WOW! Will Clinton buy influence in PA? Obama refuses to pay street money

[babylonsister]

This sounds like something from The Sopranos! I didn't realize this still went on.


Obama refuses to pay street money
Posted April 11, 2008 7:35 AM
The Swamp


On the street in Philadelphia, where the Obama campaign refuses to pay ward organizers what's often called "walking around money.'' Chicago Tribune photo by Zbigniew Bzdak.

by Peter Nicholas



Fourteen months into a campaign that has the feel of a movement, Sen. Barack Obama has collided with the gritty political traditions of Philadelphia, where ward bosses love their candidates, but also expect them to pay up.

The dispute centers on the dispensing of "street money," a long-standing Philadelphia ritual in which candidates deliver cash to the city's Democratic operatives in return for getting out the vote.

Flush with payments from well-funded campaigns, the ward leaders and Democratic Party bosses typically spread out the cash in the days before the election, handing $10, $20 and $50 bills to the foot soldiers and loyalists who make up the party's workforce.

It is all legal -- but Obama's people are telling the local bosses he won't pay.

That sets up a culture clash, pitting a candidate who promises to transform American politics against the realities of a local political system important to his presidential hopes.

Obama's posture confounds neighborhood political leaders sympathetic to his cause. They caution that if the senator from Illinois withholds money that gubernatorial, mayoral and presidential candidates have willingly paid out for decades, there could be defections to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict.

more...

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_refuses_to_pay_street_mo.html#more

[FirstLight]

1. What century do we live in...?

Okay, first let me say that this practce is so "colonial" that I could see how it may have occured even up to the turn of the century. But that this is not ilegal now, with the corporate takeover of the country painfully clear...scary.

I am impressed that Obama is holding some integrity here, and would hope to see him shut down many transactions such as this.

[jobycom]

2. Obama only gives his money to rich, corporate people.

A neutral observer, state Rep. Dwight Evans, whose district is in northwest Philadelphia, said there might be a racial subtext to the dispute. Ward leaders, he said, see Obama airing millions of dollars worth of television ads in the city -- money that benefits largely white station owners, feeding resentment. People wonder why Obama isn't sharing the largesse with the largely African American field workers trying to get him elected, Evans said.

"They view it that the white people are getting all the money for TV," said Evans, an African American and former ward leader. "And they're the ones who are the foot soldiers on the street. They're predominantly African Americans, and they're not the ones who are getting that TV money."

Hardscrabble neighborhoods across the city have come to depend on street money as a welcome payday for knocking on doors, handing out leaflets and speaking to voters as they arrive at polling places.

----------------

I saw what Obama did in Texas with the caucuses. He's not motivated by any sense of decency, whatsoever. If he sticks to this, it's purely a financial decision. Plus, the people he's refusing to pay are people he already has in his camp, so he's figuring he can spend the money on advertisement and get a better yield.

It's an interesting custom up there, but it makes sense. I've done a lot of door-knocking and flier-distributing. It costs time and money--both of which I had to donate. Not everyone can afford it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. And takes from the likes of Rezko.

[jobycom]

8. Yeah, well, they all do that. lol.

[babylonsister]

4. How do those sour grapes taste? And

how the hell do you know anything about his sense of decency when you appear to have so little of it yourself?
I know of no other place where handing out money is a prerequisite to GOTV.
And if you're equating Obama buying ads to giving out money to rich, corporate people, I can't help you. That's the way it's done nowadays, isn't it. Maybe you're unhappy that people like him so much he has the ad money to spread around, unlike his competition. :eyes:

[Windy]

6. Babylon, its useless to try and reason with Evergreen. She is blinded by loyalty to a woman

running for president even if HRC is the wrong woman.

[jobycom]

10. Poor Evergreen. Getting blamed for things she didn't do. nt

[jobycom]

9. MY sour grapes? I have no decency? Unlike the OP, my comments came from the article.

I know a lot about the strategies Obama used in Texas. I have a lot of friends running campaigns and precincts on both sides of that debate. He's not an honest man, no matter what image David Axelrod has created for him, or his supporters want to believe. He's a typical politician, only dirtier in his tactics.

