for that where I come from in Harry Truman’s Missouri. It’s called hypocrisy. It’s also called anything but change.
UPDATE: From Bowers: The Delegate Count: Clinton’s Firewall and a California Showdown:
For a long time, I have argued that Obama is poised to sweep to the nomination in the event that he sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire. However, now I am not so sure. In a development that has flown under the radar, it now seems to me that, as long as Clinton wins Florida and California, she will be ahead in delegates after February 5th no matter what happens in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada There are three basic reasons for this… ..
