Don’t think for a moment that just because the election is over, that President-elect Obama’s Kool-Aid drunk hordes of internet volunteer/bots/thugs are going to fade away and go back to playing Doom, Sims, Dungeons and Dragons or trolling for dates on Facebook.

In fact, one of the netroots’ great gurus, none other than Joe Trippi believes the Community Organizer in Chief will harness the power of his millions of devoted on-line minions to create one of the most powerful lobbying forces ever. Frank Greve of the McClatchy newspapers writes about that here.

Oppose the President at your own peril.

Joe Trippi, the Internet politics guru whose computer geeks made Howard Dean a contender in 2004 and who went on to design Obama’s socially networked campaign machine, offers a provocative and educated guess.

Trippi predicted that Obama would use his forces, first and foremost, to intimidate congressional foes of his agenda, rally his allies and forge “one of the most powerful presidencies in American history.”

Certainly, Obama reaches the White House with the biggest, best organized, fastest-acting grass-roots army in the history of presidential campaigning.

Moreover, because his Internet operation was miles ahead of Republican John McCain’s, Obama’s liberal-to-libertarian electronic activists are in a position to dominate the new political medium much as conservative Republicans dominate talk radio.

As for political utility, many thousands of volunteers such as Hood will be deployable within hours, with great precision and at almost no cost, thanks to the campaign’s state-of-the-art information-management systems.

The president-elect’s political operatives know, for example, the ZIP codes and hence the congressional districts of each of Obama’s million most active campaigners, those who volunteered via his Web site mybarackobama.com. It’s a social network that the campaign set up to communicate needs, events and assignments to volunteers.

We have already witnessed the power of his online intimidation network. Pro-Hillary websites shut down after thousands of false spam reports from Obots, personal e-mails of bloggers reported for spam and turned off as well and of course those lovely trolls who invade every site to hijack any discussion that deviates from the Obama party line.

Several media outlets were bombarded with harassing phone calls, e-mails and protestors minutes after the devoted received “Obama action alerts” letting them know that opposition voices were soon to appear on certain programs.

Those who read here are already well aware that the candidate who promised a new kind of politics also approves of a new kind of political dissent. That is of course, no dissent at all.

It really is scary to think of how he might use that power to pursue his agenda. All the more reason that we at No Quarter must begin to organize ourselves and grow our ranks. It will be the only way to combat the power of the mob.

Yet Another Barack Obama Baloney Alert!

Barack Obama had the Audacity Of Mendacity to pimp this brazen lie today. Lucky for him, his ears don’t grow every time he lies:

“Let’s be clear who John McCain is fighting for — he’s not fighting for Joe the Plumber, he’s fighting for Joe the Hedge Fund Manager,”

Increasingly arrogant because he knows his personal PR team in the main stream media won’t call him on any filthy lie he tells, Obama has once again not only lied in America’s face, but done it without a hint of conscience….a habit he has mastered, because it is becoming increasingly apparent that he has no soul.

Well I was just wondering then, Barack, since we are “being clear here”: If John McCain is fighting for Joe The Hedge Fund Manager, how come Joe The Hedge fund Manager has given you so much money?

Before you scrub the net, Barack, there are pages upon pages dating all the way to last year, that discuss how much Wall Street and Hedge Fund Managers are in love with you. Now why is that?

In fact, as I was researching this latest lie of yours, I could hardly keep up with all the links and all the names…..and all the money! Gratefully, the fast and efficient American Thinker got ahead of this issue in September.

Let’s keep one thing in mind. As even the liberal New York Times has stated:

Barack Obama is the candidate of the hedge funds because of the outsized support these titans of mismanagement have heaped upon him.

George Soros-hedge fund pioneer and titan-was early in his support. As emperor of a range of 527 groups, he has wielded his influence to help his largest political investment to date: Barack Obama.

But it’s not just the master of economic manipulation George Soros who loves Barack Obama. No sir. As if April 2008:

Many of the top 10 managers on Alpha magazine’s mind-blowing 2007 rich list, which was released last week, have put money on Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. They have each given the maximum donation allowed: $2,300. (Let’s face it, this is pocket lint to these guys.)

Obama’s hedge fund contributors include managers:

John Griffin, the founder of Blue Ridge Capital, who made $625 million in 2007, according to Alpha. Griffin is backing Obama after initially supporting Mitt Romney.

Kenneth Griffin (no relation) of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, who earned $1.5 billion. He contributed to the Obama campaign after the senator went to his office last year.

Stephen Mandel Jr. of Lone Pine Capital, who took home $710 million last year.

And, of course, George Soros, who earned almost $3 billion last year. It is no surprise that Soros, a Democratic stalwart, is backing Obama. Soros campaigned against President Bush in 2004, and Moveon.org, which Soros has plied with tens of millions of dollars, endorsed Obama in February.

Well now wait. If you were a very very rich hedge fund manager and you wanted to give WAY more money to your special candidate, you would have to be……..a……bundler. That’s a person who puts the hammer on employees and other people dependent upon him or her –and collects up large sums via small donations. That way they don’t look like lobbyists but they get all the “credit” for the “Bundle”–and the greasy political recipient gets to call all those donations gifts from “the little guy”. Sound familiar? As a matter of fact, some of them actually are lobbyists, but I digress.

Now why is it that hedge fund lobbyists bundlers have raised more than twice as much money for Barack Obama than for John McCain? I mean, John McCain is the one looking out for Joe The Hedge Fund Bundler right?

Right.

[July 2008 figures below]

New figures show the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has drawn $822,375 in campaign contributions from employees of hedge funds, compared to $348,300 for his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The figures, compiled for Reuters by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group, reflect mounting concern over the rising cost of health care and other domestic issues where several hedge fund managers said Mr. Obama had an edge over Mr. McCain.
….snip….

[Now for the bundlers as of July 2008]

Employees at $20 billion hedge fund Citadel Investment Group, run by Kenneth Griffin, rank as Mr. Obama’s top hedge fund backers, donating $185,300 to their home-state senator so far.

Employees at New York-based Taconic Capital Advisors donated $42,650 to Mr. Obama and $500 to Mr. McCain, while employees at D.E. Shaw & Co, also headquartered in New York, gave $41,915 to Mr. Obama and nothing to Mr. McCain.

Now why is it that Barack Obama fancies that John McCain is looking out for Joe The Hedge Fund Manager when Joe The Hedge Fund Manager keeps giving more of his money to Barack Obama? Must be because Joe The Hedgefund Manager always gives more money to the guy who is going to screw him, right?

Right. Well that’s not what THEY think:

“People are clearly looking to gain influence with the candidates down the line and are making their bets accordingly,” said a hedge fund manager in Chicago who declined to be identified so he could speak candidly.

Well, I guess they must just be financial masochists then. Because, according to Barack Obama, it’s John McCain who is looking out for them, right?

Right. So then why is it that Hedge Fund “Heavies” have been hosting some very lucrative fundraising bashes for Barack Obama?

The first was co-hosted by George Soros, the financier and former hedge fund manager, and Paul Tudor Jones, who runs the giant hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation. That event, held in Mr. Jones’s $25 million waterfront mansion — which Vanity Fair’s Nina Munk has described as a “a cross between Tara and a national monument” — collected $2,300 from each of the approximately 300 attendees, the Greenwich Time reported.

Wow, nice digs, Mr. Jones! Way better than the digs Tony Rezko finagled for Barack, but Barack wants one just like yours.

Now wasn’t that sweet of Mr. Jones? I mean how many hedge fund managers would host a bash like that for Barack Obama, who “Isn’t looking out for him”? I mean, one would think that, since John McCain is the one looking out for him, he would have hosted that bash for John McCain, right?

Right.

So, Barack, are you sure you don’t want to withdraw that lie you told mistake you made regarding exactly who is looking out for Joe The Hedgefund Manager?

Oh and one more question, Barack. Where there any plumbers at these parties? Just wondering.

…………….

From my blog, Uppity Woman.

Anyway, watch this CLASSIC FLINEO VIDEO, and drag every one of your relatives and neighbors over to watch it too. Amidst the omniscient deification, there have to be a few people doing some reality checks on Obama:

Below are the notes Flineo attached to this video, along with a couple additional comments:

Flineo’s videos are so brilliant, and I’m upset with him for taking on a time-consuming task that makes it impossible for him to do more videos at the moment.

