Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland at Atlanta Event

by andrewalker08, Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:15:40 AM EST

Politico.com is out with an article today that details an incident that occurred during Barack Obama's visit to Atlanta last week when Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Senator Max Cleland was disinvited from appearing with Obama at a fundraising event due to his alleged lobbying activities.

...Cleland -- despite his iconic status -- was abruptly disinvited from appearing with Obama in Atlanta July 8, three sources familiar with the incident said.

Cleland has told associates he was asked to appear at an Obama event in Atlanta on July 8, only to be told at the last minute that he wouldn't be welcome, apparently because of the campaign's blanket policy of barring lobbyists from giving money or appearing with the candidate.  [Source:  Politico.com, "Obama disinvited 'lobbyist' Cleland", July 18, 2008]

According to Politico.com reporter Ben Smith, Max Cleland is registered to lobby for Tissue Regeneration Technologies; a company whose products are aimed at helping soldiers recover more quickly from battlefield industries.

John Marshall, an adviser, said that even though the former Georgia Senator and Secretary of State is registered to lobby he has never done so and spends most of his time campaigning for friends and taking care of his father.




Tags: Barack Obama, Max Cleland (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 119 Comments :: Post a Comment


Tips & Recs for Max Cleland... (1.42 / 7)

...An American hero who gave an arm and two legs to this country only to be defeated by Saxby Shameless, a man who never served in the armed forcess


by andrewalker08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:17:35 AM EST

Re: Tips & Recs for Max Cleland... (2.00 / 1)

Nice selective quoting there.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:51:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips & Recs for Max Cleland... (2.00 / 1)

andrew selected which limbs Max lost? seriously how did Andrew do that?


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please do everyone a favour... (none / 0)

And let's ignore this trollish insincere diary, full of bad faith and dubious facts.

Ignore this diary and recommend this one instead

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/18/1538 16/485


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips & Recs for Max Cleland... (none / 0)

Is there something in the article that negates what Andre wrote?  Is the intent of the article different than Andre has portrayed it here?The answer, since you apparently didn't actually read the article, is no.  Andre didn't butcher the article to make a point - he selected the important information to let people know what was going on.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Disrespect To Cleland... (2.00 / 1)

But this is a trollish diary.


by Hatch on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Obama thinks of the military (2.00 / 1)

According to the Washington Post, our embassy in Iraq hosts many US legislators.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071703007. html  Interesting to me is the list of the most frequent visitors -- legislators who tried to keep on top of things by visiting on a continual basis.  The leaders -- Chris Shays of CT (16), Jack Reed of RI (11), Jim Marshall of GA (11), Carl Levin of MI (9), Joe Wilson of SC (9), and John McCain (8).  Obama is at (1).

This is consistent with Obama talking about national service but not referring to the military.  Or Obama now getting interested in Afghanistan, whereas he never was before.  Even Biden criticized him for it.  

Biden is now defending Obama:

In a letter to Obama earlier this week, McCain-backing Sen. Jim DeMint R- SC, wrote, "With oversight of NATO relations and its role in Afghanistan, I believe it is time for us to focus closely on these issues," DeMint wrote, suggesting a meeting of the subcommittee upon Obama's return from a much anticipated trip abroad.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., had previously told Meet the Press that "the reason Obama didn't hold a hearing on NATO, I chair the committee. Every one of those committee hearings are held at full committee."

But today Biden decided to take his defense of Obama one step further, writing to DeMint that there have been plenty of hearings on European Affairs, they've just been held at the "full committee level."

"On the particular issue of NATO's mission in Afghanistan," Biden wrote, "We have held three Full Committee hearings in the last 22 months . . .

Jake Tapper, who compiled this info, noted:

But Biden's letter brought attention to the fact that Obama did not attend two of those three hearings -- and for the third, on March 8, 2007, Obama only asked one question, one unrelated to Afghanistan.

How do I know the latter fact? From an August 2007 press release from Biden himself, when he was running for president.

"BIDEN CAMPAIGN CONGRATULATES SEN. OBAMA FOR JOHNNY-COME-LATELY POSITION," it read. Noting that at the March 2007 hearing, "Sen. Obama asked one question that was unrelated to Taliban or Afghanistan."

