When you hear the term "Swiftboat" what comes into your mind?

I already know your answer, but it isn't the meaning for those who served on nor any Navy Personal who served In-Country Vietnam.

Not to far back a small group of misguided Navy personal, who served aboard 'Swiftboats' in 'Nam, took that once proud name and used it for their political purposes and gains, with some others joining them, who not only never served on  swiftboats, and the extremely dangerous missions they were sent into, but some never served at all, in the Military nor In War/Occupations!

Your word has turned to slime, hope the business world is paying attention, though you'll always find
snakes like you to deal with and make some bucks, and I'm sure many already have learned about you through your years of building your billions.

What's this all about? Well,

It is no secret that the individual who gets to become leader of the party is the individual who raises the most cash for the rest of the caucus members.

This was true when Pelosi took control and it is true now.

Many have been wondering why Majority Leader Hoyer is pushing this FISA bill so hard while denying any choice in the process.

The answer is simple: Hoyer is doing this because he is making a bid to replace Pelosi as Speaker in the next Congress by raising huge amounts of cash...cash that telecoms can provide.

Let me get this out of the way first:  I am a backer of Obama for President.  I don't think he's the second coming (of Bill thank goodness), or the next JFK (better than that, I hope).  His candidacy is historic, his policy positions are sound (if fairly pedestrian in most cases).  He's highly charismatic.  I'm not inclined to praise his every move, however.

That said, one of the first things he did after securing the Democratic nomination made my heart leap.  He extended his campaign's ban on money from political action committees (PACs) and lobbyists to the Democratic National Committee.

Barack Obama has announced that he will change the Democratic Party's (DNC's) fundraising policy as of today, to prohibit accepting contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees (PACs). What's more, he's indicated that all of his fundraising events will be open to at least one pool reporter.  Both moves are in stark contrast to the status quo in both parties.

http://www.politico.com/...

This sounds like a major change of how Washington works.  And he's not even President yet!

Update below the fold!

Because you like to know these things, I thought I'd do a little research into this brand new PAC. Who is behind WomenCount, the PAC that was formed within the last several weeks to make sure that "51% of American citizens who are women have both their voices and votes counted in this election?"

Ironically placed on MSNBC during Countdown, the ad, created by the even more ironically named Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, depicts stereotypically overbearing labor unionists encroaching on a worker casting his ballot in an old-fashioned mechanical voting booth:

Barack Obama is speaking this morning to the Alliance for American Manufacturing in Pittsburgh, PA.  (Sen. Clinton will be there later today.)  It's a non-partisan, non-profit partnership forged to strengthen manufacturing in the U.S., bringing together a select group of America’s leading manufacturers and the United Steelworkers.

Here's some of what he's telling them:

You know, there’s been a lot of talk in this campaign lately about who’s "in touch" with the workers of Pennsylvania.  Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are singing from the same hymn book, saying that I'm "out of touch" – an "elitist" – because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances.

Now it may be that I chose my words badly.  It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I'm out of touch, it's time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.

After all, you've heard this kind of rhetoric before. Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough for you. They'll "promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer.

But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?

I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists, and I’m here to tell you that you can count on me to stand up for you after this election, just as I’ve been standing up for workers all my life.  That’s why I’m running for President of the United States.

Senator Clinton and Senator McCain question my respect for the workers of Pennsylvania. Well, let me tell you how I believe you demonstrate your respect. You do it by telling the truth and keeping your word, so folks can know that where you stand today is where you'll stand tomorrow.

I believe that's what they call a "shot across the bow."

Read the whole speech.

Disclaimer: I am the Online Outreach Director for SNAPPAC

Students for a New American Politics PAC is a student organization founded at Yale University in the aftermath of the 2004 election. The lesson that emerged from those disappointing results was that the only way to bring about a progressive majority would be to actively involve a new generation of voters to fundamentally change the political landscape in America. With the goal of critically engaging students in the emergence of a progressive majority, SNAPPAC began in the spring of 2005 as a politically action committee focused on providing financial assistance for students to actively work on progressive campaigns across the country. This effort not only helps cash-strapped campaigns by providing critical and talented campaign staff, but also allows students to gain the experience necessary to run future progressive campaigns.

The media and pundits have done their best to ignore this issue.  Both Obama and Edwards have brought it up during debates but there was never any follow up.  

Very few words seem to sting candidates the same way the yell of "they take money from lobbyists and special interest groups".  It's a battle cry that goes up on the left and the right.  It's a way to out candidates, to accuse them of being sold out.  It shows that they don't listen to the people, they  listen to groups, an those evil people with money.. and Republicans and Democrats both have used the charge in the primaries and local races to tarnish their competitors.  But there is something wrong with this logic.. in many cases, these evil "lobbyist" are merely representing the interest of their members; just as union heads represent their union.  A better logic isn't "they take money from lobbyist" but rather "who do they take money from".

John Edwards asked the question of the night in Las Vegas.

To paraphrase, "What do corporate donors expect in return for donations?"

No matter who you support in this race and who you have donated money to. Chances are there is a lobbyist, PAC or special interest that has given more cash to your candidate than you did. Take a look at the top donors, especially in the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Do you think that Goldman Sacks, Big Pharma and Excelon energy have the same interests that you do? When your candidate gets elected whose calls do think they will be taking?

Clearly not yours...

...below the fold, what might be a novel idea.

I have not posted here in a long time (sometimes life gets in the way of blogging), but this Obama PAC story is, I think, very important.

Recently, Hillary and many of her surrogates have been attacking that Obama's Hopefund leadership PAC has been collaborating with Obama's Presidential campaign to bribe people into endorsing Obama.  They also accuse Obama and his supporters denial that there is any such program as being disingenuous.  They even go so far as to claim it is illegal, despite the fact that other campaign finance officers refute them, the FEC has not seen fit to object to it.

No one has been saying that Obama doesn't have a Leadership PAC.  No one is saying that he doesn't use it to assist Democrats get elected.  Where the disagreement begins is whether he is doing it specifically to bribe other politicians into endorsing Obama over Hillary.

The Washington Post broke the story this morning- Barack Obama's political action committee, Hopefund, has been handing out money to political candidates in the early primary states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. Some of these candidates have endorsed Obama.

FEC laws are clear on the subject- leadership PACs are all fine, well, and good, but they can't be used to subsidize the PAC owner's campaign. If they could, campaign contribution and expenditure limits could be easily circumvented.

So let's examine Barack Obama's contributions to candidates during this 2008 election cycle and see if there are any indications that his use of this leadership PAC is anything other than what a leadership PAC should be- a vehicle for promoting the election of Democratic candidates. Follow me...

Disclaimer: I am the Online Outreach Director for SNAPPAC

Students for a New American Politics PAC is a student organization founded at Yale University in the aftermath of the 2004 election. The lesson that emerged from those disappointing results was that the only way to bring about a progressive majority would be to actively involve a new generation of voters to fundamentally change the political landscape in America. With the goal of critically engaging students in the emergence of a progressive majority, SNAPPAC began in the spring of 2005 as a politically action committee focused on providing financial assistance for students to actively work on progressive campaigns across the country. This effort not only helps cash-strapped campaigns by providing critical and talented campaign staff, but also allows students to gain the experience necessary to run future progressive campaigns.