Obama, he is a snake oil salesman. How could anybody vote this thug

obama and hillary are both lobbyist owned entities

edwards has always been and still is the only front runner who has consistently shunned the lobbyists

if want real change edwards makes sense

What difference does it make if this person is only on Senator Obama's payrool at the moment?  I would imagine that a field organizer who worked for a big lobbying firm is pretty good at what they do.
Have you taken a look at the resumes of all of the campaign's staff members?  Sure, I'll bet you are.

Terrible decision by the Obaman campaign.  If anything, he needed to put some daylight between himself and Hillary (Sen. Clinton is especially vulnerable to charges of undue influence by corporate lobbyists).  This simply muddles the "change" message without bringing anything else to the table.  If your choice is between the corporate lobbyist bought senator from NY vs. the corporate lobbyist bought senator from IL, why not go with the one who brings a little more experience?  With Edwards taking federal matching funds (and the campaign-destroying spending caps that go with them)  Hillary looks set to coast all the way to the DNC convention.

Obama can still change the face of politics.  His message obviously appeals to both outsiders and insiders, all wanting to adopt a new way.  Bravo to Mercado for joining the movement for change!  

To those of you thirsty to spin this as "politics as usual,"  don't rush to judge.  This race isn't over yet.  See how this plays out.

I don't have a problem with campaigns hiring former lobbyists - they are good at what they do and can probably be very valuable to a campaign organization. That being said, I'm not sure this is really consistent with Obama's "outsider" and "change" messages.  

Adam, why does this mean he is "corporate lobbyist bought?"  If anything, it seems more to me as though he is buying the talent out from under the lobbyists.  If he's not accepting their money, they aren't buying him.
And again, has every other campaign had their staff resumes thoroughly vetted by the journos?  I cannot imagine this is the only guy who ever worked for a lobbyist.  Organizing is a pretty broad career...

Sen. Obama's crazy if he lets this guy go.

You all are really trying to be okay with your guy hiring a former Blackwater lobbyist.  

The problem for Obama is he claims to be above it all when, in fact, he is happy to get right down in the mud in order to win.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if he didn't rail so hard on other candidates for being such insiders.

squintz,

Lobbyists go from lobbying, to campaigns, to elected office, and back around again.  Whether or not Mercado or any other lobbyist is still 'registered' as a lobbyist is a distinction without a difference.  My larger point is thematic:  Obama is not controlling his own message by doing this.  Mercado may be a very talented organizer/campaigner/money-raiser, I won't begrudge the man his talents.   If Obama was running a conventional Democratic Washington insider campaign a la Sen Clinton (picking up endorsements/money from unions, progressive groups) this wouldn't really be news.  But if you run as "Mr. Let's change the tone in Washington" it invites additional scrutiny.  

Take health care reform:

It's a field organizer, not a policy advisor, so anyone feigning outrage at this is just grasping at straws.  Unless the person is in a place where they might conceivably influence policy, there's no conflict of interest; otherwise, how far do you take it?  What if one of Obama's volunteers was once a lobbyist, or one of the guys in the place that makes his bumperstickers was, or the guy who drove his car once was?  I'm all about reducing the influence of federal lobbyists, and I think both Obama and Edwards have argued very successfully to do so, but I don't suggest they should be thrown out on to the street and beg for food, just that THEY NOT INFLUENCE POLICY.

Does anyone really believe the change bs? Politics are not going to change. The two main reasons people go into politics are money and power. You have to be a multi-millionaire to even get started in national politics so power is the main motivator. One man no matter how pure his intention can make it change. Sen Coburn from Oklahoma is a pure physcal conservative. To the point of taking money from his home state,But guess what he cant get it done. Too many people have their hand out, promises are made, but the only ones that are kept are to who the politicians owe the power to. Get real, Obama is no different than any of the rest of them. If he was he would not be able to compete at this level. He will take the money. He is bringing on Mr.Mercado to show that reguardless of his public rhetoric he knows how to play ball. At least Sen. Clinton (who scares me to death) is honest about it. Sen. Obama can not fullfill the promises he is making. There is no way that we can pay for it. It has been proven that the higher the tax rate the lower the reciepts in actual dollars. You cant spend percentages only money!!!  

Adam - I get what you are saying, and obviously his message opens him up to more scrutiny.  I doubt it is as big of a deal as everyone would like to make it, is what I am saying.  He doesn't get to change the tone in Washington unless he wins the damn thing.  
And, I wasn't suggesting there was some sort of lobbyist "registry" - I was suggesting that people do the work they are paid to do.

First, it stated that Moses Mercado is a soon-to-be a "past" lobbyist.

Two, Obama and Edwards combined are still just a shadow of Clinton when it comes to hiring lobbyists.