As for me "equating Obama buying ads to giving out money to rich, corporate people," I was just citing the article, which was based on statements of people involved in the situation. You don't like that conclusion, blame them, not me. But at least my claim was based on evidence.

Contrast to the OP's accusation that Clinton is buying votes. That's not in the article, and is counter to the whole theme of the article. The OP just grabbed that slanderous title out of his/her hatred for Clinton, who at worst is planning to follow an old local political custom.

And you don't know me, so keep your personal attacks to yourself.

[babylonsister]

12. Maybe you need to read the article, because this is where the

idea came from:

And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict.

Your assumption that he isn't an honest man is just that, an assumption. But no one would be hardpressed to see where you're coming from. You're using smear tactics by innuendo, just like your candidate. You'd make a heckuva surrogate. And living in TX, I've heard both sides of this story. Go ask DUer Wolverine about Clinton campaign tactics in her precinct. Even you might be less than impressed.

No, I don't know you, nor do I want to.

[jobycom]

13. Where does that say "Clinton will buy influence?"

And I say Obama isn't an honest man because of his record of lying in public. He lied about his relationship with Wright. He lied about his name. He lied about Rezko (no, I don't think Rezko is a big deal, but he lied about him in exactly the same way Bush lied about Ken Lay), he lied about oil money and lobbyist money. He was caught telling the Canadian government not to take his promises to American voters seriously on NAFTA (at least one of those was a lie--did he lie to you or to Canada?), he lied when he was caught doing it, his advisers went on the BBC and said not to take his withdrawal plan literally. He lies in little ways, constantly, making up stories about his parents and his heritage.

And though you might not understand it, he lies about Clinton's IWR vote, and about his opposition to the war.

So don't tell me it's an assumption. That's just the public stuff I know.

And again with the personal stuff. Does that make you feel better? You can't defeat someone on facts, so you dig at them personally?

[babylonsister]

14. How did he lie about his relationship with Wright, and his name?

He lied about his name, too?
People keep trying to find fault with his relationship with Rezko, but I don't think anyone found anything. If they have, I've not been privy to it. He wasn't 'caught' telling the Canadian gov't anything; wasn't that someone else? I know you like to try to blame Obama for things others have said and done, and frankly, it gets old. And speaking of lying about NAFTA-I don't think you'd want to go there what with your gal having so many NAFTA lies on record.

So now he's lying about Clinton's IWR vote? :crazy: She cast the vote, he didn't. Spin that anyway you'd like, but them's the facts. Was it his fault she voted for Kyl-Liberman, too?

Believe what you want, but comparing Clinton and Obama on lying is pretty comical when she's so often doing it and getting called out on it. If it makes you feel better, have at it. But your motives are transparent. So you don't like Obama. I 'get' it.

[jobycom]

15. You know the Wright stuff.

He claimed he didn't know what Wright said, then admitted he did. He lied about the name Barack. He tells some groups it's a Hebrew name, from Baruch, and others it's a traditional Swahili name. It's, of course, an Arabic name with Muslim tradition, meaning "Blessed," but he runs from that. His running doesn't bother me, but his pretending it's a Hebrew name does.

As I said, my problem isn't so much with Rezko, it's that Obama lied about him. And you understate the arrangement. Rezko helped Obama professionally and personally, helping him buy a house, and giving him a sweetheart deal on a piece of land (Obama admits this was an "error" and a "bonehead" mistake). Obama continued taking donations from Rezko--who also held fundraisers for W and other Republicans--after he was indicted as a slum lord ripping off people in Obama's own district. Obama admits that was a mistake, too. So the Rezko deal, while not illegal, certainly calls Obama's "good judgement" into question.

