Obama lobbying pledge: It ain't that easy

It ain't that easy!

But he is trying. I see no other presidential candidate trying or even mentioning how very important it is to throttle back special interest groups and lobbying, especially the auto/oil cartel!

Beware what you believe! Many a candidate over the years have come out claiming they were against the big spenders, lobbyists, and corporate giants running things. They all found ways to take the money anyway. Barak is no different! He just found a different way to take it - from his fellow lawyers, you know, the people who brought you higher paying lawsuits for breathing in somebody else's face - which then drives up prices on things like insurance, healthcare, etc.. Oh wait, the Obama cult doesn't want to hear such treachery. Sorry folks, the wolf is in sheeps clothing and he will get you yet!

Hello Mr. Bob,

Yeah, I work in an evil oil cartel operation, where we STILL produce a gallon of gasoline at a price that is less than what you would typically pay for a gallon of Coca Cola DESPITE all of the taxes that you Socialists like to load us up with, and tacked on at the pump. This, you pay very directly. As long as the brilliant and great Obama is "trying", well I guess that's what counts. Unfortunately, in my bizness, Bob, if all we ever did was just "try", the subjects of the Peoples Republic in places like Illinois, New York, and Taxachusetts would simply turn into an iceberg, until this global warming thing picks up enough heat to thaw you and your comrades out. With all due respect, the Socialist democrats DO NOT live in the real world. Certainly there is an abject non-understanding of Economics 101.

Wal-Mart, GM, MacDonalds, Merck, ExxonMobil, America (the U.S. of America, that would be,) - we all would be so much better off if we would just give the Socialist a big old wrecking ball, stand back, and marinate in the carnage.

Please excuse me, but the Scottman will never understand you Socialists. Just as a little math / reality exercise, try to calculate that per gallon price of the perfume that you may or may not buy for your wife or GF for Valentines Day. (Be sure, though, to not get it from that evil Wal-Mart). - The Scottman

More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill , Obama camp supporter and financial contributor to Presidential candidate Barrack Obama who desperately wants campaign cash from another, criminal or not, Again Obama camp has its hands full with other publically indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received donations in June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday…Of Couse, did axelrod loose his voice?
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.

Various media outlets have reported much larger numbers, though they haven't clearly explained their methodology. The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000. The event at Rezko's home resembled a posh dinner party, complete with valet parking and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Harvard law school Rezko, a developer, had tried to hire him. Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks.

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn't heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko's home to charity. "If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I'm fine with that," he said. "But I don't see how this makes a difference now -- the money still got him elected. And how do I know it's not going to a charity that's offensive to me?"
Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko Obama's relationship with Rezko came under greater scrutiny this week after prosecutors disclosed Rezko received $3.5 million from an Iraqi

As an avid Hillary Clinton supporter I can tell you for certain my family and friends would NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA, he is only concerned with black America. The media has pushed him down our throats, dismissing and attacking very good candidates. The saddest part I believe that people supporting Obama are doing so based it on media coverage alone. CNN exit polls were asking voters about Obama issues and NONE, I repeat NONE could tell you where he stood on anything. Being an inspirational speaker is nice for church, but is not what we need in our President. It is a great disservice to our great country that the main stream media continuingly manipulating the Presidential election with biased untruthful so-called news. The likes of Bill Kristol, Roland Martin, Tucker Carlson and the other idiots of MSNBC completely use their media avenue to bash and attack Hillary Clinton and her family. My question is why are these guys so afraid of Hillary? Did she beat Kristol and Carlson up in the parking lot? Do they just hate all women? Appears so. I honestly feel they are part of the media who is extremely afraid to say anything negative about the Black candidate even if it’s true, but will attack the former first lady, two terms Senator and yes, A HONORABLE WHITE WOMAN. My family and friends stopped watching FOX and MSNBC for these exact reasons. None of the news media is unbiased. They built Clinton up early on as the sure thing only to tear her apart. I frankly am very offended as a white male that Michelle Obama is allowed to tout racism in every speech only addressing blacks, stating if you are dark skinned and do not vote for Obama your against your race. Then ALL white voters and woman voters should vote for Clinton, since Michelle obama insists on using skin color and gender to elect our President. Its take frustrated and angry voters to research and blog obama facts, since NO news media will report on Obamas failed and missed votes in senate, lack of good judgment, his constant voting with Bush on economy issues and supporting Bush on not withdrawing troops. His constant flip flopping on Abortion, gun control and voting to with republicans siding with credit card companies raising interest rates over 30% causing hard ships on middle class Americans, causing student loans rates to increase and yes for black Americans as well. Or that his health plan would also hurt his non-fan base low income Americans. He states people who don’t have health insurance don’t want it. Another perfect example of how he is not connected with working class Americans. I URGE ALL AMERICANS TO RETHINK THIS MOST IMPORTANT VOTE. We cannot allow Obama to get on-the-job training as a leader. I suggest since Oprah feels so strongly then let him run HARPO Productions. As for me I will continue to support the best candidate to help our failing country instead of selling out to main stream media who is just looking for a fight to get viewers and sell papers again at the great risk of our country.
PLEASE VOTE CLINTON THE ONE WHO IS MOST VIEWD AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Not obama the church preacher and race divider.