Finally, this hire demonstrates B. Obama's ability to work with opposing viewpoints and his general electability.

squintz, Shadow, et. al.:

"just that THEY NOT INFLUENCE POLICY."

So the guy who is registered to lobby for the National Rifle Association, the Carlyle Group, the Blackstone Group, Monsanto, Pfizer Inc., United Health Group, Sempra Energy and Constellation Energy, etc. is going to be doing what for the Obama campaign, licking envelopes?  Making copies?  Getting the boss some coffee?  Evidence that this guy got star-struck with Obama and is joining the campaign out of the goodness of his heart is very much lacking.  You have a highly paid, high-powered lobbyist for corporate America, and the plan is to just cross our fingers and hope that, via some magical process, he will cease to carry water for these same companies that until very recently paid him a great deal of money?  Not likely.  

Don't get me wrong:  I'll take Obama over Clinton or any Dem over any Rep in 2008, but this looks bad, smells bad, is bad, and no candidate should be immune from criticism, especially if you are running the "outsider" campagin, having this story come up muddles your message. If in the next debate, a question comes up about the undue influence of lobbyists on politics, what is Obama going to do?  He has lost an opportunity to put some daylight between himself and Clinton on this kind of issue, which makes this hire a tactical mistake that could have strategic consequences come January.  

So much progress on so many issues (health care, environment, etc) is held up because we let guys like this go in and out of Washington's revolving door, work for lobbying outfits, maybe a stint on a campaign or congressional staff, and then maybe a bit as a candidate and back again.    

Shadow - It's not about a conflict of interest.  It's about Obama running as the "outsider" candidate who is going to change the way things are done in Washington - and then doing exactly what everyone in Washington does by hiring a lobbyist to work on his campaign.  

As I said, I don't have a problem at all with people hiring lobbyists.  My question is whether Obama doing so creates an inconsistency with his message.  

Am I missing something?  Didn't he say he would not take MONEY from Washington  lobbyist?  Did he say he would not hire them away from firms.  Obiviously they are good at their job.

I suspect this comes from Hillaryis44 trying to deflect from Obama's NY rally.  Has anyone notice whenever anyone else is getting good news ...something comes out in such a way as to put a damper on it, or hillary suddenly gets an endorsement that same day.  The MSM is in play with it.  Ignore the chatter she will continually do it.

As anyone notice how little coverage these guys gave her Iran vote.

Hiring a lobbyist is no problem. THEY ALL do it...The problem is he is preaching all of this change BS and basically he is a politician. The man is a politician, he just havent been at it as long as others. Give him some time in Washington and he will be like all of the rest.

Grace

You are right about her Iran vote.  That seems like it would be a big deal for pundits and analysts to chew on for awhile.

She made the same mistake with Iran that she acknowledges that she made with Iraq, which either falls under lack of judgment or hypocrisy (I voted for it, while I spoke against it).  Much more of a story than Sen. Obama hiring a campaign organizer.

Grace - I have nothing to do with Hillaryis44, and I question Obama's decision in this regard.  I believe that he truly does want to change the tone in Washington.  I just don't think hiring a lobbyist to work on your campaign is the way to convince the American people that you want to change the tone.  

Are the Dems posting negative crap the same ones who brought us John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004(by listening to the media spin). I would bet anyone 100mil that John Edwards or even Kucinich has lobbyist working in some capacity on their campaign. The distinction w/ Washington lobbyist is that they petition w/ bribes. Straight lobbying is constitutionally protected. You can't ban them outright. These guys on a ground campaign can be very valuable in organizing strategy(reformed ppl are always welcomed). No presidential campaign survives w/o experienced ppl running it on the at the grassroots. We Dems dislike Karl Rove/Dick Morris but they served their masters well. Dems shud always welcome 'recovering' Repubs/Ind/ etc to the fold. Remember John Dean(worked for Nixon);he is now a recovering Right-winger. I see the Obama/Edwards distinction and applaud them for that. I thought us Dems were a little bit smarter in analyzing things better than some of the sheeple we believe are screwing up this country. Come on now! act like Dems(not ditto-heads). Obama already have funds from ordinary ppl,(guess who he has to answer to...YUPP!!!..to John/Jane Cue Public who sends him their small donations.  

 To work on his campaign he will have to be a "former Lobbyist".  How does this affect the tone?

These guys can't change jobs?  They can't want a career change?  I don't get this.  If he was still a lobbyist, I could see the concern.  If the guy is willing to give up the job to work for him, I don't see the big deal.  Except for people who want to make  a big deal , out of nothing.  Are they complaining that hillary has a guy on her staff that represented/or is still representing  Union Busters while she is Courting Unions.  Now that to me is hypocritical

Grace - Do you honestly think he won't go right back to being a lobbyist once this election is over?  He's a career lobbyist, from what I can tell - and working on a political campaign for one candidate is not that much different than working on an issue-centered campaign for one organization.  

