Obama disinvited 'lobbyist' Cleland

[daa]

If Barack thinks he doesn't need the likes of Max Cleland down here in Gerogia he will win nothing.

July 18, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Obama disinvited 'lobbyist' Cleland


Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland was an icon of Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 campaign, a badly wounded war hero who lost his seat, Kerry deplored, after a television advertising campaign questioned his commitment to national security.

But to the Obama campaign, Cleland has another qualification: Registered lobbyist.

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

"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, only to be told at the last minute that he wouldn’t be welcome.

The policy has been a key symbol of Obama’s outsider status, but many Democrats have also quietly questioned whether it goes too far when prominent party figures like Cleland, who an associate said has never actually lobbied in Washington, are left out in the cold on a technicality.

Cleland is registered to lobby for a company whose products are aimed at helping soldiers recover more quickly from battlefield industries, Tissue Regeneration Technologies.

“Sen. Cleland is definitely not doing lobbying work. He gives speeches and campaigns for a few friends, but mostly he’s spending his time taking care of his father," said Cleland advisor John Marshall, who said that Tissue Regeneration Technologies was the only company on whose behalf he lobbies.

He declined to comment on the incident in Atlanta.

In a brief telephone interview, Cleland also declined to comment on his treatment by the campaign.

"I’m pretty much retired from politics," he said. "I don’t really want to get into that at all."

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.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Obama_disinvited_lobbyist_Cleland.html

[blogslut]

1. More crap from Ben Smith

The Politico is not our friend.

[ErinBerin84]

4. seriously, I hate Ben Smith.

[KittyWampus]

6. "he wouldn't be welcome". I SERIOUSLY doubt Cleland was told "he wouldn't be welcome".

It's a certain thing that the aides must have been apologetic.

I'd like to think that Obama has promised Cleland he will have a front row seat at the Inauguration.

[blogslut]

7. I read on here, yesterday

...that Rachel Maddow had him on and was giving him delicious grief. I would like to see/hear that. I wonder if it was her radio show or on MSNBC?

[HowHasItComeToThis]

9. BEN SMITH IS A SHILL FOR THE RIGHT

[GarbagemanLB]

2. ..and he would be criticized if he HAD let him show up.

[librechik]

8. it had to be done--would Cleland consider de-registering as a lobbyist?

possible solution

[islandmkl]

3. thank god jr.bush & karl rove never treated max without the respect he deserves...

barack will get shit for whatever happens...so we might as well get used to it...

[Pirate Smile]

5. He is being consistent about lobbyist. Calm down. It isn't about Max and I'm sure Max knows that.

[highplainsdem]

13. But the Obama campaign hasn't always been consistent about lobbyists.

As with the co-director of his campaign in Puerto Rico:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802499.html

I saw that Politico story about Cleland earlier and didn't post about it since I knew people here would make excuses for Obama.

I really don't understand why someone who's an active lobbyist in Washington can be co-director of the Obama campaign in Puerto Rico, but Max Cleland is disinvited from a fundraiser he'd been invited to attend. Cleland, as the Politico story points out, hasn't even done any lobbying, though he's registered so he could be a lobbyist.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton wouldn't comment on Cleland being disinvited from that fundraiser, according to Politico. But the Washington Post story said that when asked about that lobbyist's role as a co-director of the campaign in Puerto Rico, Burton said the rules aren't airtight. (See the last paragraph of that WP story.)

So why did they have to be airtight for Max Cleland?

[kitfalbo]

31. whee

welcome.. yes he's ok with "former" lobbyists. IF you are currently one he's been rather constant. Per the rules of the forum I ask that you don't attack "our" candidate. You can do that at free republic.

[highplainsdem]

33. LOL. If you'd read the WP article, you'd have seen that co-director was still a lobbyist,

and not on leave from his firm.

And if you'd checked my profile or journal, you'd have seen I've been here years longer than you have.

I was simply pointing out that the campaign hasn't been consistent about these rules, and an Obama spokesman said the rules aren't airtight. Maybe you should go quarrel with them?

[lojasmo]

46. I've been here longer than you.,

And I'm telling you to stop bashing Obama.

[AllentownJake]

34. Did I attack the candidate down thread?

and if I did what are your Obama creds?