Pop quiz:

Which candidate has the most lobbyists working on his campaign?

Answer: John McCain the fake "reformer".

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

Wal-Mart, GM, MacDonalds, Merck, ExxonMobil, America (the U.S. of America, that would be,) - we all would be so much better off if we would just give the Socialist a big old wrecking ball, stand back, and marinate in the carnage.

Posted by: B. V. Scott | February 11, 2008 11:54 AM

Another Wing Nut Apologist for Big Oil.

B.V.Scott-

You have convinced me, Sir. I am now cured of my socialist leanings, and fully understand the plight of the poor unjustly treated oild companies. I regret that I have been saving some of my earnings for myself and my familiy rather than happily giving them all to your oil company that clearly deserves the money far more than I do. Can you please send me the address where I can send the rest of my money to your fine organization.

I, like you, am now completely dedicated to the well being of the oil companies and will selflessly sacrifice all I have to further support their profits. As my children starve, I will be comforted to kow that your CEO and stockholders will be enjoying the rewards they so richly deserve.

Dear Anonymous,

There is nothing to appologize for. What is there about Socialism that is so endearing to you, your comrades, and your Socialist politicians? The evil Oil Industry is not perfect, but what do YOU have that would be an upgrade? Oh yeah, I forgot, "change". That and Kumbayah time. - The Scottman

P.S., Anonymous,

Don't think that Wal-Mart, GM, MacDonalds, and Merck are all that big in the "Big Oil" bizness. They do, however, have a target on that back, and are certainly subject to the extortion edicts of the Socialist democrats. It is lobby or surrender, which of course, is what you would probably want, but, who then would Hillary and the brillant and great Obama extort?

Dear New Corporate Slave.

Thanks, but not necessary. Just send whatever you have to the IRS, and they will see to it that it is properly distributed. They take checks and money orders.

Scottman has to get back to work and "try" to do something for the poor and downtrodden of America. Thanks.

Dear New Corporate Slave.

Thanks, but not necessary. Just send whatever you have to the IRS, and they will see to it that it is properly distributed. They take checks and money orders.

Scottman has to get back to work and "try" to do something for the poor and downtrodden of America. Thanks.

P.S., New Corporate Slave,

Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, no less, the 16th President of the United States, and the 1st Republican President did free the slaves of his day, in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. I am so sorry that I did not know that there are still slaves in America, even to this day. Are yellow dog democrats kind of like slaves? Well, we will worry not, I am sure the great and brilliant Obama will correct this over-site.

Swampsters, this has been a barrel of fun, but the Scottman has to get back to work. All of us "Big Oil" barrons have yachts, Lear Jets, and girl-friends to support. I love this country. xoxo to Hillary and the great Obama. Gotta run. - Scottman

Hey, "Scottman,"
Your ideas may be sound. But you will never be taken seriously by anyone if you insist on referring to yourself as "The Scottman." OK?

And JT, as I've said before: Just because McCain and Hillary take donations from lobbyists DOES NOT mean Obama does not. It is as illogical as saying that because the Cubs have not won the World Series since 1908, the Bears cannot win the Super Bowl in 2009. So unless you can somehow prove that Obama is telling the truth, and he really has nothing to do with lobbyists, as he claims, then drop the lame "McCain takes more money from lobbyists than anyone else." I'm not saying he doesn't. I am saying, though, that Obama is lying.

Here's a story the Clintonites don't want you to see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

"And JT, as I've said before: Just because McCain and Hillary take donations from lobbyists DOES NOT mean Obama does not."

I never said it did.

However, it does mean that supporters of either of those candidates have little leg to stand on in criticizing Obama.

When are you going to provide proof that Obama IS accepting donations from lobbyists? The burden of proof is on the accuser. Please identify ONE registered lobbyist that Obama has accepoted donations from.

"Please identify ONE registered lobbyist that Obama has accepoted donations from."