He launched this great video on — get this — March 27, 2008. Remember those days? Remember? Back then, when we still had a qualified candidate running for the Democratic nomination? Yes, Hillary has taken money from many lobbyists too (they all do), but Saint Barack has escaped the scrutiny of his associations that other candidates have historically been subjected to.

Here are Flineo’s accompanying notes at the YouTube page:

USA Today, April 15, 2008

Obama takes plenty of money from special interests (from individuals or groups) despite his rhetoric otherwise. Those who contribute $1000 or more constitute 60% of his campaign fund (www.fec.gov). Every politician takes special interest money. Only Obama preaches about not taking it, but backdoors just as much and more than anyone. Also, remember the pledge of “public financing”? NOT!

That USAToday article, which Flineo linked, checks out Obama’s claims in a primary battle ad (posted in the article) that he ran in Pennsylvania where — as you’ll recall — Hillary trounced Barack.

Hillary trounced Barack in Pennsylvania because, the PEOPLE KNEW, Hillary had the real goods and Barack is all smoke and mirrors.

From the article which reminds us of Obama’s ridiculous bragging that he doesn’t take money from oil companies, and more:

Obama’s claim of independence questioned

[...]

It’s accurate that Obama doesn’t take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal. But Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama’s case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama’s fundraising team.

[..]

“The Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference,” said a statement on the website of FactCheck.org, an affiliate of the University of Pennsylvania. “We’re not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron’s PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees.”

$193 million — and counting

The episode underscores the pitfalls confronting a candidate who rails against special interests while raising $193 million and counting — the most of any presidential campaign. Obama’s fundraising tests the limits of his claim that he is independent of Washington’s influence industry because he doesn’t take money from federal lobbyists and PACs.

Other examples that strain against that claim:

•Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig, whose lobbying clients include gambling and handgun interests.

Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

•Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show. Jensen said his wife had “personally chosen” to contribute to Obama.

•Obama accepts contributions and fundraising help from state lobbyists. Florida lobbyist Russell Klenet hosted a fundraiser for Obama Aug. 25, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Two months before, Klenet had withdrawn as a lobbyist in Washington for a kidney dialysis company that relies heavily on federal revenue, Senate records show. Klenet did not return phone calls.

•Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He’s taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that “I don’t take pharma money.” …

(Read all of “Obama’s claim of independence questioned.”)

I’ve never seen such a fake get a huge pass from the media. It’s astonishing. And if the American people vote this fake into office, god help us all.

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499

7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000

8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991

9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499

10. Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’ S R-MO $55,400

11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300

12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000

13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750

14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750

15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389

16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100

17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750

18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249

19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500

20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750

21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000

22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750

23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700

24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500

25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals.
2008 cycle totals based on data downloaded from the
Federal Election Commission on June 30, 2008.

Absent from the list is the name of John McCain, John Sununu, Elzabeth Dole, and Chuck Hagel. Those Senators tried to take action in January 2005 but could find no Democratic sponosor nor any other Republicans willing to back them in cleaning up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Now that’s damn serious. If Raines’ behavior isn’t criminal, it should be. The billions that U.S. taxpayers will be paying to rescue Fannie Mae are due in no small part to Obama’s adviser Raines as well as Jim Johnson, another Obama adviser who headed his vice presidential selection committee. NancyA posted today’s McCain ad on Obama’s connections to the corrupt Johnson who, like Raines, stuffed his pockets while ruining Fannie Mae.

Then there’s the whole lobbying matter: Barack Obama, who’s only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, is the #2 recipient out of 354 lawmakers of lobbying monies from Fannie and Freddie (not to mention Lehman Bros. and AIG) — read Larry Johnson’s reports here and here. This should be a top topic at dinner tables around the country. How could someone with so little Senate service — two-plus years — be the #2 beneficiary of such huge amounts of lobbying monies?

Early today, still ruminating about Barack Obama’s predilection for questionable advisers who make their money on the backs of taxpayers, from Tony Rezko and the rest of the Chicago “machine” to Fannie Mae’s Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, I check Memeorandum.com and am FLOORED that this is the top story, from Time’s Karen Tumulty:

McCain Plays the Race Card — When politicians interject race into a campaign, they seldom do it directly. Consider McCain’s new ad, which the campaign says it will be airing nationally: This is hardly subtle: Sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman. …

First, when I watched that ad last night, it never dawned on me that Raines’ color was a factor. Furthermore, I’d already seen in my Inbox this morning that McCain has a new ad out today on Jim Johnson, Obama’s other adviser who scammed taxpayers while making millions at Fannie Mae.

Tumulty, in her article, complains that McCain singles out Raines because he’s black, but that McCain doesn’t go after Johnson, who’s white. Good god! If Karen Tumulty had picked up the telephone, she’d have known that John McCain released a new ad very early this morning titled, drum roll, “Jim Johnson.”

The simple logic to me is that it is easier to concentrate on one man’s thievery at a time in a very short TV ad. Hence, the McCain ad people created two ads. Not the first ad to make black people look “sinister.” (I literally just slapped my forehead with the palm of my hand.)

The silliness of the “race card” addressed, let’s focus more on Johnson and Raines:

These are NOT good people.

These are NOT people who stay awake at night worrying about the thousands of home owners losing their homes because they were screwed by shaky mortgage deals.

These are NOT the kind of “experts” that a presidential candidate should either seek out for advice — or even be seen remotely near (!).

If I’d been instrumental in bringing down one of the largest home financing institutions — and I’d been a major reason that taxpayers will have to shell out billions of dollars for decades to come — I’d be hanging my head in shame and hiding out in my basement, calling out for Domino’s pizza and donating $100,000 of that $110,000 monthly pension check to charity. But I’m clearly a fool. Consciences are so lame, huh.

Anyway, here’s some more history on Obama’s involvements with Jim Johnson at some very audaciously incongruent moments in his candidacy, courtesy of the excellent Commentary columnist Jennifer Rubin in June 2008 — with the highly apt title, “Let Me Get This Straight.”

On a day in which he is hip-deep in James Johnson goo, Barack Obama did a forum on mortgage lending practices? Nah, it can’t be. That would be the height of hypocrisy and the evidence that Obama’s fine-tuned machine had stepped on it’s own message. Oh, wait–it’s true. It has become clear that until Wednesday Obama still didn’t realize anything was amiss. As the New York Times noted:

Mr. Obama had defended Mr. Johnson as recently as Tuesday, saying that he had only a “tangential” role in his campaign and that he was not troubled by his business activities. He said he had not inquired about his mortgages and would not hire people to, as he put it, “vet the vetters.” But Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Republican Party officials kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism of Mr. Johnson. The case became a test of Mr. Obama’s professed independence from Washington insiders and supposed higher ethical standards. Mr. Obama has refused to accept campaign donations from lobbyists and had made criticism of the cozy financial and political relationships in the capital a hallmark of his campaign rhetoric.

Even aside from his poor choice of topics on Wednesday, the hypocrisy watchdogs had spotted the problem. Jake Tapper observed:

A consummate Washington, D.C., insider, Johnson’s leadership role in Obama’s campaign seemed to belie the candidate’s promise to voters that “the stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result.”

But beyond that contradiction and Johnson’s controversial time at Fannie Mae was the issue of what Republicans termed Johnson’s “sweetheart” loan from Countrywide. Earlier this year, Obama and his campaign had impugned Sen. Hillary Clinton for taking money from Countrywide lobbyists and for allowing a senior campaign adviser to simultaneously do work for Countrywide.”

Tapper noted that, although Obama had excoriated Countrywide in a swing through the Rust belt in March,

[w]hen Obama was asked about Johnson’s special loan from Countrywide Tuesday in St. Louis, outrage seemed the furthest emotion he could muster.

“I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages,” he said after ABC News asked him about the apparent contradiction. “This is a game that can be played. Everybody you know who is tangentially related to our campaign I think Is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters.”

