The problem is that discussion of the disproportionate influence that wealth wields in governance is so underdeveloped that "lobbyists" have become a place holder for the notion that we should be developing our understanding and our ability to speak out about it, and at times against it. "Unions" have come to represent a similar kind of placeholder for the interests of middle income employees (the huge, vast majority of us). That "unions" have lobbyists, almost seems like the last hope of American workers looking for support from their government, in what's shaping up to look pretty much like a war on workers.

Both placeholders, of course, would benefit from elaboration and nuance. But, I'm not going to object to the fact that they're there.

HRC is technically correct, but she's celarly also trying to evade the substantive point about where she gets her funding and how might it impact her allegiances. Can she represent the interests of American citizens or does she represent the interests of insurance companies? It's still a relevant question. It's also a relevant question because she's already been in the White House and she has a record.

"These are likely the sorts of efforts Hillary Clinton was defending at the Yearly Kos conference"

As always, GFR is pioneering new frontiers of creative analysis of the Democratic Presidential field.

After all, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was the #1 recipient of pharmaceutical and insurance industry lobbyist donations in the Senate, I'm sure her defense of lobbyists was motivated by her and Mark Penn's sincere concern for unions, not by their financial corruption.

(And FWIW, corporations outspend unions by 18 to 1 in lobbyist donations. I wonder if that has anything to do with why John Edwards is taking a stand against lobbyist domination of Democratic politics in Washington.)

Look, I happen to agree that union lobbyists are good and that corporate lobbyists are bad, but that's still not a winning argument.

Yeah I think Hillary and GFR know what's going on here. It was sort of a mini-Sista Souljah moment, where Hillary is signaling Wall Street that there's no real reason to be afraid of her.

And arguably Hillary's right, that you can't win the general election by going too far to the left, but I tend to think and hope it's not true.

Campaign finance reform would help address the lobbyist issue, but the new conservative supreme court will make it tough to achieve.

"Look, I happen to agree that union lobbyists are good and that corporate lobbyists are bad, but that's still not a winning argument."

Well, yeah. You have to suck up whatever shit the top .5% of the income scale decides to drop in your dog dish in order win an election, right? Later they can point to her and say "that liberal elite bitch did it."

She did say she was in it to win it. I think she better keep that lobbyist complaint around.

As usual - Garance doesn't get it! - but instead fixes the facts to fit an agenda.

Hillary's chief strategist, Mark Penn owns a free trade union busting company.
And Clinton aides lobby for free trade for the Colombian government. Last May, Clinton hosted a free trade gala with the murderous thug Uribe.

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/ap_clinton_aides_being_paid_by.html

So no - SEIU's lobbying efforts for The People can't even be compared with the Clintonistas efforts AGAINST The People!

This looks suspiciously like a variation on the "how dare Edwards fight for the middle class when he's rich" theme. In other words, it's idiotic. Thankfully, since earlier commenters have pointed out the post's illogic, I don't have to.

But how seriously do you expect to be taken with the argument "how dare Edwards try to use the power of lobbying to rid us of lobbyists?" And make your case by contrasting him with a candidate who's benefitted hugely from corporate lobbyists?!? Sad.

"These are likely the sorts of efforts Hillary Clinton was defending at the Yearly Kos conference"

She may have been defending these "sort of efforts," but noether or her husband saw fit to legislate on ordinary folks' behalf when "they" were president.

If you were a businessman seeking to exploit cheap Third World labor, however, the Clintons were all ears.

Somebody, please, stop this Republican in drag before we're stuck holding our noses and voting for her, and in favor of a "kindler, gentler" Middel East genocide.

Garance, this is just silly. Edwards isn't against all lobbyists -- he's against corporate lobbyists, because they're the ones pushing for policies that harm working people. Edwards' objections to corporate lobbyists don't come from some kind of pie-in-the-sky good-governmentism -- they come out of support of particular substantive policy positions like support for easier union organizing and minimum wage increases. I suppose that if you don't care about economic issues enough, this might not be clear to you.

I'd offer some kind of scathing denunciation of this clueless post, but I already made the point last month, so I'll just link that:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/wear-the-jersey.html