[CreekDog]

44. i'm glad we've got you to remind us of Obama "inconsistencies"

:eyes:

[4themind]

48. A possibility

"So why did they have to be airtight for Max Cleland?" One potential reason could be that they don't want to further add to the charge of obama "breaking" protocol or shifiting positions. Or if he is seen as doing so, the narrative he'd prefer to be portrayed as TIGHTENING his earlier "rules" ,his restrictions, rather than adding to the number of "exceptions" (especially now that he's getting increased attention from the MSM and the right-wing relative to his time in the primary)


. According to the article, Obama's camp contends that the co-campaign chair wasn't a "paid staffer" so it didn't run counter to the campaign's "rules". Of course Cleland isn't a paid staffer so why the exclusion in this case? One possibility is that there was a "tightening" of these rules. Why was there a tightening? Possibly because they want to beware of adding ADDITIONAL examples of lobbyist influence at a time when the campaigns are trading accusations of such activity in the main event (the G.E.). The bottom line is that while Obama may not be "pure" on this issue, the exclusion of Sen. Cleland may have the effect at least add to the narrative that he is "purer" than John McCain (even if the campaign rhetoric is that they ARE pure, voters can make up their minds with the information available to them as to what is sufficient "purity". We'll see the effects of it, but given my interests values I'll use my time and efforts to promote issues other than some of the "counter-narratives" to the obama campaign. For those that seek it there seem to be an abundance of websites and an abundance of people who would want them to read them.


P.S. all that being said, I think this incident could have been handled MUCH better, and if they simply did more vetting further beforehand and found that Cleland didn't meet their "speaker criteria" from then, they'd be better served by simply not inviting Cleland in the first place.

[stray cat]

10. Can he really campaign that he only takes "good" lobbyists?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Ben Smith? You can do better than that!

[AllentownJake]

12. This was a huge mistake on Obama's part

and I'm not afraid to call him out on it.

He should have known he was a lobbyist from the beginning and let him know his position and had a conversation with the man. This way of doing business is just piss poor and I'll go on record in saying it. I'm also emailing the Obama staff I know to tell the campaign that as the son of a Vietnam Veteran I'm personally offended at his treatment.

I'm still going to work an 8 hour shift canvassing though tommorow and other than this one post its the last I'm talking about it and I'm not making any threats to the campaign of with holding support or money.

[Connie_Corleone]

14. Why not wait to hear from the campaign first?

There might be other details that Ben Smith didn't write about. It wouldn't be the first time.

[AllentownJake]

16. Good point

I'll ask what's going on with the Max Cleland things first.

[daa]

17. I really did not expected so many excuses

but then I should have. I guess since I belong to AARP I better not send Obama any money since he would be offended. If you have ever written a letter to Congress you are a lobbyist.His saintly, elitist attitude will hurt him, not help him. If Obama is so smart he should not have invited him in the first place.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. What's so difficult to understand about the term "registered" lobbyist?

If you're not a "registered" lobbyist, then you're analogy has no merit. If you are a registered lobbyist, then you shouldn't be donating to the campaign anyway since the campaign doesn't accept "registered" lobbyist money.

Saintly? Elitist? Using terms like that, I seriously doubt you ever sent money to his campaign.

[AllentownJake]

24. I belong to the Sons of American Legion

an my mother is an active member of the American Heart Association. However neither of us are registered lobbyist. We aren't paid to speak to congress people on behalf of the group or lobby for legislation.

Look up the defintion of Registered Lobbyist before you snark.

[CreekDog]

45. every campaign makes mistakes, and this one makes less than any I've seen

so why don't you *not* characterize this as representative of Obama's "way of doing business".

[Occam Bandage]

15. Cleland is a registered lobbyist. Obama does not accept support from lobbyists.

:shrug:

[AllentownJake]

22. They should have known that before they invited him

Is my point. Now it comes accross as insulting Max Cleland.

[Arkansas Granny]

27. Yes. Perhaps they should make a point of asking people if they are registered

lobbyists before they issue invitations to appear with Obama. It seems like a simple enough thing to do.

[AllentownJake]

29. or do a search of the database

I'm sure they learned from the experience and hopefully they have reached out to Senator Cleland further regarding the misunderstanding.

[loyalsister]

47. They do

Everytime you donate.

I'm sure they trusted Max Cleland.
He may not have disclosed and donated anyway.

Or not donated to the campaign at all which would have been kind of strange.

[MyNameGoesHere]

18. Alright!

he can cast a meaningless yes vote on FISA, says it's ok to execute non capital murder offenders, and lurches to the middle like a scared novice on national defense/made up threats. BUT BY GOD, he has principal, NO PEOPLE THAT LOBBY PERIOD. So Max go take your legless ass and hide, you are nothing but a dirty lobbying scum.
I applaud Obama's integrity.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. I have a question

Once you're "registered" as a lobbyist - can you "unregister" or is this something you just become - forever?

This surely seems a shame - Cleland seems to be a very terrific guy to have on your side.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaylemond77]

23. I agree with the move, but why did invite Cleland in the first place?

If they had not invited him, he would not have felt bad. But I would feel bad if I was invited to a party only to be told at the last minute to stay home.

Still, the campaign was right in making no exceptions with any lobbyist.

[highplainsdem]

25. O's campaign co-director in Puerto Rico was a lobbyist; his spokesman said the rules aren't airtight

Or so Bill Burton said at the time, as I pointed out in a reply upthread that no one has responded to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802499.html

Bill Burton, according to Politico, won't comment now on Max Cleland having been disinvited from appearing with Obama at that fundraiser.