Thanks, Joe!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/07/thanks-for-noth.html

Politico had more of the story on Biden's "Before he was nominated" criticism: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 807/Biden_Obama_stole_my_ideas.html

Sen. Biden has been talking about this for over 6 months. Dating back to January 5th, Sen. Biden said America Should Surge Troops in Afghanistan. He told the Washington Post, "If we're surging troops anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan," Biden said. Adding troops there would give the United States "the moral high ground" in its quest for more forces from NATO allies. [Washington Post, 1/5/07]

"We find it a little disingenuous that Sen. Obama is hailing this as a new bold initiative when he has neglected to join his colleagues in the Senate when the opportunities have been there to redirect our forces into Afghanistan" said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. "It's good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership."


by strongerthandirt on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Joe Biden is a racist, right? (none / 0)

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Source

A comment like that completely negates all of Senator Biden's foreign policy creds.

/snark


by HairyTrueMan on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Disrespect To Cleland... (2.00 / 1)

How is it trollish? Andre didn't misrepresent the article - it says what it say.  And if it's true, it's absolutely shameful and should never have happened.  Max Cleland really is an icon here in Georgia, and he's given so much to his constituents and his country.  He deserves much better treatment than this.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since the sole point (none / 0)

of this diary is to stir stuff up, I suggest you post it here or here, where you will be amoung friends.


by fladem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See below (none / 0)

this was a fundraiser, not a public event.

It's really an attempt to stir stuff up - nothing more.


by fladem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland (2.00 / 5)

yeah, lobbyists can only work for him I guess...sorry but this is dumb PR and a dumb decision.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:20:14 AM EST

I doubt Obama knows about this. The dumb (2.00 / 2)

decision is probably a result of a blanket prohibition, followed to the letter by campaign staff.


by louisprandtl on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST

Re: I doubt Obama knows about this. The dumb (2.00 / 5)

a zero-tolerance policy always leads to stupidity. making yourself inflexible leaves you no room for correction.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt Obama knows (none / 0)

Yeah, that's totally Obama.  Intellectually rigid and inflexible.  Never changes his mind.

A staffer screwed up.  It sucks.  It especially sucks since it happened to one of my heroes.

Obama will make it right.  I ain't worried.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt Obama knows (2.00 / 1)

there you go lying again. At no time did I mention that BHO had a direct role in this. Your trolling is really stupid and tiresome.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:05:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt Obama knows (none / 0)

There's some trolling going on here, though I suspect that we will only find out who it's coming from if you look in the mirror.


by Philoguy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I doubt Obama knows (2.00 / 1)

so since you make claims about me that turn out to be lies you pulled from your ass it must be that I am the troll. Yeah, your a repuke moran alright.


by zerosumgame on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

exactly wrong (2.00 / 5)

a rule enforced selectively is no rule at all.


by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly wrong (2.00 / 1)

how very authoritarian of you! Thr RNC would be proud of you!


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:21:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how very substance free of you (2.00 / 2)

and, ironically, I believe it's Republicans who share your "rules for thee but not for me" position.  See., e.g., Geneva conventions, executive privilege, habeas corpus.  


by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how very substance free of you (2.00 / 1)

you get what you give. If you wanted substance you should start with making substancive posts one of these days.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you sound angry (2.00 / 1)

lighten up on a friday.


by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how very substance free of you (2.00 / 1)

God zerogame. Don't you ever tire of these mean-spirited comments. Whenever I see your handle I just prepare myself for a big buzz killer. I'm sure you're much nicer in reality than all your comments suggest, but I can't recall any indication of that.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly wrong (2.00 / 1)

"Authoritarian" usually implies something about the extent of the authority being exercise; strict application of a small set of rules doesn't really suggest the kind of excessive authority associated with that term. So, strict enforcement of rules is consistent with very little authority. Indeed, many libertarians support strict enforcement of negative rights (at the expense of general social welfare) while nevertheless campaigning emphatically for a minimal state.

Although I prefer principles to rules, as a general matter, strict enforcment of rules has its virtures. In particular, it promotes social predictability as well as equitable application of the rules. And, rules can always be fashioned in such a way that their sweep isn't overly broad or unduly vague, thus avoiding unintended or pernicious consequences from strict application.


by DPW on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly wrong (none / 0)

Good point.

