CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 26, 2010 06:54 PM UTC

Barack Obama mocks candidates who work with special interests while promising reform

  • by: StrykerK2

Last election I caucused for Barack Obama.  I voted for Barack Obama.  I did what I could to help elect a man who ran his campaign not through special interest contributions but by people.

As I watched this video of (now) President Obama attack those who promise to clean up Washington but run their campaigns through DC special interests, I could not help but think of our current Senate race.

More after the jump

I hear over and over again that Michael Bennet can take special interest money while fighting the special interests.  I hear over and over again that he’s going to clean up Washington.

Michael Bennet, despite claiming in a campaign video that he’s been cleaning up Washington since he got there, has yet to actually do anything of the sort.  He introduced one piece of legislation regarding lobbyists — a piece of legislation that has gone absolutely nowhere, leading me and many others to believe it was nothing but a smokescreen.  Bennet even made sure to add loopholes so his Chief of Staff Guy Cecil wouldn’t be affected by the “reform.”

Michael Bennet’s campaign is funded by lobbyists and special interests.  Those same DC lobbyists and special interests that our president campaigned against are supporting Michael Bennet.

So to those of you who, like me, fought to elect our president — a man who took a stand against the special interests by rejecting the money that corrupts Washington, take a minute to watch that video again.

I can only think that the same words that Obama used against his opponent apply to Michael Bennet when he says he can take the money and fight against them:

I mean come on — they must think you’re stupid


24 thoughts on “Barack Obama mocks candidates who work with special interests while promising reform

    1. you mean we could have ended up with McCain?  I know — as I said I did what I could to help elect Obama.

      I see a certain irony in Obama’s comments — the same statements he made about McCain apply to Michael Bennet.

    1. I mean Barack has all our backs.  Something about the White House supporting all sitting Senators because he needs our votes on stuff.

        1. Maybe you and I can go knock some real doors sometime before you get destroyed by a Republican because you spend your time on this site instead of campaigning.

    2. Obama supports Michael Bennet. Do you know why? Because Obama was a smart politician then, and he is a smart politician now.

      No, Obama supports Michael Bennet because he picked Michael Bennet.

  1. and FMB has just illustrated the issue quite nicely. The most important conflicting camps in politics, as I see it, aren’t “Democrats” v. “Republicans,” or “Progressives” v. “Conservatives,” or “True-Blue Populist Democrats” v. “Yellow-Dog Democrats,” but rather “Reasonable people of goodwill, and at least a touch of humility, striving to work together to confront the challenges of a complex and subtle world” v. “Blind ideologues more strongly drawn to belligerence than reason, who applaud and repeat whatever is said that is designed to make them applaud and repeat.”

    I don’t know who would be the better senator, or who would have a better chance in the general election, or who is most likely to win the primary, though I have my position on the first two, and make my arguments. And I don’t lash out blindly at those who disagree with me on these matters, because differences of opinion on such matters should not be cause for lashing out blindly. If only everyone in my party had the good sense, and goodwill, to feel the same way. But those who don’t are a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution, no matter what their party registration may say.

    1. I finally live somewhere where my vote counts, a swing state. I joined this site to become more informed about the issues and candidates of my adoptive state. I can’t go to events, speeches, or parties. My links to the issues are necessarily through newscasts, newspapers and sites like these. I hate not being informed.

      I’ve read and participated in the pointless and the profound arguments daily for 2ВЅ months now. The Dems on this site are quick to point and chuckle at the implosion of the Colorado GOP. I only hope the Dems can show we’re better disciplined than they are. No matter who wins this primary, I hope ALL Dems can remember what Party unity looks like.

      I joined this site to find a community…

      1. The guy you are supporting has had every advantage.  We all know incumbency conveys a tremendous advantage.  At least usually you have to get elected to get incumbency.  Not Bennet.

        Incumbency means other politicians feel compelled to support him and PACs and individuals feel compelled to contribute to his campaign.  It would be bad business not to.  And Bennet has the President and OFA.  That means on day one Bennet got the President’s email list, not to mention the mass emails that get sent out on Bennet’s behalf.  Which leads to more money.

