>>>>>>That sounded great during the election, didn't it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there a context for this?
>>>>
>>>>That's funny :o)
>>>>
>>>>Oh that's right, I forgot that you voted based on gut instinct and ignored Obama's speeches and promises. :o)
>>>
>>>No need to be a wise**s. I do know he promised there would be no lobbyists in his administration, and believe any appointees also had to agree not to become a lobbyist for longer than the usual period after leaving. What I was asking Mike was why he started this thread. Sounds like the pledge may have been broken but Mike gives no clue how. Hence my question to him.
>>
>>
>>From the liberal side of the press (so you don't immediately ignore)..
>>
>>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898&page=1
>>
>>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/obama_softens_ban_on_hiring_lobbyists/
>>
>>Effectively..
>>
>>I promise no lobbyists in my administration.
>>
>>Well..
>>
>>Except him..
>>
>>And him...
>>
>>And those guys..
>>
>>And.. well.. I'm not going to be keeping many (any?) promises, so why not.
>>
>>Barack Hussein Obama...
>
>Please see my reply to Tracy just now. I still don't know why Mike C. started this thread today. Something must have happened but I'll be darned if I know what.

Maybe because a lot of the media just jumped on the bandwagon during the past 2 days?

Today:
http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-lobbyists-i-cant-quit-you-090129
Yesterday:
http://www.examiner.com/x-1969-Boston-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m1d28-Obama-flipflop-on-lobbyist-ban-is-good-news-for-Bostonbased-military-contractor
which looks like a reprint of:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html