I heard via radio talk show (The Young Turks) this morning that a debate among Democratic hopefuls finally made some interesting points. Edwards mentioned that he hasn’t accepted money from any lobbyists for his campaign. Then Obama seconded that “emotion”. Hillary couldn’t say the same thing and I think it might cost her the nomination.
Up until now these debates haven’t been very good theater. As much as these three candidates want to be seen as different from each other, their differences don’t seem very great. Face it, after so many years of W’s smirky face and disgusting war, they all look very good to us. Most of us are for all three of them and against none of them. But now I think they have found the difference that will make the difference.
Lobbyists have never been a highly esteemed lot and during this administration they’ve sunk lower than a week old cow patty. The fact is that Fred Thompson is beginning to look like a viable candidate, but his years spent as a lobbyist are likely to keep him out of the White House, if not out of the primary race. And the problem is that a Hillary who is accepting campaign money from lobbyists, couldn’t use the issue if she was running against him. It would be the pot calling the kettle black. If she’s defending the lobbyists she’s getting campaign money from, how can she turn around and attack him for having been a lobbyist? And regardless of whom she’s running against, defending lobbyists is not a good position for her or any candidate to be in these days.
I don’t think this issue is going to go away soon. Democratic voters will have to consider, during the primaries, whether it’s likely to have a major impact in the election. Is it a weakness the Republicans might be able to use effectively against her? And conversely, if Edwards & Obama have campaign finances as squeaky clean as they say, will it be a big advantage for them to be able to call out their Republican opponent on the issue?