        Bennet got a 1+ year head start and the aura of incumbency even if there was no real incumbency.  There is a large group of Dem voters out there who feel Romanoff should have been appointed but lean Bennet because he was appointed.  Bad reasoning if you ask me but they are out there.

        And Bennet has the Denver Post.  Possible White House involvement in the appointment, the intern email, Theresa Pena’s blocking action against full disclosure of DPS’s finances — all non-stories according to the Post.  But Romanoff’s website header and the DPS board member fighting for disclosure …headline news.  There’s a lot of disgrace to go around on the Bennet side of this campaign.  

        The playing field is uneven, drastically uneven.  Bennet would have no chance against Romanoff if the playing field was even.  

        If Bennet loses no Bennet supporter in their right mind could say the election was unfair. So it’s easy for you to preach unity.  You had your cake and ate it too.

        But if Romanoff loses, we Romanoff supporters will feel cheated.  Because we are being cheated.  And the people of Colorado are being cheated.  

        1. If the cows had balls, they’d be bulls.

          If wishes were horses, we’d all be riding.

          And so on.

          Boo hoo.

          Your guy didn’t get appointed and had to run against the incumbent, which is really hard. Really really.

          Even now Colorado D’s are filling in ballots. and in rwo weeks we’ll know who they chose – and whoever it is will by definition  be the people’s choice.

        2. is Bennet’s fault? Bennet didn’t create the atmosphere of incumbency. Are you suggesting that if Romanoff had been appointed he would have turned down all the help or advantages that comes with being an incumbent? No president’s e-mail list? No endorsements from other Washington politicians? I know you think Andrew is this White Knight but gimme a fucking break. If he were the incumbent he would snatch any advantage he could. Or he wouldn’t be the incumbent for long.

          I actually agree that there are many Dems out there that think Romanoff should have been appointed but are going to support Bennet. It doesn’t surprise me that you find party loyalty, or job approval, or disappointment in Romanoff as “bad reasoning”. Your idea of “bad reasoning” seems to be anyone who doesn’t fall in line behind your precious Romanoff.

          As to whether the race was “fair” or “unfair” seems rather subjective. And pointless. If my guy loses I will certainly be very disappointed as he’s done a remarkable job on behalf of Colorado. I may even spend a few days being angry and then maybe sad.

          Then I’ll become resolved. While I will in no way donate money to Romanoff, I will do my best to get the word out to get him elected. As ineffectual as I think he will be as Senator (in relation to how super awesome and powerful he says he will be) at least it’s better than the harm a Republican will cause.

          My problem with rabid Romanoff followers like yourself is this “on the cross” martyr mentality. Romanoff felt cheated cause he wasn’t picked. He needs to get over it and so do you. Seriously. Is one man’s pride so important that Romanoff supporters would let someone like Buck or Norton take the seat? Is one man’s pride so important they would let Andrew’s work in turning Colorado blue be undone? Cause losing the Senate seat to a Republican would be the first step back.

          Get off the fucking cross. Someone needs the wood.

    2. But the problem is you don’t know what they mean.  I have plenty of goodwill.  I am outraged by the gross injustice of the Bennet appointment.  I care deeply about the democratic institutions of this country and it absolutely disgusts me to see a mockery be made of them.

      So please spare us your pseudo-intellectual lectures on goodwill.

      1. constituted a “gross injustice”? Was it the fact that it was Bennet that was appointed? If so you really need to realign what you consider a “gross injustice”.

        Or do you have issues with appointments in general? Is so, how do you propose the filling of vacant seats?

      2. how has a mockery been made of our democratic institutions? Our governor appointed a senator, according to law, and that appointee must undergo the electoral process at the next senatorial election, according to law. We are having a primary process, according to law, with one faction in the party supporting the appointee as their preference, and another faction supporting a primary challenger. None of that has to be rancorous, angry, and disparaging. There’s no need for bluster and spittle. There’s no need for the ill-will that your post proclaiming your goodwill demonstrates.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

58 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!