Once again, the concern is not about conflict of interest.  The concern is that he hired a lobbyist - not a former lobbyist who has been out of the fray but one who is actively lobbying now - to work on his campaign, which is the "Washington insider" thing to do - not the thing to do if you are the candidate who is going to change the face of politics.

Carrie - I think if this person ends up in some sort of policy or fundraising role for Obama, you'd be 100% correct - and I will denounce Obama for it myself - but there is no potential scenario for undue influence from a lobbyist being a field organizer, so this whole story is just a red herring.

Lobbyist money is a problem.  Lobbyist influence is a problem.  Lobbyist kooties are not the problem.  Everyone needs to stay focused on the relevant issues if we are really going to reduce these people's role in government effectively.  

Grace,

Cheney gave up his job at Halliburton to work on the Bush campaign.  Bush put him in charge of finding the VP.  Cheney decided he was the best candidate.  I would say Cheney has a bit of influence in the Bush Administration.

The people a candidate surrounds himself/herself does matter.  They do have influence.  They follow the candidates into their administrations.  

It matters.

I'm LMAO at the naivety  exhibited by most of you Obama people.

I've been a lobbyist.  If you think a lobbyist doesn't keep his contacts/friends close, whether he is lobbying, working on a campaign, or actually jumping into the political waters as a candidate, you are nuts.

I've still got a Rolodex, actually 2 of them, with over 1200 names and I only worked at the state level, however in one of the 5 biggest states.  And I've been essentially out of the business for about 12 years.

I will bet big bucks Mercado was hired as much, probably more so, for who he knows than what he knows.  If you don't think having him on board will translate into political contributions, you are even more delusional. It sends a clear signal of a kind incompatible with his pious posturing. It says, "Send cash, I don't care who it comes from."  I 100% agree with what Carrie has been saying on here.  What's more, for most politicos I'd say it was a smart move and have no problem with it.

I laugh at the absurd idea that an honorable politician can be bought or corrupted by taking lobby money.  The only politicians who can be bought are those who are dishonest people or extremely weak people to start with.  I don't believe Clinton, Obama, or Edwards are such; but I believe Obama has painted himself somewhat into a corner because of his protestations of purity. Now he has brought on a major minion of the Evil Kingdom.

I view it as somewhat of as a gesture of desperation.
A subtle way of conveying that he publicly says one thing, but really knows how the cow ate the cabbage.

Carie,

Obviously you didn't read the entire statement . Here is the entire statement for you to read and stop reading the headline
that is full of fluff
 

"The campaign’s response: “They have not settled on exactly what role Mercado will play, but he will not take on any job until he has ceased his lobbying work. Obama aides said yesterday no one can work on the campaign and still be registered on behalf of clients as a lobbyist, and Mercado will not be exempted from that requirement.”

I think this is pretty clear. What say you?

"Former Lobbyist", Obama spelled out the rules for his employment. You should change the headline and it's not big news.  "25,000 Plus Turn Out in NY to See Obama", that's big news.

Let's just cut the crap right now.  Is not a lobbyist by any other name still a lobbyist?  This stinks to the utmost of hipocracy!!!  

Bee - Wow, how can I be any clearer?

Barack Obama is supposed to be running against the traditional Washington way of doing things, right?  The politics of hope...or is it politics of change?  At any rate, he claims that he will set a different tone, that he won't do things the "Washington" way.  And then what does he do?  He does things the Washington way - he goes out and hires a lobbyist.  NOTE - he IS a lobbbyist now, at the time of his hiring.  

As I said, I don't have a problem with hiring lobbyists to work for a campaign.  They know what they are doing, and they probably do a great job.  My problem with this is it is disingenuous.  If you don't want to be the typical Washington politician, don't follow the typical Washington politician playbook.  If you want to change the way campaigns are run - don't hire a freakin' lobbyist to help run your campaign.  

Now, I don't question that Obama wants to bring fresh ideas to the table, and that he wants to handle politics in a different way.  My point, once again, is that doing what is typical for a Washington politician to do is not the way to convince people that you will actually bring about that change.  When you do the same old same old, it's hard to argue that it's a bad thing.  

Obama has 8 lobbyist on salary.  He says he won't take their money in his campaign but he didn't say he would not hire them, did he. Yes sir, he pays them to help him win and then of course he won't use them in the White House.  How stupid are you people.

Come on people read this fact sheet and face reality!

http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2007/12/chart.pdf

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):