Obama Abandons 'Presumption of Good Faith'

Psychicwolf · Post by **Psychicwolf** » 05-25-2008 05:25 PM

My daughter was part ($500) of that Microsoft Corp $209,242 bundle. Guess that makes her a lobbyist. Here I thought she was technical trainer!

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 05-25-2008 09:49 PM

Biker wrote: Not all of the other candidates dance to this tune.

Check out Ron Paul's website.

It's worth a peek.

Biker

Actually Biker, you are 100% correct. It is worth a peek, and Ron Paul should be lauded for not dancing to that tune.

As I've said before, if Hillary Clinton does not come away with the Democratic nomination, then my vote goes back in to the undecided column. Ron Paul will definitely be someone that I seriously consider voting for should he pursue an Independent run. I need to see just how much his politics mesh with my own ultimately, but I can tell you now that I think he has more integrity than any of the other three candidates running for the Presidency.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 05-25-2008 10:03 PM

Psychicwolf wrote: Just to be fair, why not post all of Hillary's (although she is nearly finished) donations and Senator McCains too.

PW, we were not discussing Hillary Clinton or John McCain. We were specifically discussing whether or not Barack Obama is in bed with lobbyists and corporate interests.

There is no need to post Hillary Clinton's donor list. No one here denies that she is taking in gobs of money from corporate interests, and lobbyists. Hillary Clinton doesn't deny it either, her supporters don't deny it, nor does her campaign run on that platform of "change" when it comes to this issue.

The difference is that Barack Obama and his supporters DO deny that he is playing the same exact game as the others. Remember, he is the candidate that promises it will not be business as usual in Washington if he is elected. That is a mighty big claim, and one that everyone should instantly be skeptical about.

His donor list, and those articles above certainly demonstrate to me that is already is, and has been to this point, "business as usual", despite claims to the contrary.

Psychicwolf · Post by **Psychicwolf** » 05-25-2008 10:50 PM

Why not post on issues, Kaz? I think vigo had a good idea when he said the snark is getting old. I have contributed to that thread. I give my opinion of where I think that particular issue lies, then I post all three major candidates positions to be fair. The snark is getting old.
Or respond on an issue like this one:
showthread.php?s=&threadid=34122
If you know where your candidate stands or you know they have special expertise in that area why not share it?

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 05-25-2008 11:31 PM

Um....Kaz is right in this case. Posting the donors is his way of pointing out that BO isn't the candidate of "change" to the degree people say he is. Posting the other candidate's donors is besides the point.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 05-25-2008 11:50 PM

Psychicwolf wrote: Why not post on issues, Kaz? I think vigo had a good idea when he said the snark is getting old. I have contributed to that thread. I give my opinion of where I think that particular issue lies, then I post all three major candidates positions to be fair. The snark is getting old.
Or respond on an issue like this one:
showthread.php?s=&threadid=34122
If you know where your candidate stands or you know they have special expertise in that area why not share it?

PW, you may have missed what prompted my post about the donors.

I was responding to a direct question about Barack Obama's ties to corporate interests, and lobbyists. I was asked about something I had said earlier, and it was requested that I post this information to back up my claim.

Moonchild ultimately disagreed with my assessment. I see no "snark" in that response, or in that conversation on this topic. Biker further pointed out correctly that Ron Paul is a candidate who has truly distinguished himself on this issue. No snark there either. I've only seen one snarky, sarcastic response to this issue thus far.

As far as speaking to the issues is concerned, I've done plenty of that, in many threads. Why can't I speak about this one? Is it not an issue? Barack Obama has certainly advertised based upon it, and both he, and his supporters have framed this as being an extremely important issue in this election, an issue that makes him more qualified to be President.

As far as Vigo's thread on the issues is concerned, I have read the thread, and responded. I shared my opinion, he doesn't need me to sell him on Hillary Clinton. The information in there ultimately is selective based upon where the salesperson is coming from. That's reality. The best contribution that I can make to that thread in my opinion is to point that out.

moonchild2 · Post by **moonchild2** » 05-26-2008 12:04 AM

Kaztronic wrote: There is no need to post Hillary Clinton's donor list. No one here denies that she is taking in gobs of money from corporate interests, and lobbyists. Hillary Clinton doesn't deny it either, her supporters don't deny it, nor does her campaign run on that platform of "change" when it comes to this issue.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton is being taken to task by her two closest rivals for accepting $400,000 in campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

Sen. Hillary Clinton dismissed criticism that she took money from lobbyists, saying it would not influence her.

Over the weekend, Clinton was booed by an audience of liberal bloggers in Chicago when she defended taking money from Washington lobbyists, something both Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards have vowed not to do.

"I don't think, based on my 35 years fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group," Clinton said.

"A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers -- yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/ ... index.html

______________________________________

She wouldn't be influenced by the folks who have donated $400,000 smackeroos to her campaign? Okey dokey then!

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 05-26-2008 12:17 AM

moonchild2 wrote:

She wouldn't be influenced by the folks who have donated 0,000 smackeroos to her campaign? Okey dokey then!