I saw the headline to this item, and thought "WTF" ?

Then read the item and thought, "Well, I could see that."

I probably wouldn't have read the item if the reason he was dis-invited was in the headline.

Which is probably why the diarist didn't put it in the headline.


by Bush Bites on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

agreed. (none / 0)

still, if the EFF can't contribute to Obama... Max can't show up to a fundraiser.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly wrong (none / 0)

This isn't just a rule, it's a principle, and there should not be any flexibility with principles.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly wrong (none / 0)

a rule enforced selectively is no rule at all.

I couldn't disagree more.  We have to always leave room for discretion.  That why mandatory minimums and zero tolerance policies are so dangerous.  Whatever the rule is, it can't be applied in every situation.  There is a difference between being arbitrary in enforcing rules and using some discretion for unique situations.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yep (none / 0)

but this isn't a unique situation.  Max Cleland is a great guy and a patriot but that's no reason to make an exception.  That's the difference between discretion and arbitrary enforcement.


by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be flexible (2.00 / 2)

and you're a flip-flopper.

"Wait, I thought you said NO lobbyists!!."


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be flexible (none / 0)

please support your accusation with evidence for once? I know you enjoy the whole swift-boat smear thing but for once how about some backup?


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What accusation? (2.00 / 2)

I'm saying that Obama critics will jump over any deviation from a predefined position. Do you disagree?

And please explain the "swiftboat" comment.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What accusation? (2.00 / 2)

so not critisim of BHO is allowed? So should I also stop when I have praised him or agreed with him too?

And as to the swift-boat comment how can you question it? You made up a random quote, claimed I said it and then blamed me for the lie you formulated. What isn't swift-boatish about your post?


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Criticism of Obama (2.00 / 1)

It's allowed to criticize Obama.  

If you're being disingenuous, which we see a lot of around here, expect to get lambasted for it.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Criticism of Obama (2.00 / 1)

and where was I in this case? I was not the liar who made up a quote and claimed you made it now was I? No, you being a pure troll of course throw a tantrum at me as normal in order to defend you buddy or sock-puppet.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey guy (2.00 / 1)

You got the wrong fella.

I'm not the one you're angry with.

Further, if someone "makes up a quote" that's obviously merely sarcastic, it doesn't make them a "liar."

For example, I could say:

"Doy doy doy, I George Bush, I's EL PRESIDIENTE.  I HAET dat stupid hablas corpses, it sound mexican LOL!  OR MEBE mexiCAN'T ROFLMAO.  I gotta keep frown, even tho I's real happy cuz my dad makin' lotsa money on gas prizes.  I DONE REAL GOOD DADDY!"

Obviously Bush didn't say that, but that doesn't change the fact that it's thematically true or not valid sarcasm.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey guy (1.00 / 1)

You better show me where George Bush said that.  Also, I hate nature!

/zerosumgame


by MeganLocke on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey guy (2.00 / 1)

how sweet, you continue the lie. well what else can be expected from an abusive troll like yourself.


by zerosumgame on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey guy (2.00 / 1)

when it is used as a swift-boat type smear is sure as hell is a lie. and it is nice that you have outed yourself as a swiftie. the fact that the "quote" was exactly the opposite of everything I have ever posted and was only meant to be a lie I gotta call a big old fuck you on you for being an enabler of abuse and bullshit. McLame must be so proud of you and morgan.


by zerosumgame on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pause (none / 0)

Slow down. Breathe.

My fake quote was from the viewpoint of a generic Obama critic. I'm not claiming you'll say it, I can't predict what you'll say. I know someone would say it.

Even given that I'm still baffled how it would be swiftboating.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pause (2.00 / 1)

seeing it was addressed to ME in a reply to a post by ME your dishonest attempt to distance yourself from your own lie is almost as funny as it is pathetically dishonest. Hell you are to deep up your own ass to even apologize for it. what an ass you are.


by zerosumgame on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:51:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Atlanta Event (2.00 / 13)

I think "shun" is way too strong here. And, it was a fundraiser, not a town hall, so that's why Obama's campaign policy excluded Cleland's participation. From the politico piece:

"This was a hard decision regarding Senator Cleland," said Obama's deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, in an email. He cited Obama's policy of banning lobbyists from participating in fundraising or giving money.