Posted by: JT | February 11, 2008 2:31 PM

Wow, what an iron clad defense of Obama. The money doesn't come from lobbyists it comes from comes from the wives of lobyists.

Oh by the way, they're not all registered... D'OH!

MJ-

From the Obama Contribution website:

Check this box to confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:
I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.

I am at least 16 years old.

This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.

This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.

This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.

This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.

The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.

I honestly don't know how much more any candidate can do than Obama currently is, with the current campaign financing system. Is he supposed to do an in-depth background check on every single donor to see if they know any lobbyists?

He's at least attempting to draw a line that the other major remaining candidates are unwilling to. Is it perfectly successful? Of course not.

JT and you other twits: It's all for show! Remember the 2000 Presidental Campaign and all the changes Bush said he would do? He sure made changes, dumping this country right in the toilet.

And who do you support Paul?

JT:

You don't know what else he could do? Oh, I think if he really put his mind to it he could do something. He's pretty bright.

If the Trib piece wasn't enough, here's another one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/aug/21/Obama-lobby/

Well, MJ let's hear your solution. You seem to think it's pretty simple, enlighten us.

Glad you guys are finally reporting on Obama's lies. Thanks.

Look - any individual can donate to Obama's campaign. And if you have big companies, big lawfirms - whatever, that's a lot of people working for them. Now those people, on an individual basis, can chose to donate to Obama's campaign. BUT he hasn't done any deal with a collective Corporation or lobbyist group where he makes any promises to them, or has any expectations due to them. Anyone who gives to Obama has the expectation that he will put the interests of the American people first. I don't see how individual choices to contribute compromise that at all. This argument is a stretch, but if it's all ya got well I suppose you've got to try and make something out of it.

Henery: The media has reported on that stuff you listed and found it all empty, pathetic, sometimes downright false, distorted, blown up out of nothing, you name it. Obama hasn't been given a free ride on the accusations - it's just that when you look into Clinton camp accusations you end up with the conclusion they are spouting drivel. I mean - rich - Clinton changes her message week to week, but she makes a big deal out of a box he ticked on a questionnaire 12 years ago, contrasting that with a more softened position on gun control 5 years later and then comments about him 'quickly' flip flopping? I mean wow - she must think people are pretty dumb huh? Or her and Bill deliberately saying - as fact - that Obama said the Republican ideas were good ideas - even though he never said that, you can see the interview and see he qualified he didn't think they were good ideas, and when she was confronted with that she had to say 'well it could give the impression' or some such. Well honey, you don't say something that is false, call it a fact, and then say 'well it gave that impression' AND then run an add perpetuating the lie a couple of days later.

Now you know why Clinton does well with the less educated voters, who can find themselves tangled up in her misrepresentations - but she will lose those people more and more too, cos everyone will help wise them up to what is going on.

Henery: The media has reported on that stuff you listed and found it all empty, pathetic, sometimes downright false, distorted, blown up out of nothing, you name it. Obama hasn't been given a free ride on the accusations - it's just that when you look into Clinton camp accusations you end up with the conclusion they are spouting drivel.

I mean - rich - Clinton changes her message week to week, but she makes a big deal out of a box he ticked on a questionnaire 12 years ago, contrasting that with a more softened position on gun control 5 years later and then comments about him 'quickly' flip flopping?

I mean wow - she must think people are pretty dumb huh?

Or her and Bill deliberately saying - as fact - that Obama said the Republican ideas were good ideas - even though he never said that, you can see the interview and see he qualified he didn't think they were good ideas, and when she was confronted with that she had to say 'well it could give the impression' or some such. Well honey, you don't say something that is false, call it a fact, and then say 'well it gave that impression' AND then run an ad perpetuating the lie a couple of days later.

Now you know why Clinton does well with the less educated voters, who can find themselves tangled up in her misrepresentations - but she will lose those people more and more too, cos everyone else will help explain to them what is going on and you don't need to be highly educated to get angry when you find out someone has been manipulating you.

I do feel that John McCain's Monkey Business pales in comparison to his derision of POW/MIA activists and family members simply because he chooses not to tell the truth about those abandoned U S citizens. I could certainly fill in the blanks for the NYTs but I don't want to catch the Potomac Fever virus which is going around.

It's all so complicated but the hint was there when the media mentions the "Queen of Diamonds" and McCain's campaign flounders when the staff became aware of the Vicki Tapes. Flying in a Lear Jet with Miss Vicki means just what it says and McCain suffers from the Lear Complex which is a Shakespearean psychoanalytic theory; a father's libidinous fixation on a daughter.