Normally I dont make it a habit to agree with Hillary Clinton. But, in the following article I think she got this one. Like it or not it takes money to win elections, and a lot to win Presidential Election. Just because a Lobbyist gives money to a Presidential Campagin dosent guarentee anything. Hillary was a least honest about it. Unlike John Edward who likes to critize people when he is doing it himself (i.e. Newscorp Money).
BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
CHICAGO - Hillary Clinton blew the money question yesterday, getting booed by a crowd of lefty bloggers and slammed by her rivals for saying she would keep taking cash from lobbyists to fuel her presidential bid.
"I will," she told an audience at the Yearly Kos convention of bloggers after she was pushed on the issue by 2004 veep nominee John Edwards. "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans."
At first she tried to dodge, winning a chorus of raspberries for basically telling the crowd to trust her. "I don't think based on my 35 years in fighting for what I believe in anybody seriously believes I am going to be influenced by a lobbyist," she said to loud disapproval.
Edwards immediately jumped on her response.
"Sen. Clinton made clear that she intends to continue taking Washington lobbyist money. So the choice in front of America is very clear," he said. "You can run a serious, good campaign without Washington lobbyist money, but you can't run a clean government with Washington lobbyist money."
Rival Barack Obama pointed to Clinton's failed health care reform as evidence lobbyists matter.
"Now, Hillary, you were talking about the efforts you made back in 1993, you cannot tell me that money did not make a difference," he said. "They are not spending that just because they're contributing to the public interest. They have an agenda."
Clinton has taken over $400,000 from lobbyist employees, according to watchdog Open Secrets. She also has at least 10 bundlers who have each raised at least $100,000 and are lobbyists.
The Clinton campaign said it was hypocritical for Edwards and Obama to say they were shunning lobbyist money because they also take cash from people who work for lobbyists.
"For all of Mr. Edwards' bluster about lobbyists, he's taken over $190,000 from people who work at lobbying firms," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.
The convention drew 1,500 bloggers, most of them liberal, who represent the latest advance in communicating and community.
It was not clear how much impact Clinton's stance would have, even with the liberal Kos crowd. "I wish she wouldn't , but I understand why she does," said conventioneer Jerid Kurtz. "It's a structural, systemic problem."
"I don't like it, but the issues that concern me are the issues that concern the middle class, like sending my two kids to college," said Linda Underwood, from Albany.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
What else is new? All of them Democrat or Republican are in the pockets of lobbyists with one notable exception Dr Ron Paul. So are you going to vote for the big bucks-in-the-pocket politician or the only candidate the lobbyists can't control?
It was interesting that a Democrat, Biden, raised the issue during their debate and said we should go to federally financed campaigns and stop the money influence. I wonder if we took away the porkbarrel projects if it might save enough money to finance elections?
Along with the influence of the lobbyists we have to fight the influence of the biased press as reported by the Media Research Council. The press slants the news, then takes a poll to see how they have influenced us and reports to all to see how we want wnat the want us to want.
There is a bill in congress now changing the influence of the lobbyists but the guiding decision in any questionable transactions will be the ruling party.
I also submit to you that we cannot point our finger at the politicians and blame them for the conditions, we have to blame ourselves because we stand by and let it happen.
When are we going to get mad as Hell and do something about it?
Like pork-barrel projects we not get mad as Hell and do something about it until we as voters look with equal disdain on the efforts of all lobbyists not just those from which someone else benefit.
The Oil issue is another one that Lobbests have severely hindered, we have more oil here than most of the world, and we cannot touch much of it.
There needs to be some way to regulate the lobbests so that they cannot "buy" politicians, and that they have to be represented by equal oppositions to their issues.
I don't know exactly how, but it needs to addressed.