As Gail Collins put it, “Talk about unnecessary disasters.” Unnecessary but not unexpected. In no other instance of brewing trouble–Bittergate or Rev. Wright, to name two–did Obama’s early warning signal go off that something was amiss. When you believe your own press releases and listen to your media fan club, you wind up thinking that no one will call you on it when you hire a Washington fixer and go to predatory lending events on the day you fire a recipient of discounted loans.

And here is where Jennifer Rubin hits the NAIL on the HEAD:

It is becoming easier to understand how Obama got swept into the orbit of Tony Rezko: he seems to lack basic common sense about the appearance of ethical improprieties and possesses the arrogance to believe no one will question his motives. It’s a deadly combination. …

But not these guys. They have such gall that they have no guilt about stealing millions in compensation and pensions while living the high life in the midst of Washington, D.C. society and cozying up to Barack Obama.

Get this!

This Jim Johnson character was in hock to Countrywide up to his eyeballs! At the time he was forced to resign from Barack Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, the Wall Street Journal discovered that Jim Johnson’s monthly “obligations” were nearly TWICE his “stated monthly income.”

But Countrywide considered him a “High Profile Borrower” and awarded Johnson the Exception Processing System, “which the lender used to handle loans that didn’t comply with its own regulations.”

Within Countrywide, Mr. Johnson was designated both a Friend of Angelo and a “High Profile Borrower,” according to documents and people familiar with the matter. His loans were handled by Mr. Mozilo and his lieutenants Andrew “Drew” Gissinger III and Wes Lazear.

Bank of America Corp., which is acquiring the struggling Countrywide, has chosen Mr. Gissinger, a former San Diego Chargers offensive lineman, and several other Countrywide executives to help run its mortgage business after the acquisition. Mr. Gissinger will head several groups responsible for selling mortgages to consumers.

Perhaps the most unusual of Mr. Johnson’s loans was one for more than $1.5 million last year for a real-estate project in Big Timber, Mont. At the time he got the loan, what the records indicate were Mr. Johnson’s monthly obligations were nearly twice his stated monthly income, according to documents and to people familiar with the matter.

The records say Mr. Johnson’s “total income” was $55,834 a month, while his “total obligations” were $97,708.97 a month. The result was a total debt ratio of 175%, which Countrywide’s records say was “too high.”

Countrywide handled this as a house construction loan, which meant that Mr. Johnson wasn’t required to make a down payment apart from the $240,000 investment he had already made in raw land and a payment for construction. A requirement for a second appraisal was waived by Mr. Gissinger.

The loan’s size also exceeded Countrywide rules, but that limit was overridden as well. The document indicated that the size limit was $1.5 million for a second home. In addition, Countrywide borrowers are supposed to have no more than four currently financed properties at a time. Countrywide waived that rule, too. Mr. Johnson was in the processing of selling one of his properties.

“The borrower of this loan is the former CEO of Fannie Mae,” Countrywide records state. “This is a very high-profile and visible loan that needs…immediate attention.”

Senior executive Mr. Lazear overrode Countrywide’s rule prohibiting loans to a borrower with such a high debt-to-income ratio (DTI) in an April 19, 2007 memo. “Mr. Johnson’s profile in many ways, including the existing performing loans at Countrywide, supports the exception,” Mr. Lazear wrote. “This email gives you my approval for the DTI exception.” Mr. Lazear couldn’t immediately be reached including through messages on his personal mobile-phone number. …

ALL I WANT:

(1) That Obama’s relationships with these people who ripped off major mortgage institutions are exposed!

(2) That Obama’s huge take in lobbying funds — thanks to his cozying up to these fat cats who have ripped off both their companies and the American taxpayers — is adequately revealed to all Americans!

(3) And, please lord god almighty, don’t tell me that Jim Johnson’s Countrywide loans are going to be bailed out by the U.S. taxpayers!

P.S. MSM, We know you have a vested interest in the outcome of this election, but your pathetic use of the “race card” is laughable. Knock it off.

And, Karen Tumulty, learn how to use your telephone or get an editorial assistant who has the brains to fact-check your stories for you.

If Time doesn’t have the budget, just call me, Karen. I get the press releases from both presidential candidates, and I can get you the latest info.

It is highly ironic that Barack Obama chose to respond to today’s shocking news by attacking McCain while McCain/Palin are proposing a reform of federal regulations. Obama is also blaming the Republican party for our nation’s crisis.

Yet it is Barack Obama who is the #2 recipient of lobbying handouts, out of 354 lawmakers, from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Don’t miss Jennifer Rubin’s excellent post today, “Whoops!“: “The Agent of Change, it seems, didn’t exactly walk the walk on this one.”) Here is “Crisis,” the new McCain/Palin TV ad:

Here are the script and fact check list from the McCain campaign’s press release:

ANNCR: Our economy in crisis. Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it.

Tougher rules on Wall Street to protect your life savings.

No special interest giveaways.

Lower taxes to create new jobs.

Offshore drilling to reduce gas prices.

McCain - Palin.

Leadership, experience, for the change we need.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Crisis” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Our economy in crisis. Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it. Tougher rules on Wall Street to protect your life savings. No special interest giveaways.

· John McCain: “And Under My Reforms, All Aspects Of A CEO’s Pay, Including Any Severance Arrangements, Must Be Approved By Shareholders.” “In times of hardship and distress, we should be more vigilant than ever in holding corporate abuses to account, as in the case of the housing market. Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO’s — in some cases, the very same CEO’s who helped to bring on these market troubles — bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while the offenders themselves are packed off with another forty - or fifty million for the road. If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO’s pay, including any sever ance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders.” (John McCain, Remarks, Washington, D.C., 6/10/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Reform Our Mortgage And Financial Markets. “Fixing Fannie and Freddie, and reforming our mortgage and financial markets, is critical to getting the housing market and the entire economy moving again. A great deal of the savings and wealth of American families is wrapped up in the value of their homes. A house has traditionally been the wealth-building course to retirement. The housing industry employs millions of Americans. One of us, John McCain, said over two years ago, ‘If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose.’” (John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, Op-Ed, “We’ll Protect Taxpayers From More Bailouts,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/9/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Address The Role Speculation Is Playing In Energy Prices. “Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.” (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Lexington Project: A Comprehensive Plan To Break Our Dependence On Foreign Oil,” Press Release, 6/25/08)

· John McCain Fought For Financial Transparency In Stock Option Expensing. “U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today offered an amendment to the Accounting Reform Bill that would require companies to record the stock options that they grant to their employees as an expense on their financial statements. His floor statement follows: ‘Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that requires companies to record the stock options that they grant to their employees as an expense on their financial statements. If companies want to claim these expenses as a deduction for tax purposes, they ought to be noted as expenses on a company’s income statement. We must end the double standard for stock options.’” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “We Must End Double Standard For Stock Option,” Press Release, 7/11/02)

· John McCain Has Long Fought For “Transparency Of Our Financial Markets.” “As the incoming Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I plan to conduct rigorous oversight over those aspects of corporate governance that fall under the panel’s purview. I also plan to pursue further reforms that are desperately needed such as expensing stock options. We have an obvious, pressing obligation to investors to ensure the transparency of our financial markets. Reform is a process. It is not a one-time fight.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Declares Reform Crusade Continues,” Press Release, 11/14/01)

ANNCR: Lower taxes to create new jobs.

