Others have already told you this, but you legally can't just cut and paste virtually an entire article like that. You should quote just small pieces of it and write your own thoughts about that. You invite legal problems for yourself and the site.

Obama and Edwards are both hypocrites on the issue of lobbyists and special interests.  Hillary needs to call them out on this.

The private jets vs. chartered jets is extremely eye-opening.

Both Clinton and Obama decided from the beginning to use chartered jets instead of taking advantage of a loophole in campaign financing laws. On the other hand, Edwards and almost all GOP candidates had been using their buddies' private jets at an astonishing low rates.

Look at those numbers. Just one quarter, Clinton had to outspend Edwards by almost $700,000 in expenses associated with Chartered Jets.

This is pure corruption.

Who cares what jets corrupt Edwards is flying on. The real gem is that he paid far far less on his buddy's jets than market rates.

This is pure corruption.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sex9-ctI1 PE

Watch and decide for yourself, instead of buying into biased bloggers and reporters' spin.

The Clinton supporters should think twice when it comes to throwing stones at Obama or Edwards when it comes to lobbyist money. They've written the book on that game and then some.

Talk about doing favors for contributors...Hillary is pretty crude about it. Clinton Dealt a Bummer

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Senate colleague Chuck Schumer thought they had safely placed a $1 million earmark for an upstate New York Woodstock Museum in a health and education appropriations bill

The museum, located in Bethel, New York on the site of the 1969 music festival, is the brainchild of billionaire Alan Gerry, a Republican who has donated heavily to both Clinton and to Senate Democratic coffers, which Schumer oversees.

One of the reasons Obama disagreed with Kyl-Lieberman was that it called on Congress to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Key word in that sentence: Congress. The S.970 bill that Obama (and Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer and many other anti-war liberals) supported called on the State Department to designate the IRG a terrorist organization. Obama and others supported the bill (and opposed Kyl-Lieberman)because he has the judgment that Clinton continues to lack: it's the role of State, not Congress, to make that designation.

If anyone's a hypocrite on this issue, it's Clinton, who voted neocon on Iran (Kyl-Lieberman), then stepped back into the anti-war zone (Sen. Webb and her Iowa mailer). Why? Because her hawk maneuver went over like a fart in church with some antiwar voters, so she's doing damage control once again. No wonder she can't chose between the Cubs and the Yankees.

So the talk about S.970 being identical to Kyl-Lieberman needs to stop. They're about as similar as Carmen Electra and Roseanne.

Hillary is not going to get the nomination.  However, the Repukeliscum operatives will pick up all the oppo research they want by just reading anything written by one of these Hillary-bots.

Do you Hillary-bots actually work for Hillary, or are you fully paid by the repukeliscum?

Does anyone here even take areyouready seriously anymore? At this point it's clear he's either a troll from one of the other Democratic candidates trying to make Hillary's campaign look bad or a Republican plant trying to demoralize Democrats. It's shameful, really, that that's the predominating discourse that MyDD's devolved to, instead of the positive candidate support by people like georgep and BigTentDemocrat.

Richardson ridicules Edwards on lobbyists' donations
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNrYv Ai-WwpRBCdw1Ry9fxZ2as4QD8SDRBO80

Richardson said he would support some limits on lobbyists' contributions but said he disagrees with rival John Edwards, who has proposed banning lobbyists from donating to federal campaigns. Edwards also has urged the other candidates to join him in rejecting such money.

"Senator Edwards challenged us all to give back money from lobbyists," said Richardson, a former congressman and U.S. energy secretary. "I thought to myself, OK, I get contributions from the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters. I get money from senior citizen groups ... I get money from nurses and teachers. That's a lobbyist? In my book, those are good people. So you've got to be careful about the definitions."

This is just a stupid as shit diary created to hit Obama and Edwards because the Clinton Iran thing is gaining some steam and won't go away. And seriously, the fact that a few here so quickly came to areyouready's defense demonstrates to me how completely stupid this diary really is. But stupid is as stupid does. That's what momma always says.

The differences between Hillary and Edwards/Obama in regard to lobbyists are simple. When Edwards and Obama revealed their rural policies to help family farmers, they went to rural communities, spoke with family farmers about their concerns and answered questions. When Clinton decided to do something rural, she decided to have a lobbyist luncheons in D.C. (last time I check D.C. was far from rural) with agribusiness giant Monsanto. That is the difference right there. Edwards/Obama listens to regular people concerns. Hillary listens to big corporation concerns. This shows how she will govern as President. She will put big corporation concerns above regular Americans. Next we will hear that Clinton wants to do increase small businesses and mom and pop stores so she will have a lobbyist luncheon with Wal-Mart. That is Hillary's logic right there. If you want to help regular Americans, then you have to cater and please big corporations.

It is truly sad to see presumably kindred spirits, Democrats, trying to confuse people and blowing smoke in diaries like this.

The progressive position on this is simple:  presidential candidates should NOT take money from Washington lobbyists. It is simple. It is easy.  It is progressive.  

And, it is exactly what the American people want. A recent Gallup poll found that 75% of Americans agree that it is unacceptable for a presidential candidate to take money from a Washington lobbyist. Let me repeat that: 75% of the American people believe it is unacceptable for a presidential candidate to take money from a Washington lobbyist.

Do you Clinton supporters disagree with 75% of America on this?  If so, then please explicitly say so.

The sad thing about Clinton supporters putting up smoke screens, and flashing the country with shiny tangential diversions (like other objectionable occupations?), is that Clinton supporters are actively hindering progress.  

I would respectfully suggest that Clinton supporters take a deep breath, pause for a moment, and think about what you are doing: you are advocating a retrogressive position that 75% of America finds unacceptable.

The better course of action, the progressive course of action, is to contact your candidate and suggest she change her position.  If enough pressure is applied, she can and she will change her mind.  If all three of the top candidates present a united front on this issue, the Democratic party will reap the rewards.  Seventy five percent of the the American people want it. And we Democrats should give it to them.  It is right there for us. Only Hillary Clinton stands in the way.