"If we make exceptions, we will open ourselves to criticism," he said.

Cleland has told associates he was asked to appear at an Obama fundraising event in Atlanta on July 8 [before being disinvited].

Emphasis mine.


by DPW on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM EST

Fundraising is a different story (2.00 / 7)

I would be more irritated if it were a veterans' rally or something.  Obama simply can't allow federal-level lobbyists influence in his money-making schemes, or risk being labelled a hypocrite.

The diarist should've made this distinction.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundraising is a different story (2.00 / 2)

I don't know if the diarist deliberately misquotes the politico piece or if Ben Smith edited his post to include "fundraising" before "event." Whatever the case, the blockquote provided by the diarist is not accurate, curiously omiting a critical word ("fundraising") from Ben's description of the event.


by DPW on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundraising is a different story (2.00 / 1)

I'll give the diarist credit, even though it's begrudginly due to all his concern, but he does stste in his introduction that it was a findraising event so I doubt he intentionally removed anything from the blockquote.


by Dog Chains on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundraising is a different story (none / 0)

state and fundraising, I think my keyboard has a mind of its own.


by Dog Chains on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundraising is a different story (none / 0)

The diarist has changed it then. Originally, he described the event as a town hall in his introductory remark.


by DPW on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Correct (none / 0)

That's why I mentioned it.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland at Atlanta Even (2.00 / 11)

Hurray for concern trolls!


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland (2.00 / 2)

And didn't he make a point of remarking on John Lewis's absence at a recent fundraiser? What was the point of that?


by moevaughn on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST

unfortunate, (2.00 / 4)

but you can't blame them for enforcing their own rules keeping lobbyists away from money, even if in this particular case the details are a bit muddy.  People have pointed out before that in Washington, excluding lobbyists from one's campaign is casting an extremely wide net, and some people who don't deserve to are inevitably going to get caught in it.  Yet it's still a laudable goal; they can't start making subjective exemptions now, even for amputee war heroes.

I have a more pressing question: Why is nearly every diary you write an apparent concern troll or backhanded swipe at Obama?  What goal are you working towards by only accentuating the negatives of his candidacy?


by semiquaver on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM EST

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland (2.00 / 4)

Any decision that keeps Obama on the right side of his own policy is a good one. If lobbyist Cleland had been at the event it would have wound up in a McBush ad attacking Obama for it.

Principles matter and Obama has them, even though McSame and this diarist don't.


by Beren on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST

come on now (2.00 / 6)

Would Max Cleland want to be treated differently because he has disabilities? I doubt it. Obama would have left himself open to a number of accusations if he had acted differently with this matter. Make no mistake about it, the republicans watch things like this very carefully, and wait for openings like this one.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST

Ack - Obama please invite Cleland (2.00 / 1)

Cleland is a former U.S. Senator and Vietnam Vet. He is only a state lobbyist and barely does any work.

This is an example of letting bureacratic rules overwhelm common sense.

Please Obama this is so wrong please please.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST

Your bureacratic rules (2.00 / 1)

are someone else's "omg principles". Do this, and he'd get nailed (again) for inconsistency.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your bureacratic rules (1.00 / 2)

Another glass of kool aid Mr Neef or would you prefer a commonsense pill.


by ottovbvs on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm stocked up on the former (2.00 / 2)

and clearly you have no access to the latter.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your bureacratic rules (2.00 / 2)

If Cleland is a registered lobbyist then he should not be at a fundraiser.

End of story.

Max Cleland is a hero of mine.  I'm sure this can be dealt with respectfully.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Federal lobbyist, state lobbyist (2.00 / 1)

There are many different kinds of lobbyists. This is absurd.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cite please (2.00 / 1)

I can't find anything that says he's just a state lobbyist.