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Keep Tax Rates Low. Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security — a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will phase out and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) — a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under John McCain’s plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 — a real tax cut for working families. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Double The Personal Exemption For Dependents. John McCain believes the tax code should be less of a burden on those, whether they are mothers and fathers or single parents, who are trying to raise a family. He proposes to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Establish Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D. This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Allow First-Year Deduction, Or “Expensing”, Of Equipment And Technology Investments. American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Reduce The Federal Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent From 35 Percent. A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Ban Internet Taxes. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Ban New Cell Phone Taxes. John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message — and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

ANNCR: Offshore drilling to reduce gas prices. McCain - Palin. Leadership, experience, for the change we need. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Expand Offshore Drilling To Reduce Gas Prices. McCain: “But I also believe that lifting the moratoria from offshore drilling or oil and natural gas exploration is something that we should place as a very high priority. And again, I don’t want to dictate to the states what they should do, but I think that the states can be provided with additional incentives such as a greater share of the revenues than is presently the case.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Press Availability, Arlington, VA, 6/16/08)

· CNN’s Frank Sesno: “Expectations Of More Production Can Send Prices Down.” FRANK SESNO: “Obama’s criticized McCain for saying more drilling would have a positive psychological impact. But there is psychology in energy markets, worries about soaring demand in China or supply disruptions in Nigeria send prices up. Expectations of more production can send prices down.” (CNN’s “Situation Room,” 6/26/08)

· Harvard Professor And Former Council Of Economic Advisors Chairman Martin Feldstein: “Increasing The Expected Future Supply Of Oil Would Also Reduce Today’s Price.” “Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today’s price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future. For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today. Similarly, increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today’s price. That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories. Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demand for oil in the U.S. or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices and increased consumption today.” (Martin Feldstein, Op-Ed, “We Can Lower Oil Prices Now,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/1/08)

· BMO Financial Group Global Finance Strategist Andrew Busch Wrote That Long Term Solutions To Energy Such As Drilling Can Have A Short Term Affect On Markets. “We need longer term plans to solve the longer term energy problems of United States. In case you aren’t familiar with how markets react, a coherent, logical plan of action towards providing long term solutions will have a positive impact now on the price of energy. Why? Because it will shift the short term psychology of the market away from doom and gloom towards a light at the end of the tunnel scenario. We only need to look at President Bush’s lifting of the moratorium on off-shore drilling to see an example of this in the markets. Did this act significantly change the short term outlook for oil? No, but it changed the discussion on the subject at a time when it was needed. In turn, this aided the shift in market psychology back to some fundamentals like demand…..which is dro pping.” (Andrew Busch, ” Busch: Long Term Energy Plans Can Be Short Term Solutions,” CNBC’s “Guest Blog,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/25803361, Posted 7/22/08)

· Omer Bhatti, The Head Trader At WorldSpreads, Said That The U.S. Offshore Drilling Plan Will Help Lower The Price Of Oil. OMER BHATTI (Head Sales Trader at WorldSpreads): “I think the offshore drilling plan that was agreed in the U.S. kind of helped the scenario to create that pullback scenario.” (CNBC’s “Worldwide Exchange,” 7/28/08)

Q. WHAT’S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT — LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY: WHAT’S THE MOST GUT WRENCHING DECISION YOU’VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AND HOW DID YOU PROCESS THAT, COME TO THAT DECISION?

A. WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS AS TOUGH A DECISION THAT I’VE HAD TO MAKE NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE WERE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES BUT ALSO BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A BAD PERSON AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT HE MET AMERICA ILL.

BUT I WAS FIRMLY CONVINCED AT THE TIME THAT WE DID NOT HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT AS I SPOKE TO EXPERTS KEPT ON COMING UP, DO WE KNOW HOW THE SHIITES AND THE SUNNIS AND THE KURDS ARE GOING TO GET ALONG IN A POST SADDAM SITUATION, WHAT’S OUR ASSESSMENT AS TO HOW THIS WILL AFFECT THE BATTLE AGAINST TERRORIST LIKE AL-QAEDA, HAVE WE FINISHED THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN?

SO I AGONIZED OVER THAT AND I THINK QUESTION OF WAR AND PEACE GENERALLY ARE SO PROFOUND YOU KNOW WHEN YOU MEET THE TROOPS, THEY ARE 19, 20, 21-YEAR OLD KIDS AND YOU ARE PUTTING THEM INTO HARM’S WAY THERE IS A SOLEMN OBLIGATION THAT YOU DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO GET THAT DECISION RIGHT.

AND NOW AS THE WAR WENT FORWARD, VERY DIFFICULT ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU KEEP FUNDING THE WAR IF YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IT’S NOT AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST AT THE SAME TIME YOU DON’T WANT TO HAVE TROOPS WHO ARE OUT THERE WITHOUT THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEED. SO THAT ALL THOSE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE WAR HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME.

Say WHAT, OBush?? YOU did not have to make ANY decisions on the War in Iraq! YOU were not in the SENATE yet!! How in the WORLD does this guy get away with these blatant lies and mind-boggling (delusional) revisionist history??

Wait - here’s another goody. Oh, dear goddess, McCain is going to have a FIELD day with this statement come August 28th. I’ll show you why after the question and answer:

Q. ABOUT THE COMMON GOOD, THE COMMON GROUND AND COMMON GOOD. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A TIME YOU KNOW A LOT — I’VE SEEN A LOT OF GOOD LEGISLATIONS GETS KILLED BECAUSE OF PARTY LOYALTY. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE YOU WIN(went) AGAINST PARTY LOYALTY AND MAYBE EVEN WIN (went) AGAINST YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA?

A. WELL, I’LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT IN FACT I WORKED WITH JOHN MCCAIN ON AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE OF CAMPAIGN ETHICS REFORM AND FINANCE REFORM. THAT WASN’T PROBABLY IN MY INTEREST OR HIS FOR THAT MATTER BECAUSE THE TRUTH WAS BOTH DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS OR OF LIKE THE STATUS QUO AND I WAS NEW TO THE SENATE AND IT DIDN’T NECESSARILY ENGENDER A LOT OF POPULARITY WHEN I STARTED SAYING YOU KNOW WE’RE GOING TO ELIMINATE MEALS AND GIFTS FROM CORPORATE LOBBYISTS.

I REMEMBER ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHOSE NAME WILL BE UNMENTIONED WHO SAID, WELL, WHERE DO YOU EXPECT US TO EAT MCDONALD’S? AND I THOUGHT WELL, ACTUALLY, A LOT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS PROBABLY DO EAT AT MCDONALD’S SO THAT WOULDN’T BE SUCH A BAD THING. BUT I THINK THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET A BILL PASSED THAT HASN’T MADE WASHINGTON PERFECT BUT AT LEAST IT MOVING THINGS FORWARD.

Ready? Here is a letter from Senator John McCain to Senator Barack Obama from FEBRUARY 06, 2006 issued as a Press Release:

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

John McCain

Ahem. So it would seem that, once again, Obama was lying through his teeth. Like his “My mother was a poor single mother and I grew up without a daddy,” which is ALSO in this transcript regarding his “moral failings.”

Okay - as promised, here is the big event of the night in California. Ellen and Portia Get Married, Obama, on this night, also touched on same-sex marriage. When asked to define marriage, he told Warren, “It’s a union between a man and a woman.”

“For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God’s in the mix,” he said.

Obama added that he does support same-sex civil unions, saying, “I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don’t have … that view.”

Gosh, Obush - don’t tell Ellen and Portia that you think MARRIAGE is between a “man and a woman”! The night you made this pandering comment they did just that - so what are you saying to THEM?!?! And how freakin’ magnanimous that you are willing to “afford civil rights to others…” What a guy!! Gee - it must be hard to sleep at night with all that twisting and turning, flipping and flopping…

No wonder Obushits are becoming worried, seeing a tougher path than they thought…We could have told them. Wait - we HAVE been telling them!! After performances like last night’s, this should be another big ol’ WAKE UP CALL for the Superedelegates. This man is NOT COMPETENT to be the Democratic nominee, much less the PRESIDENT. *Ring, ring* - it’s the clue phone, SDs, and it’s for YOU!!!!

In order to “save” the Democratic Party, Brazile resolved back in 2003 that she might have to destroy it first. And who better to help her in this lofty pursuit than her new best friend, the man neoconservatives call “The Architect”.

…………………………..

BY ROSEMARY REGELLO

It’s not every activist politico who gets to write a post in the Washington Times that begins like this: "As I sat by my window and staring out at the wonderful Washington, D.C., landscape, my office announced a phone call from Air Force One."

Evidently, Donna Brazile was reminding all the little people on Capitol Hill that she had friends in high places. In summer of 2007, Bush senior advisor Karl Rove wasn’t answering any subpoenas from Congress, but he didn’t mind talking to Brazile. From his perch at 20,000 feet, he informed her that this was probably a good time for him to get out of Dodge.

“Mr. Rove’s resignation is not a retirement,” Brazile reassured readers of the right of center newspaper. “It’s just another opportunity for him to create that lasting Republican majority he envisioned years ago and to spend his waking days doing what he so enjoys — beating Democrats in the alleys and gutters. Just ask Sen. Hillary Clinton, Mr. Rove’s target when he called in to speak to Rush Limbaugh. He couldn’t help it. Mr. Rove just had to take one last shot before riding out of town. More to come, Team Clinton.”