Google, the info is out there, from reputable, fact-based sources, not just hit pieces and/or hagiography. Not much worse than most politicians, but certainly not squeaky clean, and certainly not "good judgement." As one lawyer investigating it said, "It wasn't illegal, just unsavory."

Rezko is the typical political leech. He grabs ahold of politicians early in their careers to help their careers and be helped by them. No politician is free from them--that's what Whitewater was all about, and that Bush supporter whose name I've forgotten for the moment (the one George Clooney mocked).

But Obama, when first asked about him, understated his influence and contribution, lied about the amount of contributions, waffled on explanations of the house and land deal, and waited sixteen months until he had crafted and researched and explanation before finally giving a full rendition of what happened. In between times, he squirmed and lied.

He lies about the IWR vote because it was not a vote for war, and he knows it. You don't understand it, maybe, or won't admit you do, but Obama does. That's the fact. The war would have happened without the IWR, only sooner.

Clinton's lies aren't as dramatic as the media and duped DUers contend. She's getting the Gore treatment, where every time she speaks someone misrepresents her comments and claims they are lies. Like the sniper story, like the hospital story, and the flag burning bill, and the video games, and her opposition to the war, and a dozen other things. As with Gore, the truth comes out more slowly, and too late to heal the damage done. I had these same discussions with Democrats trying to prove Gore wasn't a liar between 2000 and 2003, when people finally started getting it, and I was called the same names for it. Were you here then?

My motives should be transparent. I seek the truth. Search my name if you don't believe it, watch how many times I've defended Obama on Wright and other issues, even Rezko. Hell, scroll up, I did it in this thread.

Obama lies, misrepresents, and slanders his opponents. He's slick at it--it's no wonder he praised Reagan, they have a similar style. But I hated Reagan for it, and I won't support it in my own party, either. I'm sorry you have Obama glasses on and can't see it. Maybe a decade from now it will sink in.

[FedoraLV]

16. Um

Given that both Arabic and Hebrew are related, it is the same name. (Or rather, word.) Just as "Shalom" and "salam" are the same word - if the consonants are the same, then it is the same word.

So, he's not pretending or lying, at all -- and he knows a bit about linguistics.

I'm impressed.

-FedoraLV

[jobycom]

20. Bull.

Your facts are fine, but the lie was in his denial that it was a Muslim name, and in his changing his story to fit the crowd.

But Obama could murder a child on camera, and his supporters would say the child had to be murdered. He's become Bob Roberts.

[dbmk]

19. I'd like to see some sources

for this:
"Rezko helped Obama professionally and personally, helping him buy a house, and giving him a sweetheart deal on a piece of land (Obama admits this was an "error" and a "bonehead" mistake)."

What Obama admitted was that it was an error and a bonehead mistake to be linked so closely to Rezko.
NOT that he was given a deal from Rezko on his house. Which he wasn't. Two Chicago news papers has been looking in to that deal and have been unable to find anything shady in it. The seller of the house has even come forward to support Obamas version of the story.

But by all means, produce sources that support your version from your "reputable, fact-based sources". That the news papers apparently haven't been able to find.

"Clinton's lies aren't as dramatic as the media and duped DUers contend.". Come again? Tales of sniperfire and running, heads down, over tarmacs - is not as dramatic as it comes?

[jobycom]

21. How about Obama's own words to a hagiographical source.

I had to Google "Obama Rezko" to find this, so I know it wasn't difficult. Of course, you'll tell me it doesn't matter, even though you asked me to prove it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,745313.story

For those who follow news about Obama's Rezko connection in granular detail: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. Obama insists, though, that the Rezkos' simultaneous purchase of the abutting lot was entirely independent of his house purchase -- not a choreography of transactions, but a blur of dealings among the sellers' and buyers' real estate brokers and attorneys.

Obama's "bigger lapse of judgment," he said, came later when he bought a strip of the Rezko lot to expand his own yard. That embroiled the two men in negotiations over fencing and other issues at a time when Rezko was under increasing suspicion. That involvement with Rezko in the land deal, Obama said Friday, was the "boneheaded move" to which he's previously confessed. "In retrospect," he said Friday, "this was an error."