This article suggests that he's the liason to "the government and health care communities."  No state/federal distinction.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Federal lobbyist, state lobbyist (none / 0)

He's a registered federal lobbyist.


by Falsehood on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He'll get nailed either way (none / 0)

He should invite Cleland. He can blame his staff for this mistake.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed, he's going to take the hit (none / 0)

so let this be it. They've made the decision, reversing it won't win him any points.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is gutless and technocratism (none / 0)

Cleland is a war vet. After Wesley Clark, this is not a good move.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not gutless (none / 0)

to take a stand in the face of a shitstorm. I hope he takes that stand, and keeps Cleland dis-invited.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ack - Obama please invite Cleland (2.00 / 1)

If exceptions can't be made for situations like this, there's no point in rules. I know that you have to be strict about rules in order to follow them to the fullest extent, but given that Cleland has actually done very little lobbying, if ANY, he should be granted an exception.

Better to have a system in place to evaluate exceptions than to just refuse to allow any. An engine must have some sort of a pressure valve or else it just falls apart.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ouch - Cleland 'unpleasantly surprised' (none / 0)

But Cleland told others he was unpleasantly surprised when, after an invitation to the event for Obama -- whom he supports -- he was told at the last minute by an Obama aide that he wouldn't be welcome.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton also declined to comment on Cleland's exclusion from the Atlanta fundraiser.

"Sen. Obama has nothing but respect for Sen. Cleland's service to our country and appreciates his support," he said.

And either way, you'll open yourself to criticism:

"If we make exceptions, we will open ourselves to criticism," he said.

Cleland has told associates he was asked to appear at an Obama fundraising event in Atlanta on July 8, only to be told at the last minute that he wouldn't be welcome.

So have they jettisoned Mr. Ethonol himself, Tom Daschle?


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST

Lobbyists (2.00 / 2)

I have a lot of respect for Max Cleland.  However, I agree with the decision.  Obama cannot risk the flip flopper attacks and appear to be splitting hairs in regards to "good" lobbyists versus "bad" lobbyists.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  So, I agree that Obama should build his house out of wood and brick so he can pelt the shit out of McCain.


by TheUnknown285 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:55:55 PM EST

Exactly (2.00 / 1)

Obama can't risk the flip flopper charge of there being "good lobbyists" and "bad lobbyists".  Instead there will be NO lobbyists.


by puma on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Arrogance (1.50 / 4)

The arrogance of Obama and his campaign knows no bounds.  Obama is not a nice person...period.


by karajan72 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM EST

Er, huh? (none / 0)

How do you extrapolate Obama being a big meanine from this diary?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Er, huh? (2.00 / 1)

by being a PUMA asshat, perhaps?


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arrogance (2.00 / 1)

Bravo!

You've hit a new level of inanity at MyDD.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Political expediency (2.00 / 2)

It's apparent that the Obama campaign is extremely cautious. Here's the outcome of this strategy; an impression that everything Obama says and does is calculated for political expediency.


by soyousay on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:08:08 PM EST

Or he is sticking to his word (2.00 / 1)

of absolutely NO lobbyist.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with political expediency but everything to do with sticking to the NO lobbyist/PAC rule at fundraisers.

That doesn't mean that Max Cleland won't be at the Denver convention.  It just means that Obama is keeping lobbyists away from fundraisers.


by puma on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama doesn't always stick to his word (2.00 / 1)

Remember public financing? He change his position on that for political expediency. I'm not the only one who thinks so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z7sS566D 8E


by soyousay on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And yet now (2.00 / 1)

he's catching hell for sticking to it??

It never ceases to amaze.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IMO (none / 0)

Obama claims to be a different kind of politician..."the candidate of change" but he behaves like a typical politician through calculation and political expediency. That's fine.


by soyousay on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's very different (2.00 / 2)

There's so many firsts, and "never befores", and "unprecedenteds" in this cycle, it baffles me how someone can think it's exactly the same. That there's been (and continues to be) no "change". The political landscape, to me, looks different than it's looked in decades.

There's so many things, some large, some small. A Dem advocating faith-based programs is the same? Oh it may be good for some, bad for others, but it's not business as usual. We're competitive in places like VA, hell in the south as a whole - what effect will that have downticket. The last Dem we've had with as good a shot at the WH was 15 years ago. That's not a big yawn.

Of course I realize the crux of the argument is how one interprets "New Politics". If you ascribe to the school of thought that New Politics is actually NOT political, then I can see the disconnect. Politics will always involve compromise, pursuasion and coalition-building. There will always be ideological needles to thread (unless you're Cynthia McKinney). If I thought Obama claimed to never compromise or change a position, then I would be very disappointed with him now. Clearly there are millions of netroots people who have recently becomed disenchanted with his lack of purity, so I can accept that, if not agree.

