MyDD :: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland

BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland - Please UnRec

by Falsehood, Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST

Update [2008-7-18 19:38:55 by Falsehood]: - Please Un-Recommend. The other diary is off this list, this one doesn't need to stay up and take up space. Update [2008-7-18 21:27:22 by Falsehood]: - Ironically, the diary has actually moved higher up on the rec list since the first update. Let that be a lesson to those who think they can game the rec list - I can't game myself off of it.

Hello All,

First, let's have a little background here:

Max Cleland was a Georgia Senator who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam. In the 2002 Senate elections, he lost to Saxby Chambliss, who ran ads with Osama bin Laden against him. Ann Coulter also claimed he lost his limbs while drunk with buddies, which was completely false.

That moment was when I lost all respect for Ann Coulter.

In the same way, I'm quite unhappy with the rec list diary on Obama's "shunning" Max Cleland.

Quote the diary:

...former U.S. Senator Max Cleland was disinvited from appearing with Obama at a fundraising event due to his alleged lobbying activities.

Fact: Senator Cleland, who has my highest respect, is a Federal Registered Lobbyist.

The Obama campaign has a clear policy here: No lobbyists.

As we all know, some lobbyists do good work. Many organizations that folks here give to probably have lobbyists. However, we all know that most of the country doesn't have a clue who Max Cleland is. To invite him with that knowledge is a dumb political move.

The Politico entry also says this:

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.

Note the present tense. I'm sure Cleland did some lobbying work in the past, and his status is clear. Otherwise, there would be no point to register him.

Max Cleland was my Senator, but the Obama campaign was right to disinvite him. It's not shunning; it's self-discipline.

Tags: Cleland, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 46 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 8)

I shunned that diary. Unfortunately, others did not.

by Dog Chains on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 1)

And I am one of the guilty ones.

I didn't rec'd it, but I did respond, making the some of the same points that Falsehood has made in this diary.

by Susan from 29 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 4)

Thanks for clarifying. Let's get that stupid other diary off the rec list. I'll put a link in

Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain

by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:45:43 PM EST

Shun the nonbeliever! (none / 0)

by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:46:37 PM EST

Lame old video (2.00 / 1)

Lame old 'cult' allegation

May called and said it's over. So did June

Wake up, troll. It's nearly August

Better insults please

Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain

by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lame old video (2.00 / 3)

dude. I think that was snark.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Must be the heat (none / 0)

broke his detector.

by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:55:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it's the snark (none / 0)

It was so last month

And the trolls are out tonight.

And they're still in February

Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain

by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol wut (none / 0)

lighten up man.

by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol wut (none / 0)

Sorry JJE. Just was on the other Cleland diary where the old kool aid accusations are still in play.

You've lapped reality with your snark I'm afraid.

Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain

by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no worries (2.00 / 1)

by JJE on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 4)

Rec'd for spreading the truth about the situation.

by NewOaklandDem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM EST

As far as I know (2.00 / 4)

Cleland was a lobbyist as early as July of last year, as this article makes clear.

It's unlikely that he's quit that job between then and now, and if he has, it's very recent.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:50:41 PM EST

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 2)

Off topic but --

It took you THAT long to lose all respect for Ann Coulter?

You're much more forgiving than I am :-)

And I mean that in a joking way, of course :-)

by Raumfahrer on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:01:39 PM EST

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (none / 0)

I wasn't paying so much attention then :D

by Falsehood on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 4)

Well done. The faux diary is off the rec list.

MYDD has been saved for another weekend.

Who would have thought this two months ago?

This is now becoming quite a sane and interesting place to be

(Though apologies to JJE for mistaking his brilliant troll impersonation for reality)

Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain

by duende on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:02:24 PM EST

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 2)

Here's hoping the trend towards sanity continues.

by Susan from 29 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 1)

Thank you very much...

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:26:20 PM EST

Re: BO did not "Shun" Max Cleland (2.00 / 2)

Just a note...
You might want to take the time to write out the word Obama.
BO is a reference most commonly found in places like noquarter.
Now if you refer to John McCain as JC...then cool.