-------------------

On Clinton, do your own damn research, but the facts are not as dramatic as you want to make it. The then president of Bosnia confirmed that they were concerned with radicals in the hills around the airstrip, and the military on board the plan has said it was not a cakewalk, though it was not as dramatic as she made it sound. The plane did alter its normal flight and landing pattern out of concern for possible snipers in the hills--as with all flights into the region. No corkscrews, mind you, but she didn't claim there were, even though the Dick Armee wannabees around here tried to claim she did. The celebration on the tarmac was abbreviated.

Yeah, she got carried away with the story, and they didn't rush to their cars with their heads down, but it wasn't as dramatic as those who are screaming LIAR try to pretend. There was one post claiming Clinton had claimed she was targeted for assassination and that the plane had to do corkscrew spirals to avoid being hit. Complete bullshit like that.

It wasn't her finest moment, but her point was that she had been into combat zones, and that was true. The embellishments were mistakes, but not complete lies.

I've been through this too often. No one is as gullible as a Democrat, it seems. From Ralph Yarborough in 1970 to Jimmy Carter in 1980 to Ann Richards in 94 to Gore, Kerry, and both Clintons, the Republicans sell their lies to us better than to each other. A decade later, people start to catch on, and they look back with regret at being fooled and say "never again," but the next one comes along and they just all know this time it's true.

[dbmk]

24. Still waiting for the proof of a sweet deal

[hisownpetard]

18. "And you don't know me, so keep your personal attacks to yourself."

Haaahahah.

Please apply these words to your own actions, regarding Obama and his motivations.

[jobycom]

22. I back up what I say about Obama, that's not a personal attack.

[hisownpetard]

23. How can you back up claiming to know what his motivation is? You can't get inside the man's head.

[hisownpetard]

17. Let's see... so you're against Obama and *for* street hand-outs to pay off local politicians...

and you claim to somehow have personal knowledge of what motivates Obama, which is NOT "any sense of decency, whatsoever"?

Yeah, I'm really believing you...

[keep_it_real]

5. Sometimes you just have to pay to play.

If he wants to win Pa he should pay for now then when elected see what he can do to change the system. Right now winning is everything.

[babylonsister]

7. He obviously doesn't agree; I wonder if Hill does.

This sounds too third-worldish to me. Grease my palm and I'll do you favors? Step in the wrong direction imo.

[madrchsod]

11. do`t you know it`s -"chicago style politics"

...after all there was`t corruption in philly until obama arrived

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. Read "When in Rome?" in the comments - this street money is not used in legal manner

Over at The Field, Al Giordana nails it in "When in Rome?"

A commenter says:

As an old (small f) field hand, I see an LA Times story written by reporters that - all too typical for the profession - have zero understanding of field organization, GOTV efforts and the nature of “street money.”

Their claim that “It is all legal” is laughable to those of us that have been field directors in campaigns.

“Street money,” traditionally, is not reported: It comes from donors that have maxed out and distributed as cash. One simply does not see the kind of expenditures that one ward heeler suggested in that story - $400,000 to $500,000 for Philadelphia - ever mentioned on FEC filings. The “walking around money” (another common term for it in field lingo) traditionally comes from a slush fund.

#

Another comment:

And I’ll just add that this came up in South Carolina about how the Clinon campaign spread around a great deal of street money and Obama still won in a blow out by out organizing the established machine.

There is something funny about juxtaposing these three:

1/Clinton has many milliions of dollars.

2/Clinton has not paid her campaign debts to many small vendors.

3/Clinton is willing to pay out for this somewhat unsavory version of ward politics.

#

I have a question for you. Do you think the money the Democratic bosses collect goes solely to volunteers? Me neither. Obama is making a smart play here. The bosses aren’t going to want to bush this too far, because they know there will be some reporting on exactly how they spend money.