But Obama didn't claim to be pure, he claimed to represent a "new style of politics". I think people are overthinking it, that this "new style" simply means blending positions and coalitions from the Left and Right to get to the solutions beyond the ideology.

There is some evidence that our political parties have been becoming increasingly polarized since the 60's. There is also some evidence that the governmental "gridlock" this produces has, in effect, made for a less effective government. The distribution of wealth, has been shown to correlate amazingly well with the trend towards party polarization. This is good reading (although a bit math-y):

http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/exte nsions/fall2005/Poole.pdf

and the effects of this polarization on wealth distribution can be seen here.

http://polarizedamerica.com/

The simple act of producing a less polarized government could produce seismic shifts in our country, shifts with inherently Progressive effects. That, I think, would qualify as "change".


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know - maybe Bill Clinton is a lobbyist (2.00 / 1)

If Obama wants to be consistent, he should be consistent.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland ... (2.00 / 2)

Just one of those times that we see that lobbyists really 'are people too'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST

Wow, all kinds of lowlives emerging (1.66 / 6)

from the woodwork to rec this diary.

Usual suspects.


by Geekesque on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST

Re: Wow, all kinds of lowlives emerging (2.00 / 4)

I had no intention of recommending this diary, but this comment singlehandedly changed my mind.

Besides, the comments are pretty comical.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, of course, considering (2.00 / 1)

you hang out at one of the few remaining hangouts for PUMA's.  


by Geekesque on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, of course, considering (2.00 / 2)

That's fine.  I'm really not afraid of the loyalty police.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, you just don't like being around (2.00 / 1)

people who actually like Barack Obama and want him to be President.  Rather, you prefer the "I hate him but I'll vote for him anyways" like Jeralyn and Armando or the "I hate him so I'm staying home" folks like most TL commenters.  


by Geekesque on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, you just don't like being around (none / 0)

I enjoy being around people who are enthusiastic about Barack Obama, or any other politician I like, really.

I do not enjoy being around people who are sycophantic or who enjoy throwing around bogus accusations of racism.

Anyway, your hyper-aggressive policing of anyone who is not doing enough to support Barack Obama is a turnoff to me, and I suspect to others as well.  When you learn to distinguish between people with criticisms and haters, I'll probably enjoy hearing your thoughts once again.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dealt constructively with folks (2.00 / 2)

who had constructive criticism over the FISA thing.

I actually defended them from overzealous Obama supporters.  

You see, there was actual discussion about his FISA stance in the 95% of the Netroots y'all love to hate.

Meanwhile, in your corner, the debate was whether Obama was a Manchurian rightwinger vs. just a soulless, sociopathically dishonest sellout.

And I know your crowd has a very narrow definition of what constitutes racism.  

I mean, No Quarter is on Talk Left's blog roll.  Now.  It's on the blogroll of virtually every PUMA hangout.  

Indeed, for all of the huffing and puffing about 'malign acceptance of sexism' that you folks have done, it's remarkable how malignly accepting of racism you were.

And, when people DO point out the racism of people like Larry Johnson or Ralph "Obama isn't acting black enough" Nader, your reflex is to defend or deny.


by Geekesque on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dealt constructively with folks (none / 0)

Yeah, that Ralph Nader diary was pretty much when I realized you guys were beyond hope as far as flinging around the accusations of racism.  You'll have to look really hard for where I've defended Larry Johnson, though.

You'd never catch me hanging around with the genuinely creepy commentariat at No Quarter, but if you can tell me the principled distinction between the somewhat tiresome anti-Obama stuff you find in the comments at TalkLeft and the anti-Hillary venom that was de rigeur in most of the liberal blogosphere for the duration of the primary, I'd be interested to hear it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your question answered itself (2.00 / 3)

if you can tell me the principled distinction between the somewhat tiresome anti-Obama stuff you find in the comments at TalkLeft and the anti-Hillary venom that was de rigeur in most of the liberal blogosphere for the duration of the primary, I'd be interested to hear it.

Past tense vs. future tense.  Most of the Netroots folks have moved on past the primary.  I myself have nothing but nice things to say about Hillary Clinton.