No argument with you on this one. I'm not burying my head in the sand on this issue. Hillary Clinton is far from a perfect candidate who is going to radically change the way Washington operates. Nor is she running on a platform that suggests she does not, and will not deal with these people (unlike Barack Obama, who does make that dubious claim). A President, to be effective in dealing with Congress cannot take that stance ultimately.

All three of the major candidates, ALL of them are going to be influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups. That's reality, that is how Washington works. Our Ron Paul supporting shipmates have effectively pointed that out. I ultimately believe that if their candidate were to be elected, that he would be influenced as well by special interests, although to his credit, it would probably be to a far lesser degree than the "big three". He would certainly draw the line, credibly, on numerous occasions.

In the long run, we may in fact need a candidate like Dr. Paul to shake up Washington, but don't expect that from any of these three candidates.

moonchild2 · Post by **moonchild2** » 05-26-2008 12:33 AM

Hillary not pandering to lobbyists has been a part of her campaign platform Kaz. I have heard her say, in a few of her speeches "we will take back America", in direct relation to the lobbyist issue. She wouldn't have even bothered going there had John Edwards not made it a campaign issue. Obama may not have either, who knows?

I can't help but think that Hillary seriously miscalculated what is important to many Americans in 2008. She thought she was a shoe in and so did many others. She has been tested and IMO, has failed in her desparate attempts to keep up.

As you say, they will all pander to lobbyists to a degree.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 05-26-2008 12:48 AM

Believe me, the issue of not being influenced by lobbyists is not an issue that I am basing my support for Hillary Clinton on. I'm not making any claims that Hillary Clinton is not taking their money, and that is has not, and will not influence her if she becomes President.

In my opinion, in order to effectively deal with Congress, one will be subject unfortunately to lobbyists, and PAC's, and will have to deal with them to pass any meaningful legislation.

If this were my big issue, and were I to be limiting my choices to only the big three candidates, I would have went with John McCain.

In my opinion, the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this issue is that Hillary has been more transparent about her dealings with these groups. There has not been a false perception/impression amongst the general electorate about the influence these groups have on her as a candidate and politician. Very few people will argue about whether or not Hillary is influenced by these groups, but in the case of Barack Obama, it's a different story. As I see it, Barack Obama, based upon information I have already provided, has been quite deceptive about his fund-raising and ties to these groups, as well as his stance on this issue, and it has largely gone unreported, and unacknowledged.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 05-26-2008 12:59 AM

None of these candidates is the Messiah.

None of these candidates are perfect.

It has always struck me as odd that many people simply cannot accept some of the more unfortunate realities of the candidates they support. In that sense, these candidates are being held to impossible standards and are certain to disappoint in the end.

Acknowledging the faults of a particular candidate does not take away from their support. It does not mean they are a bad candidate. It does not mean that you shouldn't support them, and it does not mean that they are unqualified to be our President.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain are politicians.

Politicians lie, they manipulate, they make promises that they know they can never deliver on to get elected, and they are certainly all in bed with big money interests.

vigo · Post by **vigo** » 05-26-2008 01:20 AM

Kaztronic wrote: None of these candidates is the Messiah.

None of these candidates are perfect.

It has always struck me as odd that many people simply cannot accept some of the more unfortunate realities of the candidates they support. In that sense, these candidates are being held to impossible standards and are certain to disappoint in the end.

Acknowledging the faults of a particular candidate does not take away from their support. It does not mean they are a bad candidate. It does not mean that you shouldn't support them, and it does not mean that they are unqualified to be our President.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain are politicians.

Politicians lie, they manipulate, they make promises that they know they can never deliver on to get elected, and they are certainly all in bed with big money interests.

moonchild2 · Post by **moonchild2** » 05-26-2008 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Kaztronic None of these candidates is the Messiah.

Agreed!

Debating their individual issues is pointless. There is not much difference between Hillary and Obama on that score. It comes down to personalities. The way that they have reacted to each other over the last few months has been very revealing.

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 05-26-2008 08:26 AM

Linnea wrote: Obama did very well by himself with those comments. I am impressed.

Actually Linnea, I finally found the video from Friday night when David Axelrod was on with Chris Matthews, while all hell was breaking loose with this story. The Obama campaign defended her then as well.

I remember seeing it myself, but just couldn't find the video, as you can see Chris Matthews clearly didn't want to hear what Axelrod was saying, just wanted to go back to the AP story that he was quoting as "fact" , he also looks a little rabid !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfSCLZbRQKA&feature=user

I was dissappointed that Terry McAuliffe was on Fox News Sunday blaming the Obama campaign for getting the story going. And then I saw today that Clinton herself is doing the same thing. We need to place the blame where it belongs. The AP put out the story and all the major networks ran with it, if anyone is to blame for giving this story legs its the media.

Video all the way at the bottom

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McAuliffe ... _0525.html

Its time to move past this, IMO.

moonchild2 · Post by **moonchild2** » 05-26-2008 01:50 PM

Hillary screws up and then blames Obama. There are people who actually buy into this.