I don't understand why someone who's an active lobbyist who was not on leave from his firm could be co-director of Obama's campaign in Puerto Rico, but Max Cleland can't even appear at an Obama fundraiser (as far as I can tell from what's been written about this, Cleland was not being paid by the campaign, and this was not about Cleland donating money himself; he was just going to appear and urge others to support Obama).

[highplainsdem]

26. NY Times story with more details. Cleland was surprised but isn't upset:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/obamas-lobbyist-policy-excludes-cleland/

[Straight Shooter]

28. Sounds to me like a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

In regards to Max Cleland, I would choose to do. The man lost his Senate seat because he stood up for the Union workers. He was trashed as being unpatriotic. That election was stolen because it was close enough to steal.

Give the man something back for all he's done, and for all he's lost. Please.

[quakerboy]

30. Unfortunate, pulling it "last minute"

if that is indeed what happened, but for all that, still the right choice. Belatedly. The original right choice would have been to do the research first and not have made any initial invitation. But what is done is done. If we break our "rules", even our informal ones, for the sake of accommodating party celebrities, we head down the path of republican style cronyism.

[AllentownJake]

32. True

However, from the sounds of the article if its accurate it doesn't sound like the "pull" was done compassionatly. It may be all lies but I hope Senator Cleland at the least got a phone call from Senator Obama.

[AllentownJake]

35. Reading the NY Times article makes more sense

I retract previous statements and have learned to be less reactionary to rumors posted on Politico shown to me by co-workers.

[quakerboy]

36. I hadn't read anything past the politico yet

but given the trends of informational value of things I find on the internet, I figured it would be something like this

[highplainsdem]

37. I posted the link to the NY Times story upthread, as soon as I found it via Google News.

It does help to have more details.

But I still wish, since an Obama spokesman said a couple of months ago that the rules aren't airtight (as I pointed out in other posts here), that an exception could have been made for Max Cleland.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. This is the trouble with ALL zero-tolerance policies -

they replace rational thought with rigid rules.

Why should all registered lobbyists be prohibited? The ACLU has lobbyists. The Children's Defense Fund has lobbyists. Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign, Common Cause - all lobby.

A blanket rule against lobbyists is just brain-dead.

[AllentownJake]

39. The problem is

If you say that you don't take money from PACs and Lobbyist you can't say I only take money from good PACs and lobbyist. Define who is good and who is bad. Its a subjective judgement.

My issue wasn't with the policy but with any disresepect that Politico says was shown to Cleland and the NY times says wasn't. Its a sore point for me because of my father and before reading the NY Times I let my emotions get the best of me.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. And that's exactly why such policies are brain-dead

If you can't make a rational distinction between Max Cleland and "the bad guys", then it's just a mindless, stupid policy, as all zero-tolerance policies are.

[AllentownJake]

41. Both of us know

That nuance is not the MSM media's forte. Once he takes on lobbyists donation than it will be broadcast from the roof tops and the but its a good lobbyist defense will be meaningless. As a former Hillary supporter I think you know that as well as anyone how the game is and has been played this year.

[MGKrebs]

42. Yes, but what is the point of taking the position at all?

If we all know that there are good lobbyists and bad lobbyists, why open the can of worms with this policy? This story just shows the ridiculous tightrope they are going to have to walk. Is he never going to be seen with any labor leaders? They are PAC's.

And what's so hard or subtle about saying "I won't take CORPORATE lobbyist or PAC money". If that's the point, just do it. We can handle it.

[JI7]

43. i think it has to do with the media

and how they will go after him for anything.

[Egnever]

49. This had to be a tough call

For Obama to make but kudos to him for sticking to his guns.

[4themind]

50. Quotes from NY Times article including Cleland's response

that highplainsdem provided (thanks btw)
<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/obamas-lobbyist-policy-excludes-cleland/>

Senator Barack Obama’s official policy banning lobbyists from raising money for his presidential bid put the campaign in an awkward position last week when it was forced to exclude a former United States senator and decorated war veteran from a fund-raiser because he is a registered lobbyist.
Max ClelandMax Cleland in 2004. (Photo: Luke Frazza/Agence France Press-Getty Images)

The former senator, Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, originally received an invitation to attend a July 7 fund-raiser in Atlanta where Mr. Obama was scheduled to appear, but was later told not to come.

A friend of Mr. Cleland extended the invitation, but after the Obama campaign checked the guest list against a database of lobbyists, the campaign contacted Mr. Cleland’s friend, who told the former senator that he should not attend. Mr. Cleland lobbies for a health care firm. The dis-invite was first reported by Politico.

“They’re trying to be the new broom that sweeps cleaner in Washington, which we need,” Mr. Cleland said Friday. “I don’t feel dissed, put upon or disinvited.”