Hillary has clearly said that she has NO PROBLEM taking money from lobbyists

She takes money from them and thinks they do the people's business.

There is a difference between a state and federal lobbyist and influence in a federal election. I wish no candidate would take any money from any state or federal lobbyist or special intereset group. Having said that, unfortunately, in light of Clinton's hands in every corporate till (just like the repubs) the other campaigns have no choice but to get those big money funds to compete. Clinton and her republican challengers would buy their way into the Whitehouse if they could. And that's exactly what she would do if the others didn't have the funds to compete.

NAFTA and GAT sponsered by Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton too as she is running like she was the vice president, was the biggest "thanks for the money" let me give something back move of the 20th century!!!

Corporate influence in politics, brought to the fore with the Clintons and the DLC is why new blood is needed in Washington to break the cycle. It starts with new leadership!! But to get to the point where change can be made, you have to gain the office to get the power!!!

Sad fact, but true.
You will never see lobbying reform with Hillary Clinton and the DLC.

but then takes federal lobbyist money, which is the whole problem.
She's just hoping people are too ignorant to understand the difference.

It's a Pot Call Kettle exercise, is all. She doesn't try to suggest she doesn't have lobbyist contributors.

The H word in this case is HYPOCRISY.

She then responds unfairly by pretending their connections to state lobbyists makes them hypocritical. It doesn't.

Federal is 'fair' and state isn't?

:rofl:

And you actually believe that crap!!!

:rofl:

They represent "special interests." I believe the one in question, with Edwards, has represented oil interests.

It's hypocritical to rail against lobbyists and special interests while being cozy with them one's self.

The state vs. federal is a matter of legality; I don't think anybody accused them of doing anything illegal.

It isn't just to avoid contact with someone representing the special interests.

It's to avoid contact with someone who lobbies the federal government, thereby creating a conflict of interest between your administration and that lobbyist.

Do you think the rhetoric of "We have to get the lobbyists and special interests out of government" means, "They can stay but they can't have direct contact with the people they're lobbying." Then what do they DO?!

Second, there's a revolving door. They go in and out of various positions and in and out of government itself. These lobbyists may have done other things in the past and may do other things in the future.

Third, they are contributing to the campaigns through work and/or money. That's okay with you? They represent special interests sometimes and not others? As long as it's legal -- you're state they're fed or you're fed and they're state -- no problem?

This is just ridiculous.

human rights, civil rights, and other "social programs" lobbyists make up way more than .1% of the total on the Hill.

Beware those Ducks Unlimited Lobbyists!! They've got fierce beaks!

This isn't about Hillary's views. It's about what Obama has been saying in his stump speeches.

after she publically stated that she supports lobbyists and their actions and openly admits taking money from them. she is a corporatist. She and her husband has spent their political careers working to bring more profits to corporations. As I've stated, nafta and gat were a windfall for corporations. the effect that it had on the average person in this country didn't become evident for a few years after the clinton's left the whitehouse. I live in Michigan. It has devastated the manufacturing base. Parts of this state are ghost towns.

Obama has never denied that he has taken money from state lobbyists.

There is a difference. while I don't like that it happens, there is a difference and clinton is just parsing to try and score points after the horrendous showing she had in Iowa and her defensive debate performance last night.

is the problem with the system. She is the problem. The others have to get big donors to be viable. I want a choice in candidates. I don't want it to be about who has the most money.

We need new blood in washington with different views on influence pedaling before change can happen.

** and of course it is notable that the amount of money that Obama has gotten from small donations coming from ordinary citizens is incredibly high **

And his rhetoric isn't new either.

Where Obama IS different is his ability to inspire and give a good speech. But that won't solve problems.

And John Edwards calling her out on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6ttdmO0d8

Hillary never said she doesn't consort with lobbyists.

Hillary can state that she has no problem w/lobbyist money & then voters can decide if they want to support someone w/that position. What bothers me about Obama is that he's positioning himself as the anti-lobbyist candidate & also using lobbyists in his campaign. That's dishonest.

And that bugs me too. At least Clinton is honest about her donors & supporters.