Edwards, Obama Attack Clinton on Lobbyists

It was a case of different strokes for different folks in Democratic Party at the weekend's YearlyKos Convention where all the Democratic presidential candidates square off on how to end the influential power of the K Street lobbyists over elected officials in Washington D.C. Of all the candidates, Hillary Clinton bragged about how she will continue to garner massive contributions from the corporate lobbyists who are responsible for the ethos that created hopelessness among voters across the country.

She claims that "lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. I don't think based on my 35 years in fighting for what I believe in anybody seriously believes I am going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group," Clinton proclaimed.

John Edwards and Barack Obama are the two major candidates that opted out of getting any campaign contributions from lobbyists because of their goal to bring back government to the regular people. They both maintained that it is because of the financial influences they (the lobbyists) have on these officials that led to the stalemate often seen in Washington.

Responding to Clinton's assertion, Edwards took her to task by asking the over 2,000 attendees to raise their hands if any of them have been squarely represented by the lobbyists in Washington. Only five people raised their hands. It was a clear indication among Democratic voters that their interests are often sidetracked by the interest of the lobbying community in Washington D.C.

Supporting Edwards' claim, Obama pointed that it is undoubtedly true that the reason why her health care plan of '93 was brutally flushed out was because of the massive blockade by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists.

"You cannot say that the money did not make the difference. Those lobbyists are not just contributing to the public interest," said Obama.

According to financial reports, just last year, $2.55 billion were spent by lobbyists. Of all the money, pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists spent over $305 million, of which Hillary Clinton was the highest recipient. Within the stated period, only a small faction of $760,000 was spent by nurses and social workers to lobby their interest. The Chamber of Commerce spent over $78 million in lobbying congress and the executive branch to help companies outsourcing jobs to China and India. Hillary Clinton was the biggest benefactor of all these schemes.

Two months ago, she promised Indian Americans, after receiving tons of campaign money from two India lobbying firms, that she would provides more H-B visa for Indians and to expand the NAFTA agreement to benefit their home country.

In 1998, Hillary Clinton was against a bankruptcy legislation that would have allowed credit card industry to increased interest rates on low income workers who were struggling to pay their monthly balance. But in 2001, after receiving campaign contributions from credit card companies during her senatorial race of 2000, she voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill -- a bill written by the credit card company that gives them the power to increase interest rates on low-income workers who are struggling to pay their credit card bills.

It is true that John Edwards voted for the same bill, but later apologized that he was wrong. Obama was the only candidate among them who did not support the measure even when he was a state legislator.

Sending home the message of resisting the money influence by lobbyists in the Democratic Party, Edwards said, "If you believe we're gonna get the change that we need in a system that's rigged, and that that change is going to come working with people who rigged the system, and that's what these Washington lobbyists are-then you have one choice," he pointed out in a clear finger pointing at Clinton -- who is the queen of lobbyist, besides Tom Delay.

For Clinton to make those outlandish claims about the power of money in politics shows that she is either consciously naive or unconscious about the sophistication of young voters across the heartland of America. They see her using the word change as just a slogan.

When she talks about change, it is only those that are from the core establishment of the Democratic Party that truly believes in her utterances. Edwards and Obama are considered as the two agents of change that understands and feel the daily plight of the people. They are both well trusted in the recent WashingtonPost-ABC poll by voters that are not affiliated to the power brokers in Washington D.C.

The crux of the matter is that as for Clinton, she may currently lead in national poll, but, when voters get into the voting booth, the defining question will be either voting for a candidate that represents corporate greed or voting for a candidate that may at least do something tangible for the American people.

The war in the Democratic Party is a continuation of Howard Dean's fight of ending the power of selected few in the party. Obama or Edwards may come out as the victor.

Resources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyj9KJWGWMA