Brazile’s breezy account confirms what many have long since suspected. Rove’s claim to be sitting out the 2008 race is hogwash. The mastermind of today’s unraveling U.S. constitution is in no position to kick back, down gin fizzes and watch the country collapse under an Administration he put into office twice. The list of crimes that Bush’s top henchman could potentially be charged with - everything from fraud to war crimes - should be enough to keep him and his fellow Sopranos in hair-trigger mode until the next president gets sworn in. And the notion that he’d leave the choice of commander-in-chief in less capable dirty hands than his own requires more than the willing suspension of disbelief. It requires medication.

That’s why the Rove-Brazile tryst merits further exploration. They first hooked up some time in 2002, according to a New York Times article. The connection might have been a means for Brazile to expand her clientele, but she dismissed that angle in an interview, implying she had bigger fish to fry. It was the Democrats’ lackluster relations with African Americans and poor track record in elections, she said, that led her to start trailblazing new frontiers. To put it in a Brazile nutshell, the Republicans had a better machine.

”The idea is to re-energize the African-American electorate and revive the Democratic Party at the same time,” she told Times reporter Katharine Seelye, ”I want to revitalize the party from the grass roots up. We’re losing voters.”

With that noble cause in mind, she and Rove began to "chirpily exchange e-mail, chat on the phone and write letters, indulging in their shared zeal for the inner workings of politics," Seelye wrote.

Rove said he’d sometimes call Brazile before a press appearance to get feedback on various Bush policy angles he planned to discuss. In exchange, he furnished Brazile’s clients with access to White House social events.

"People think I’m crazy talking to Karl Rove," the strategist confessed to the Washington Post a month after the Times story appeared, "but there’s something about this guy."

Yes, there certainly is something about Karl Rove. In consultation with Vice-President Cheney’s office, it was Rove who outed Valerie Plame’s C.I.A. identity over a flap about uranium in Niger. Three years later, those subpoenas were overflowing his in-box because he’d told Alberto Gonzalez to fire nine U.S. Attorneys who refused to do his bidding. Rove is also under investigation for an entrapment scheme that put Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman in prison for two years.

Those Republicans sure do know how to close the deal in politics. In addition to basking in The Architect’s dapper charm and irresistible company, Brazile opened diplomatic ties across town with archconservative Grover Norquist. Norquist heads one of Jack Abramoff’s favorite charities, Americans for Tax Reform, and is famous for his remark that he’d like to see federal government crippled to the point where he can take it home and drown it in his bathtub. For a brief window of opportunity, he set aside that morbid fantasy to help one of Brazile’s closest friends, D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes, push some legislation to increase revenues in her district.

According to the same Times article, “Mr. Norquist said he and Ms. Brazile, both Washington residents, were devising a plan to urge Congress to allow the city to raise the height limit on buildings as a way to broaden the tax base and improve schools.”

Brazile served as Holmes’ chief of staff and press secretary during the nineties. In that same action-packed year, her old boss teamed up with other D.C. officials to schedule an unauthorized, nonbinding earlybird presidential primary for 2004. DNC chair Terry McAuliffe sent sent out calls to the candidates to boycott the affair, but Howard Dean didn’t heed the directive. The former Vermont governor swept into D.C. and gobbled up almost as many endorsements as another candidate, Rev. Al Sharpton. Who needed those arcane DNC rules, anyway?

The Brazile Factor

At the time of these contentious political developments, Brazile chaired the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute, a program set up after the Florida recount debacle in 2000. During that earlier episode, she’d experienced firsthand Karl Rove’s unscrupulous knack for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Now she was tasked with brainstorming new strategies to prevent any future gaming of the electoral system.

In 2004, Dean ended his presidential bid after the Wisconsin primary and Kerry lost the general election. This time, Rove generated thousands of extra Bush votes in key Ohio precincts where only a few hundred Republicans lived. Not surprisingly, Brazile remained unimpressed with her party. That winter, she submitted an essay for the left-leaning website Slate.com, which was running a series called “Why Americans Hate Democrats – A Dialog”.

Hard as it must have been to top that inspirational title, the political strategist managed with her piece “Tapping the Obama Factor”. The Chicago politician had just been elevated to the U.S. Senate, but instead of offering an introduction to him, she mostly dwelled on her own life story - rising up from poverty in Louisiana, listening to her grandmother read scripture, etc. etc. Eventually, the essay worked its way back to the stated topic.

"This is a new moment to identify and recruit better messengers," she wrote. "Perhaps it’s time to tap into the ‘Obama’ factor: Scour statehouses for young, energetic, inspiring, and emerging leaders with the ability to connect the head and heart. Too many of the old Democratic guard have stayed in Washington, D.C., too long to fully recognize how most Americans live their lives."

It was a novel way to spin the Illinois election. Obama did score a landslide victory that year, but it had little to do with his age, energy level or the obsolete nature of the Democratic Party establishment. His campaign manager David Axelrod ran the classic Rovian smear campaign, first accusing Obama’s top primary contender of sexual impropriety. After disgracing Blair Hull out of contention, Axelrod used the same device against the G.O.P. primary winner, Jack Ryan.

Of course, this is where things get interesting. House Speaker Dennis Hastert decided he must stick his oar into the battle, calling on Ryan to end his senate bid. The candidate dutifully bowed out, and in his stead, the Illinois Republican Party fielded an unknown, African American bible-thumper from Maryland named Alan Keyes. Clearly, the G.O.P. wanted Obama to win that election. No other explanation can account for the party sacrificing a senate seat to a (supposedly) liberal Democrat who’d (supposedly) spoken out against the Iraq War in 2002.

A Hollywood script writer couldn’t have come up with this storyline. Within a year of arriving in Washington, Brazile’s rising star – the product of a globe-trotting Kansas woman and a philandering tribal leader in Kenya - had launched his presidential exploratory committee. The Internet fundraising team of Howard Dean signed on for the ride. So, too, did some of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks, corporate law firms, and energy giants. By the end of 2007, Obama would post a record-breaking haul of $100 million in campaign contributions. And all while he was still "introducing himself", as Brazile and other analysts put it, to the American public.

Who exactly brought the banks and oil companies to the table still remains to be ferreted out, but it wasn’t Dean or Brazile, or even the man who placed Obama on the speaker’s list at the 2004 Democratic Convention, John Kerry. It’s more likely that Karl Rove huddled with top Bush fundraisers to set that gravy train in motion. Among the candidate’s money bundlers were George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar, both oil industry executives. Other Bush campaign pioneers joined the bandwagon soon afterward.

Now Brazile was impressed. Judging from another My Day installment penned in 2005, following Hurricane Katrina, she sounded like a woman who had been born again:

“While my family was hurting, when they were on the edge feeling left to fend for themselves, the last thing I wanted to do was whine. I got into the groove quickly and contacted Ken Melhman, Chairman of the Republican National Committee and an old friend, Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff for the White House.”

Then she started tossing out the cupcakes: “President Bush, who promised to rebuild the Gulf coast in a speech at Jackson Square, invited some African American leaders over to the White House on December 7th to discuss a broad range of issues…To my great surprise, the meeting with President Bush was cordial and candid. The President listened intently and reassured us that his Administration would not drop the ball.”

Funny how such innocuous fluff takes on a new and sinister meaning when read in hindsight. Yet even from the perspective of a contemporary audience, those claims were a stetch. For people living in New Orleans, the Katrina ball had already been dropped. When the levees broke, Sec. of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was attending a conference on bird flu, the President relaxing on his Crawford ranch. Back in Brazile’s home state, over a thousand people drowned during three days of waiting for rescuers to reach their homes. Several million homeless residents survived, homeless, only to a second disaster called FEMA.

But Brazile didn’t let facts on the ground spoil her picnic. Continuing her upbeat dispatch, “Since then, I have met once more with President Bush and other leaders who are committed to working together to restore the lives and the communities devastated by these two hurricanes…I can tell from the meetings that the rebuilding of Louisiana remains high on his list of priorities.”