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:54:09 PM EST

How is it not shunning? You give no rebuttal (2.00 / 1)

In fact you've reinforced the case. Cleland the Lobbyist is persona non grata. How is this not "shunning"?

Cleland is shunned, and it's in keeping with announced Obama policy (in fact, the only announced policy on which we are to hang our hopes of a New Kinda Politics).

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:44:15 PM EST

Re: How is it not shunning? You give no rebuttal (2.00 / 1)

Rebuttal? Easily done:

Campaign with him but don't fundraise with him. Ta-da!

Not hard at all.

Alternatively: Cleland de-lists himself as a Federal lobbyist.

If the Obama camp is going to set out its principles it would be dishonest not to follow them. Had his people allowed Cleland to attend a fundraiser it would have been decried as hypocritical.

Those decrying it would have been right. No lobbyists means no lobbyists not just "no lobbyists I don't like."

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is it not shunning? (1.00 / 1)

Glad to hear you endorse the shunning of Cleland. Very sensible.

by ottovbvs on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is it not shunning? (none / 0)

Lobbyists are shunned.

Some lobbyists are good people, who work for good causes. The Obama campaign can't get into the business of which lobbyists are good/bad - that defeats the entire stance.

by Falsehood on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Folks can parse this anyway they want .... (none / 0)

but the fact of the matter is Cleland is a Democrat, he is a Veteran who deserves more form his leaders, and he was 'disinvited' because (gasp)he's a lobbyist for causes for (gasp again) Veterans health issues.

'Lobbyists are people too' (really THEY ARE), they just can't be 'on stage' with Obama. This is trashy. And I support Obama.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:38:22 PM EST

Re: Folks can parse this anyway they want .... (none / 0)

I take your point. I'm not blowing you off, but I've gotta say:

I highly doubt Obama knew about this.
An inconsistent execution of the "no lobbyist" rule will rightly be attacked as a joke.

It sucks. I'm a huge fan of Max Cleland. This should have been handled better.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a clerical error being turned into (none / 0)

a "scandal" because:

a/ Cleland is a well-liked Democrat, and

b/ He's handicapped.

I venture to guess that if it was only "a" then there would be no story here at all. The fact that those who started it and want to propogate it use his handicap as a justification smacks, to me, of opporunitisitcally and cynically exploiting his handicap for their own political purposes. Which is, precisely, the kind of abuse of a handicapped person's handicap that is being implied in all of this.

Tissue Regeneration Technologies did not mention former Senator Cleland's disability in their press release announcing his position as Senior Advisor with him just less than a year ago - and it would have been pertinent there, unlike here - because they knew it would be an asnine and condescending thing to say! Obviously, the people who know and work with the man have more respect for him than those who would use him as a tool to harm his party's presidential candidate.

However, the press release from July 27, 2007 would raise questions about his position as a lobbyist:

Senator Cleland's primary role will be to serve as the company's liaison to both the government and healthcare communities on behalf of its advanced wound and cardiac care technology.

-chris

Donate!

by chrisblask on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0)

Why was Cleland invited in the first place?

by kingsbridge77 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:04:50 PM EST

Re: Question (none / 0)

Someone didn't do a proper background check.

by Falsehood on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:11:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

Sort of like with McClurkin, but he was never 'disinvited', no matter how much folks protested.

Veteran? 'Disinvitable'.

Bigot? 'NOT disinvitable'.

Smells to high heaven, and I fully intend to vote for Obama, but I don't like this one bit.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:32:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

Agree entirely emsprater and I can't wait to vote for Obama. What ticks me off is all the snotty nosed little apparatchiks here trying to justify what was not only a breach of commonsense but good manners. Characteristically, Cleland showed a ton more class than they did by his denial of being upset over the incident. These people have no grace whatever, you have to wonder what their parents taught them.

by ottovbvs on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

I appreciate your kind characterization of me.

You're completely correct that it was horrible manners, and that Obama owes Cleland an apology. The screw-up was in the initial invitation.

by Falsehood on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.