The Netroots folks are no longer trying to defeat Hillary Clinton so that Obama could win.  Some purported Democrats at places like TL are still trying to defeat Barack Obama so that John McCain can win.

Also,

If you think that finding racism in a white politician lecturing a black politician on how "black politicians" should act while using phrases like "white guilt" and "talking white" is really a bizarre reaction, you're seriously out of touch.  Not all racism is of the cross-burning kind.  Nader's statement was textbook essentialism--the notion that members of different races have or should have certain traits, characteristics, concerns, etc etc.

Essentialism is racism.

Just because YOU do not see racism does not mean that it is not there.  

And, if you can't see the racism in 'talking white' then you are likely to miss quite a bit.


by Geekesque on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your question answered itself (none / 0)

Well, if you believe the Hillary-haters would have suddenly been all kumbaya if Hillary had won the primary, I suppose we'll never know.  It's really easy for the winners to say "let bygones be bygones."

Also, I don't think you realize how galling it is for the same people who engaged in the most vicious attacks against Hillary Clinton to turn around and start writing diaries about how wonderful it feels to be unified.  Basically, it's an admission that all the hatred and demagoguery was just for show.  I doubt Karl Rove was gauche enough to call John McCain up the day after the 2000 South Carolina primary and say "no hard feelings, we're all unified now, right John?"


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No reason (none / 0)

I doubt Karl Rove was gauche enough to call John McCain up the day after the 2000 South Carolina primary and say "no hard feelings, we're all unified now, right John?"

Rove had no need to do that; political expedience did it for him.  It was 7 years later that the meeting happened, and McCain didn't do the honorable thing, which would have been to beat Rove into the floor until his ears bled for smearing his family.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right. (none / 0)

The hatred and demagoguery on the Obama side was just for show.  There really never was any real Hillary hatred.

Obviously, the Clinton side was much more sincere in their demagoguery and hatred of Barack Obama.  As evidenced at places like TalkLeft, many so-called progressives and Democrats would rather have the Republicans keep the White House then elect the great Satan, Barack Obama, who was installed by a plot masterminded by Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, David Icke's Lizard Men, and the guy who faked the moon landing.


by Geekesque on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was my diary. (none / 0)

Neither you, nor any of your cohorts, were able to credibly defend Nader from his nasty, racist remarks.  In fact, I didn't even get a response to the following:

Uh... how does

...the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law.

...translate to Obama acting a certain way because he's a "Democrat."  Nader didn't even bring up "Democrats."  It seems to me that I'm not the one re-defining the applicable argument.

If applying the #1 definition on the most used online dictionary is "redefining the words in that definition to mean whatever you want them to mean," then I suppose lock me up, because I'm irredeemably okay with not bowing to your definition of racism, which seems to be based on some sort of arbitrary "Decider" status.

I'm not inclined to "throw around accusations of racism."  I also understand that there are different levels and virulency of racism; most of the time it's better to just let it go, but Nader was, right there, basically using the Southern Strategy in an attempt to pry votes away from Obama.  If a Republican had said the same thing, there would've been blood in the water around here.

For all the offhanded comments translated as "racism" made by the Clintons, they were never even close to this blatant in saying that a black person should behave in a certain way.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That was my diary. (none / 0)

I'm hardly inclined to rehash that argument with you.  From my perspective, there is a certain type of liberal who believes that every opinion which doesn't adhere to the liberal orthodoxy on race qualifies as "racist," and this election has reminded me how dreadfully unpleasant it is to be associated with that type of liberal.

Nader didn't say anything different from a thought which is commonly expressed throughout the progressive blogosphere - the notion that Obama has to be more cautious about the issues he emphasizes so as not to be pigeonholed as "the black candidate" - but, because Nader is a political opponent, folks decided it was fun and profitable to smear him as the second coming of David Duke and to accuse him of practicing "the most essential form of racism."  I don't like that game, and I feel crying wolf makes it that much harder to combat real racism.  You know, the SPLC has a list and Ralph Nader is not on it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree that I don't want to rehash the argument (none / 0)

Let's just say that I firmly believe that the sort of offhanded catagorization practiced by some people in generations more revered than mine is unhelpful and indicative of a certain backwards mindset.  