Preparing for Battle

One can only speculate on Brazile’s motives in streaming out that hallucination. As she would mention in the Washington Times article two years later, her “old friend” Rove had hit the ground running with the start of the 2008 election cycle, appearing on talk shows to bash frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Behind the scenes, G.O.P. rank and file activists were organizing crossover voting drives to knock Clinton out of the race before November. In the red states, they could easily outnumber Democrats at the caucuses, enriching Obama’s delegate count and allowing him to boast later “I’ve won more states.”

To recruit additional foot troops for this effort, New Hampshire G.O.P. leader Stephen DaMaura started the Facebook website “Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary).”

On the Democratic side, it became Brazile’s job to smooth over Obama’s path to the nomination. That required manipulating the primary calendar. Picking up on the diversity argument of Eleanor Holmes and the D.C. coalition, she pressed for an earlybird South Carolina primary and a Nevada caucus to augment the Iowa and New Hampshire dates.

While the advantages of South Carolina were obvious, by necessity the second contest required a less obvious, more covert action plan to avoid any accusations of stacking the deck. Although the Clinton camp didn’t realize it at the time, a caucus in Nevada (like a caucus anywhere) would naturally benefit Obama, since her base of blue-collar, older and non-English-speaking supporters would not be driving across town to attend some meeting run by disorganized volunteers. On the other hand, motivated Republicans could be counted on to show up, especially if the G.O.P. candidates could be persuaded not to campaign in the state. (They didn’t.)

Nevertheless, the reason for adding more earlybird contests in the first place centered on ethic diversity, so selling the DNC (and the public) on Nevada required some tweaking of those caucus parameters. That’s why arrangements were made to allow the state’s casino workforce of some 60,000 predominantly Latino workers to attend specially set up caucus sites just for them.

But wouldn’t this huge Hispanic voting block put Clinton over the top in Nevada? Not necessarily. It turns out that the union representing casino employees, S.E.I.U., would be backing Obama, just as they had supported Dean in his presidential bid. So those voters could now be added to the Obama column.

Thus, with caucuses scheduled in Iowa and Nevada, a primary in South Carolina with its near majority African American demographic, and the New Hampshire Republican brass on the job in that state, the chance of Clinton heading into Super Tuesday at cruising altitude had spectacularly diminished.

“Including two more states will not only be good for our country, it will be good for our party and good for our nominee," Brazile told the Los Angeles Times in August 2006.

Sounding an early portent of doom, the South Carolina delegate on the rules committee said in the same article, “If you campaign in a state that is outside the rules, then you’re not entitled to delegates from that state."

A year later, that scenario unfolded like a bad dream for the DNC. Over the objections of Florida’s state Democratic Party, a Republican-controlled legislature moved its primary to January 29, 2008, one week before the official February 5^th cusp adopted by both the Republican National Committee and the DNC.

On August 25, 2007. the DNC rules and bylaws committee met to adjudicate this unspeakable crime. State party chair Karen Thurman testified at the meeting, walking the committee through the chronology of her long and fruitless battle to overturn the date switch. The Republicans had attached it as a rider to another bill, one authorizing the replacement of electronic paperless voting equipment with more traditional optical scanners. Unable to defeat the rider on a partyline vote, the Democrats begrudgingly approved the larger measure.

Anyone who has watched the re-broadcast of those DNC proceedings on CSPAN can’t help but be dumbfounded by the discussion that followed Thurman’s presentation. A slam-dunk case for a rule waiver turned into a shameless bout of piling on, as committee member Brazile and several others accused the state party of not trying hard enough to change the date. (One also noticed from the broadcast the unusually high number of African Americans on the 30-member committee, as opposed to near zero representation for other minorities.)

When asked by Brazile why she hadn’t made any plans to hold a caucus in place of the primary, Thurman balked. The logistics and $8 million price tag, she said, were beyond comprehension, given that Florida boasts 4 million eligible Democrats.

"I understand how states crave to be first,” Brazile blustered in a Washington Post interview the next day, as if none of what Thurman told her had registered. “I understand that they’re envious of the role that Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally played, The truth is, we had a process . . . We’re going to back these rules."

Later, the head of the DNC Voting Rights Institute published an op-ed in the same newspaper, this time under the combative heading, “Why We Stood Up to Florida”. With the cockiness that was fast becoming her trademark, Brazile griped, “It was hardly an extraordinary act, although you wouldn’t know it from the furious reaction that ensued in some quarters…Why the uproar? It’s simple: state envy.”

She went on to list all the economic benefits coveted by states vying to hold early primaries, again diverting from the core issue of Republican meddling in Democratic affairs. Inexplicably, the press coverage of the showdown also overlooked the G.O.P.’s role in moving up the primary date.

The same week the rules committee stripped Florida of all its convention delegates, Michigan’s state legislature voted to move up its primary to January 15th. Both states could have easily been pegged as Clinton strongholds, making their exclusion from the election cycle suspect. Michigan is an industrial blue-collar enclave with few of the upper-middle-class voters and college students that represent Obama’s base. Florida’s Hispanic population is huge, and combined with an abundant supply of New York retirees, would likely also resist the Obama "surge".

Moreover, using Republican crossover voting to shave points off Clinton’s victories posed problems in both states. In Michigan, native son Mitt Romney had a significant campaign apparatus in place, while Rudi Giuliani was expecting to draw his line in the sand in Florida. Where these battleground territories were in play, neither gentleman would appreciate Rove siphoning away their voters. Better just to invalidate the primaries on the Democratic side. That way, Clinton’s delegate lead could be held in check on Super Tuesday.

"Seeds of Doubt"

With the votes of the country’s fourth and eighth largest states thus consigned to the junk heap, Brazile turned to other pursuits. Hired as a paid election analyst for CNN, she carried on a double life - one as an official DNC spokesperson, the other as a partisan campaigner for Barack Obama. In February, when best-guess estimates gave Clinton the support of two-thirds of the superdelegates, she declared, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party."

If party leaders were as worried about negative fallout and damage control then as they claimed to be a month later, they might have reeled in their contract employee at this point for a heart-to-heart chat. That didn’t happen. Brazile just reloaded her pistol and repeated her empty threat to all who would listen. On another occasion, she accused former President Bill Clinton of being a racist. It was inexcusable, she said, that during a speech Clinton referred to Obama as a "kid" and suggested his presidential bid amounted to little more than a "fairy tale".

"And I will tell you," Brazile bristled with emotion, "as an African American I find his words and his tone to be very depressing."

To be sure, Clinton said Obama’s evolving position on the Iraq War was a fairy tale, not his candidacy. As for alluding to his youth, Brazile and other cheerleaders for the Illinois senator had been doing it themselves for the past four years. It was a classic example of the Mark Twain quip that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has put its shoes on. Only CNN’s presence in the equation gave the adage literal meaning. Surely, the DNC would intervene now that Brazile had insulted a former Democratic president on national television. But nothing.

Notwithstanding the character smears and 24/7 swiftboating by the American media, Sen. Clinton persevered, scoring big wins in the Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio on March 4^th. On March 5th, she was accused of engaging in a “negative” campaign designed to "destroy" her adversary.

“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” Brazile informed the Associated Press that day, “If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate. But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

(ABC’s Jake Tapper went Brazile one better, claiming Clinton was exercising the "Tanya Harding option".)

In response to the call to arms, Dean promptly petitioned Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to intervene in the protracted race, while Senators Dodd, Richardson and Leahy demanded that Clinton end her candidacy for the good of the party.

Now this sounded familiar. Jack Ryan must have been chuckling to himself from his perch inside a bar, drinking rot-gut whiskey. In Washington, meanwhile, Reid promised that “things will be done” to determine a nominee before the convention. Pelosi told George Stephanopolis on his Sunday talk show that the superdelegates should not overturn “the will of the people”, but denied rumors that she was telling members of Congress that Clinton, if nominated, would be a "drag" on their own campaigns. As the Democratic Party version of the Adams Family was thus occupied in their hand-wringing, chest-beating and sharing of apocalyptic visions, Clinton pressed ahead, picking up 9 out of the final 13 primaries. Three of them she won by more than 30 points.

But no sooner had the daylight begun to shine at the end of the tunnel when another Rove-Brazile shoe dropped. For some reason, her triumph in the popular vote was not matched proportionally by delegates earned, and it had something to do with Obama’s phenomenal gains in the caucus states of Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, etc. One would not have expected an African American liberal to clobber his opponent by a two-to-one margin as he did in many cases. More importantly, her delegate gains in the primaries involving millions of voters seemed to pale in comparison. This made no sense.

In late May, a disability activist named P. Cronin appeared on scene to sort out the Twilight Zone phenomenon. Cronin, who like most disabled people is not a big fan of caucuses, spent some time in late May analyzing the tallies from the 2008 Democratic contest, comparing the impact of the two different voting methods on the race.

According to Cronin’s study, nearly all of Obama’s 138-delegate lead over Clinton could be traced to 12 red state caucuses. In most of these contests he routinely won by 2-1 margins, even though polls in those states showed the candidates much closer. In Idaho, for instance, with its scant African American population, few colleges and relatively few Starbucks outlets, he captured 15 of the state’s 18 delegates.

Something fishy was going on here. Did Dean’s so-called 50-state strategy include the recruitment of pro-Obama activists to organize on the candidate’s behalf in caucus states? Did the number of DaMaura’s G.O.P. crossover voters wildly exceed expectations? Or was there just downright lying in the computation of the vote tallies?

The case of Washington state underscores the mystery of this Bermuda Triangle for Clinton delegates. On February 9^th, Obama earned a whopping 52 of the Washington’s 78 delegates after a 36-point victory in the party-run caucus. Over 240,000 allegedly eligible voters cast ballots in that contest. But a week later, just ahead of a state-run certified primary, the polling data showed that Clinton might actually win the election. On February 19th, after 650,000 ballots were counted Obama eked out a 5-point victory, hardly the 2-1 margin responsible for his 26-delegate net gain in the state. Unfortunately, the primary was non-binding.

Cronin notes in the study that those states that furnished the newcomer’s vast delegate booty contribute a grand total of 69 electoral votes in the general election. Few of these territories have voted Democratic since 1964.

It also appears that the votes of those lucky caucus-goers counted for 5-10 times more than the traditional Democrats who attended primaries. Obama netted more delegates in his Idaho win, for instance, than Clinton in her entire Ohio-Texas-Rhode Island romp on March 4th. The following table illustrates the questionable validity of these dispersements. Notice that the last column shows the delegate gain for the winner:

2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election © 2008 P. Cronin
—————————-

Even in the Navada caucus that Clinton won, Obama was awarded more delegates. The New York senator couldn’t seem to win for winning. There, the S.E.I.U. endorsement dissolved into wishful thinking when the casino workers broke for Clinton two to one, giving her a 6-point victory. A few months later, Obama left the state convention with 3 more delegates.

While there’s no evidence implicating Dean in Obama’s caucus routs, the DNC had maintained staff on the ground in all 50 states since 2005, when he first became the chair. In August 2007, a few weeks before his rules and bylaws committee stripped Florida of its delegates, he announced in a press release that his 50-State Strategy project, the Voting Rights Institute and another DNC division known as the National Lawyers Council were collaborating on a nationwide survey of voter databases, registration procedures and other "election mechanics". According to the release, DNC staff would work with local election boards in gathering information in advance of the 2008 presidential election. "Protecting the right of every eligible American to vote is a top priority for our party," Dean and Brazile said in a joint statement. "Every eligible American deserves the confidence that when they go to the polls to cast their ballot they can do so without fear of intimidation or harassment, and that their vote will be counted fairly and accurately."

Throwing Mama Under the Bus

On May 31, 2008, the rules committee reconvened to discuss those "eligible Americans" living in Florida and Michigan. A week before the meeting, the Democratic Party tried to attach an air of legitimacy to the proceedings by having legal counsel weigh in on the dispute. Although by Brazile’s own account, the Supreme Court gives political parties wide latitude for determining how they pick their nominees, the lawyers claimed it would be unlawful to fully honor the certified votes of January 15^th and 29^th . The committee could do no more than restore half the nearly 350 convention delegates up for grabs.

Always amenable to compromise, the Clinton campaign accepted that limitation but rejected a proposal for Obama to receive some of her Michigan delegates, plus those of all the other candidates in the Michigan primary. After all, the Illinois senator voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, then vetoed a re-do primary which Clinton donors raised $10 million to fund. In a sane world, one could argue that he forfeited the state and therefore deserved no delegates.

Former Governor of Michigan Jim Blanchard didn’t present that line of attack, however. The Clinton spokesman stuck to the modest request that the candidate receive delegates in proportion to the votes cast for her. A few minutes later, it was Brazile’s turn to speak, and the CNN analyst first took the opportunity to congratulate herself for displaying restraint in the meeting up until that point. Then she repudiated Blanchard as if he were a child.

"My mama taught me to play by the rules and respect the rules…When you decide to change the rules, especially, in the middle of the game, it’s called cheating."

Dispatching the governor to go stand and in a corner and contemplate the error of his ways, Brazile’s committee allocated the Michigan delegates according to a fruitcake-like recipe involving exit polls, alleged write-in votes for Obama, the palm-reading of a psychic (just kidding) and the actual tally. In the end, Clinton gained a mere 4.5 delegates from the contest.

Any masochist following the 2008 election knew by then that Brazile had disregarded her own mother’s counsel long ago. Neither she nor her co-horts have lost any sleep over the thousands of complaints filed about the conduct of the caucuses, including some 2,000 submitted in Texas alone. Voter intimidation, stacks of fabricated sign-in sheets slipped in with the legitimate records, phony declarations from Republicans about their intention to switch parties, votes delayed until deep into the night, inaccurate tallies called in by phone, and other dirty tricks have yet to warrant even a cursory investigation by those who preach that playing by the rules represents a core value of the Democratic Party.

Even in the aftermath of her power grab, Brazile continues to denigrate those who challenge the authority of the party’s new African American leadership. In a July 22nd post on Daryl Cagle’s website, she groaned, "How many ways do these Hillary delegates, voters and supporters need to hear it before they get it? Sen. Barack Obama is the party’s nominee. He won. He will get to choose his running mate. Obama sets the agenda for the convention, and, while I understand their passion in wanting Hillary to be on the ticket and to have a prominent role at the convention, it’s not her decision… As much as we all would have loved to see a woman in the Oval Office, it wasn’t Hillary’s time. Period."

It’s ironic when you think about it. The DNC’s Voting Rights Institute was created to stop exclusionary practices and increase participation at the polling booth. Now its chairwoman is presiding over one of the most hostile and fraudulent campaigns since those newspaper delivery trucks ran over the boy scouts in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

"Mr. Rove proved you can win elections with rumors, fear, division and manipulation." Brazile wrote back in 2007, after that friendly exchange with Air Force One. "But you can’t win hearts that way."

No, you can’t. But then, this influential political fixer no longer appears to have use for that particular organ. Which may be why she finds men like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist so appealing.

- Rosemary Regello editor@thecityedition.com

(For more on the G.O.P. manipulation of the Democratic Primaries, see our in-depth report Bamboozling the American Electorate Again)

Copyright 2008 TheCityEdition.com

Last week, the Obama campaign reported that it had a $52 million haul in the month of June. In releasing this information, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters that:

“You continue to prove what ordinary Americans committed to change can accomplish, despite the Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs funding so much of our opponents’ campaign.”

Two articles in the US media point to what I have long been saying about Obama’s duplicitous statements on where his money is coming from and it is not from “ordinary Americans”. It is from corporate interests and Washington lobbyists and yes PAC money. The only difference is that backhanded manner in which Obama collects his millions.

The first article is from the Los Angeles Times in article by Dan Morain entitled Donations to Obama campaign include some biggies:

Even as he touts his base of small donors, Barack Obama is relying heavily on well-heeled contributors who have given $28,500 or more each to Democratic Party committees that will campaign on his behalf.

Obama aides emphasized that the average donation to his campaign in June — during which he brought in $52 million — was $68. Over the course of his campaign, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee has raised $340 million. By law, an individual can give no more than $2,300 to a candidate for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

Obama has established joint fundraising agreements with the Democratic National Committee and two other party committees. Those entities can raise larger sums and spend unlimited amounts on behalf of individual candidates.

Of the $20.3 million Obama’s joint fundraising committees amassed in June, 86%, or $17.6 million, came in chunks of $5,000 or more; 64% came in increments of $28,500 or more, campaign finance reports filed over the weekend show.

Frank Clark, head of Commonwealth Edison, which supplies electricity to Chicago, gave $2,300 to Obama early in the campaign and $28,500 last month to the Democratic White House Victory Fund.

John Rogers, founder of the Chicago investment house Ariel Capital, also gave the maximum to Obama’s presidential account, and $13,000 to Democratic White House Victory.

According to the campaign, Clark and Rogers are among Obama’s largest fundraisers, each having raised more than $200,000 from friends and associates.

Employees at Exelon, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, have given more than $180,000.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt noted that the campaign, unlike the Democratic Party and the fundraising committees, has tapped small donors, raising the bulk of its money in increments of less than $90.

Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, said that although Obama had raised an unprecedented $165 million from those who donated in increments of less than $200, “he cannot raise $150 million or whatever his budget says he needs without going to large contributors.”

The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, also has joint fundraising committees and will probably rely heavily on them in the fall.

Such committees appeal to candidates and donors because contributors can write a single check and have it split among the candidate, the party and related committees.

A review of the campaign finance reports filed over the weekend with the Federal Election Commission showed that attorneys accounted for at least $2.4 million of the $20.3 million the three Obama joint committees raised.

People who listed their occupations as investors or said they worked for investment houses contributed at least an additional $2.85 million. Individuals who said they were chief executive officers, company presidents or board chairmen chipped in $1.8 million. The entertainment industry accounted for $1.5 million.

McDonald’s President Donald Thompson and Pepsi Chairman Robert Pohlad each gave $28,500. The Pohlad family, including Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad, gave a combined $170,000 to Democratic committees.

Entertainers who donated $28,500 to the committees include producers Frederick W. Field and Steven Bochco and his wife, Dayna, and actors Samuel L. Jackson and Edward Norton.

NBA star LeBron James donated $20,000.

In several instances, couples doubled their donations. Professional poker player Phil Ivey and his wife, Luciaetta, for example, each gave $33,100 to the Obama Victory Committee. New York writer and entrepreneur Steven Brill and his wife, attorney Cynthia Brill, donated $61,600 last month, with $4,600 going to Obama’s presidential campaign and the rest going to one of the party’s joint fundraising committees.

The Exelon donations are particulary interesting. Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and another $180,000 for President. That’s $400,000 from the upper echelons of the nation’s largest nuclear power firm. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate. In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002.

You got to love this one degree of separation because in 2005 during Obama’s first year in the Senate, Exelon Corporation failed to disclose some radioactive leaks from a nuclear power plant sixty miles south of Chicago. Naturally when the leaks came to light, residents were less than thrilled. Obama railed against the firm publicly but then proceed to help out the company in the subterfuge that is the United States.

First, Obama worked to pass a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.” The only thing it passed was its committee; the bill died on the Senate floor.

In March 2006, Senator Obama introduced a bill known as the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006. The bill S109-2348 stated flatly that nuclear plants “shall immediately” notify federal, state and local officials of any accidental release of radioactive material that exceeded “allowable limits for normal operation.” Like all of Obama’s legislation, the bill never became law. This was largely due to the fact that Exelon objected to the provisions of bill and complained to Senator Obama’s office. Facing pushback from his major donor, Obama then worked with Senator James Inofe of Oklahoma to insert provisions into another bill that gave the Nuclear Energy Institute whose chair is also the CEO of Exelon to assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in writing the technical standards of what constitute “allowable limts for normal operation.” The language of the bill was also changed. In place of Obama’s original straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.

Oh the things that money can buy. In this case, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon and chair of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry association that was now assisting US Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the technical standards of what constitutes a leak, bought in effect the words “shall consider.” Of course, John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” as Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggests. John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” who according to Forbes’ 2005 list of Executive Pay was paid $11.5 mil in total compensation. But don’t fret, this “ordinary American” is on up and up. According to Reuters, John W. Rowe earned $19,491,556 in total compensation in 2007.

The second article is from US News & World Report in article written by Bonnie Erbe entitled Barack Obama’s Fundraising Hypocrisy—a Lobbyist by Any Other Name…:

The latest campaign finance figures show Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge not to take money from lobbyists is a distinction without a difference.

He clobbered Sen. John McCain in fundraising last month, netting more than twice the amount of money raised by his rival. From Bloomberg:

Obama took in $51.9 million in June, including $1.4 million from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, while McCain reported raising $21.5 million, including $5.1 million from his fundraising effort with the Republican National Committee.

But consider whence much of Obama’s money comes. While donations to his campaign are not accepted from lobbyists per se, they are proffered by corporate executives. These same executives face a mountain of federal issues on which they will most surely need Obama’s help, should he win the White House in November. So what’s the difference?

To wit. Bloomberg reported that donors to Obama’s joint fundraising committee included Jay Grinney, president and chief executive officer of Birmingham, Ala.-based HealthSouth Corp., who gave $10,000, and Donald Thompson, U.S. chief of Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald’s Corp., who gave $28,500, the maximum.

As I’ve noted before, Sen. Obama’s fourth-largest corporate donor is Exelon, the nation’s largest provider of nuclear power.

Did he take donations straight from the pockets of the company’s lobbyists? No. But did he accept largesse in the amount of more than a quarter million dollars from Exelon’s CEO and top executives? Yes. In the process, he watered down to oblivion an antinuclear amendment he had sponsored, originally to force nuclear power producers to report even the most negligible of radioactive leaks. He then went on to tell mesmerized campaign audiences he had “passed” his antinuclear bill, which never passed the U.S. Senate.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign disinvited Democratic war hero and former Sen. Max Cleland to appear at an Obama event in Atlanta earlier this month. Why? Sen. Cleland is a registered lobbyist.

John McCain openly accepts lobbyists’ donations. And some voters find that as much of a conflict (because Senator McCain has his name attached to the most important campaign finance reform bill of the last two decades.) The difference between McCain and Obama on this issue is McCain has never pledged not to take lobbyists’ donations. He has only pledged to fight to make the process as transparent as possible.

It is, of course, reassuring to see these articles in the media. However is anybody reading them?

From my blog, By The Fault.

Max Cleland–a beloved Democrat who lost three limbs in a hand grenade accident while engaged in combat operations in Viet Nam–is a guy you would definitely want to have at your party, especially if you want to be President of the United States. Aside from being a decorated war hero, Cleland was the administrator of the Veterans Administration under Jimmy Carter, a United States Senator, and remains a vocal critic of the Bush Administration.

So, it was a no-brainer for the Obama campaign to invite Cleland to appear at a fundraising event in Atlanta earlier this month. But at the last minute, Cleland’s invitation was yanked from right under his wheelchair.

Why? Well, it turns out that Max Cleland is a registered lobbyist. No, he has never lobbied in Washington. No, he does not represent a huge, greedy corporation. Cleland is a senior policy advisor for Tissue Regeneration Technologies (TRT), a health care company that, according to its motto, believes in “doing well by doing good.” And from all indications the company appears to living up to it. TRT is sponsoring clinical trials as part of the Combat Wound Initiative at Walter Reed Army Medical center, testing the effectiveness of noninvasive technology on soft tissue and bone injuries sustained by American soldiers from blasts, penetrating fragments, and burns from IED’s. Cleland stated, “We [TRT] will be working diligently on behalf of our men and women in uniform to advance this innovative technology into the military arena. I believe it will greatly benefit our soldiers and veterans. Our soldiers deserve the best, and I am very proud to be part of this truly worthy endeavor.”

Well, you don’t want that kind of person at your party.

But let’s look at the larger question, and things quickly turn from a stupid PR decision to downright scary possibilities!

Obama says he will not have anything to do with lobbyists. But does anyone with more than a handful of frontal cortex cells believe that dumping lobbyists will bring an end to influence peddling in Washington? Never mind that “Mr. Hope and Change” enlisted James A. Johnson, a former lobbyist now drawing scrutiny for his ties to subprime-mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corporation, as a member of his Vice Presidential vetting team. Obama has taken in huge sums of money from corporations and big business and, if you can beli