Sorry for the late linking, but this one is still relevant on the verge of tonight's debate. Here is the top of Tom Brune's story in Newsday on Sunday, subsequent versions of which have been picked up elsewhere and referenced earlier by colleague Riley:
"Last fall, Barack Obama quietly slipped into the Miami headquarters of a major law firm scarred by the scandals of Jack Abramoff, its once-powerful Washington lobbyist who now sits in jail.
"Arriving a little after 10 a.m. on Oct. 1, Obama spent the next three hours schmoozing, speaking in a video conference to branch offices and raising money at Greenberg Traurig, a billion-dollar firm with one of the biggest lobby shops here. Obama has now raised about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees -- nearly half of it at the time of the event -- more than from any of the other top law and lobby firms.
"Symbolically, it was a starkly contradictory event: an appearance by the candidate who crusades most adamantly against lobbyists at the onetime firm of the poster child for out-of-control influence peddling. Public anger over the Abramoff lobbying scandal led Obama to institute the ban on lobbyist money in the first place, an aide said last year.
"Realistically, it shows the fine line Obama draws when he says he does not accept money from lobbyists and political action committees, while raising a stunning $200-plus million overall. Taking funds from lawyers but not lobbyists -- the distinction Obama draws -- is 'hair splitting,' according to League of Women Voters president Mary Wilson."
Doesn't it seem that every claim to moral edge by the major-party candidates in this campaign --or even to a coherent philosophy of any kind -- has the most tissue-thin of foundations? Here is Brune's full story.
Big deal or not?