Nader's motives there were clear, and that his methods raised such strong alarm bells in those like me who ARE NOT inclined to bring up racism at every turn is clear evidence of his lack of understanding of the current progressive electorate and yet another reason (among many) that he should be disregarded as a viable choice this year.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's looking like one of those (2.00 / 2)

"hay gusy! come rec this for me lol!"

posts.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Politico=FOX (2.00 / 2)

citing Politico is like citing FOX..
I give you a fail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLVCmqSAf Bs


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland at Atlanta Even (2.00 / 2)

If this story is true, then it seems as though our candidate is simply honoring the pledge that he made to us at the start of the campaign.

I don't like it, I doubt Obama and his team like it, but McCain and the TM would have had a field day if they could have portrayed Max Cleland as a registered lobbyist.

I don't think we can make exceptions on the lobbyist rule just because we support the cause of the lobby.  It must have been a tough decision, but it the facts are as presented, it was the right one.  


by Susan from 29 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland at Atlanta Even (none / 0)

"but McCain and the TM would have had a field day"

Susan, what poppycock. I very much doubt it would have even been on the radar and even if it did score a 1.1 on the Richter scale they would have looked as petty and mean spirited as all the bozos here defending a clearly indefensible decision because it "might" reflect on their idol. Fairly pathetic really.    


by ottovbvs on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Petty and mean-spirited (none / 0)

Just like this diary!

But seriously, that's all McCain has left.  They'd have jumped on it.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland at Atlanta Even (2.00 / 3)

Did you bother to read the diary....

According to Politico.com reporter Ben Smith, Max Cleland is registered to lobby...

It's not about Obama worship: this diary and your comments reveal a perverse need to find any whiff of a non-story to knock the presumptive democratic nominee. The 'idol' allegation was lame three months ago.

Some people just can't let go of their hope hate.

When I read your comments, the words 'knee' and 'jerk' come to mind, but not necessarily in that order


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland at Atlanta Even (2.00 / 1)

You may consider my concerns "poppycock," and that is fair enough.

But the fact remains that as long as Max Cleland is a registered lobbyist the campaign, if it is to keep it's pledge, can't accept his support.

And BTW, I'm not defending the decision on the basis of how it "'might' reflect," on the candidate, but on the basis that it was the difficult but ethically correct decision to make.


by Susan from 29 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland (none / 0)

Oh my what politically correct little person you are. In fact your response is an almost perfect demonstration of the complete lack of balance and commonsense that's pervasive amongst the the Obamanaut. I was a democrat probably before you were born and I find you people miserable specimens perhaps because I believe in old fashioned virtues like loyalty to a stalwart of the democratic party. Obviously that doesn't count when set against the fact that this might, only might, cause ten cents of embarrasment for five minutes to the candidate.


by ottovbvs on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Shuns Max Cleland (2.00 / 1)

Actually, ethics goes back a lot longer than the Democratic party or loyalty to it, has existed.

No where in my comments or response have I made any personal attacks or insinuations about your meanings or intent, and I don't know why you feel the need to do so to me.

BTW, I was born in 1949, could not vote in the 1968 election because the voting age was 21 in those days.  I was on the streets in Chicago, however.


by Susan from 29 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a nonsense diary (2.00 / 2)

I never do this, but since I read all the links, and discovered this was a no-substance scare story, I wondered who the hell recc'ed this diary

Steve M
Denny Crane
Jacob Freeze
cameoanne
SevenStrings
gaf
BlueDoggyDogg
soyousay
louisprandtl
catfish2
strongerthandirt

Call me Stalinist, but it's a Friday night, zerosumgame is in full pissy mode, and then this diary is on the rec list.

Have a lovely evening everyone. This is a non story of Universal proportions


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:26:38 PM EST

"Universal proportions" (2.00 / 3)

Nice one.

I agree; 5 PM, and The Dark Knight, can't come soon enough.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Universal proportions" (none / 0)

Yeah. Can't wait for the new Batman movie. Opens in London next week.

BTW it's been overcast and showery here for the last week. Temperatures in the high 60s, but a disappointing English summer so far

I blame those depressions that come swilling over the Atlantic from the US

Not naming names mind you.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very muggy here (2.00 / 1)

I get home from riding my bike and I'm drenched with sweat.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: