Yawn.

Boy, you guys are really reaching for anti-Barack stories. I guess that's they are starting to call ABC the Hillary Broadcast Company.

I wonder what it is about the word FEDERAL you don't understand. I am sure you will keep looking for a Federal Lobbyist. Call me when you find it ...till then. Non story

Yeah, I think every time I hear Obama speak about not taking money from lobbyists, he specifically says FEDERAL or DC lobbyist. This is not hypocritical at all, he only points out that he has made historic strides in ethics of his campaign. Not taking money from fed lobbyists is much, much farther toward ethics than any other politician has ever come. All the "dirt" that people come up with on Obama is not even dirt. ESPECIALLY compared to any other elected official. Obama may just have to do something bad in order to keep his campaign interesting and keep the people watching ;) BSmith is right, "Yawn."

Is this lobbyist lining Obama's pockets or does he give advice on the Gay Community in Chicago and their needs, from your article I don't see that it's a federal organization.
Since he isn't out to recruit him I am wondering what the problem is?? It isn't like this is a Big Pharma Co, Big Energy or even Insurance -- those are the lobbyists we should be very wary of.
Look at all the wives that work for Pharma Lobbyists including Joe Lieberman's own wife ----

FEDERAL lobbyists---FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL--people that have influence in Washington. What part of that don't you understand?

Non-story. YAWN.

Insanity has become ABC news. How can you justify a headline as inflammatory and misleading as this and still consider yourselves to be a serious news organization. Keep it up, and the mainstream of America will see through your propaganda and shove you downstream!

Why not just say?

1. Obama hates lobbyists unless they are for the gay agenda!
2. Obama is a hyprocrite and does it more than once (just look at this last article that is as flimsy as this one!).
3. Obama lies on his website. He's a lobbyist not a community activist!

Instead of reporting the facts:

1. This guy is NOT a federal lobbyist which is the only item Obama has been attacking. The headline fails to point that out.

2. This guy is listed as a community activist because that is his work that is relevant for work being done on this committee/team.

3. "This is not the first time that.." Your story referenced doesn't state how controversial your assertions were!

I'm an undecided voter, but i haven't a clue how i'm suppose to trust anyone at this point. I only will listen to the candidates themselves!

And here's another strike against Hillary's attack on Obama about nukes:

NEW YORK -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention _ possibly even a nuclear strike _ to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

Seriously, can ABC not comprehend English or even simple concepts? State lobbyists don't lobby the federal government, they don't lobby senators or the white house! Seriously, how pathological is your anti-Obama binge? Look at how the lead is buried saying "he is not a federal lobbyist," which completely undermines your inflammatory headline. I suppose asking for any kind of correction or admission of error is moot, as Drudge-style journalism continues to "rule your world." Simply ridiculous.

Who's minding the store at ABC News? This is a rank example of journalistic imcompetence. Plus, it has all the marks of a Clinton PR Flack.

Look, Obama DOES NOT TAKE MONEY FROM LOBBYING ORGANIZATIONS. Stop trying to fool the American public.

Hillary is not saying anything just critizise people. What she is saying ? What she is bringing new here ?????????????

why is it that the press insists on reporting things before they have the real facts. Like looking up the word Federal.
I suggest that instead of spending your time trying to find ways to trash Obama you should do your job and stop being Hillary's poodle by actually asking why she doesn't have any policy, why she has a union buster for an advisor and her love of outsourcing.

I am a registered Democrat but I will never, ever vote for Hillary. She exemplifies the things I hate most about politics. I will vote third party or not vote at all if she is the Democrat nominee. It is pathetic sickening shame.

He DOES accept money from PACS, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. His U.S. Senate campaign committee so far has raised $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs. ABC chose not to report this, while another national news outlet did.

So what if he has a Lobbyist advising him? He's still not accepting donations from any lobbyists.

He used to. He said that after he was in the senate for a bit, and saw how much power the lobbyists have, he stopped accepting their money. So now he doesn't.
Good. But i Don't see what the point of this article is....Obama isn't allowed to talk with people who have had lobbying jobs?

That's just dumb.

Maybe hes confused about what a lobbyist is or does. Since hes been elected to the senate, hes been out campaigning for president. He hasn't set foot in the capitol long enough to see a lobbyist.

BTW, i am still undecided, but the more i check the facts, and the more i see campaigns twisting the truth, the less i like Hillary, and the MORE i like Obama, Biden, and Edwards.

Why doesn't ABC rename itself the Bilary channel? Your headline is very misleading about Senator Obama's relationship with the lobbyist. The lobbyist is an advisor to him with very specific skills. The Senator is not receiving money from him.

You did good work in identifying the specific work that Mr. Michael Bauer does. I await the same depth and breadth of investigation for all of the candidates involvement with federal lobbyists and PACS. I am especially interested in the earmarks of Senator Clinton. CNN had requested them from all the candidates and Senator Obama submitted his, but the junior NY Senator has not.

These are two legitimate stories which you could report without adding twists and innuendoes to attract the reader. You would be providing an h-o-n-e-s-t
article and give the American voter accurate information as we decide who is best prepared to become president.

ABC is demonstrating why it's so important that we have lobbyist reform... Now they're controlling the media spin. This is scary!!!
I'm afraid I'll go to sleep and wake up with "Big Brother" and a "Stamp" on my forehead.

After we take the White House back for the people, let's work on our media outlets, otherwise all we'll have is the Internet.

Fact: The Center for Responsive Politics (google it) found that Obama so far has raised $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs.

Fact: ABC reports that Obama does not accept money from federal lobbyists or PACS. (HOW MUCH MORE PRO-OBAMA CAN YOU GET?)

Fact: Whether a lobbyist is "federal" or not makes no difference because THE MONEY STILL GOES TO THE CAMPAIGN.

Obama is trying to picture himself to be clean when facts suggest otherwise. Are these pro-Obama supporters really so dumb and gullible to believe him that he hasn't accepted any money from lobbyists? What about the Rezco land deal? The unpaid parking tickets? It would be a shame to have him as President. No way Jose !

People, wake up! you are being kept occupied with non issues while the government is robbing you blind. As long as there is loot in Washington, there will be people trying to get that loot. Someone will! No amount of reforms will help. We have to stop the GOV from looting us and we have to stop ourselves from wanting to get the loot. We can spend our money much better if we just keep it in our pocket to begin with. Only Ron Paul is dead serious about ending the looting.

Boy, you guys are really trying to dig deep. First of all, you must be referring to the Chicago Public Relations firm Res Publica, of which Michael Bauer is an employee, as well as a volunteer member of Barack Obama's all volunteer LGBT Leadership Council, and just so happen's to be registered with the State of Ill. as a lobbyist, which of course is necessary in order to represent his clients in the state legislature. As to the Australian owned, but Illinois based manufacturing co. that produces chemicals used by farmers in the state, I suspect the couple of farmers left in the state may have had something to do with asking their representative if he might do something to lower costs of goods that they have to purchase. Example Senate Bill 3250IS, temporarily suspending tariffs on imported chemicals. As to PAC money raised, bloggers get it right. His 2003 SENATE Campaign did accept PAC money. His 2008 PRESIDENTIAL bid as of June 27, 2008, as reported by the Federal Election Commission as well as opensecrets.org, which one blogger mentioned, list $58,605,160 from individuals, $4,975 from PAC which is his own Hopefund Leadership PAC used to donate to other candidates, and $302,385 other, mainly from interest paid on deposits. I would suggest that you take a look at Giuliani, Brownback, McCain, Romney, and Paul before trying to use PAC contributions as a slur tactic. Instead of wasting your time trying to DIG up usless drivel, why don't you spend your time to TRY TO DIG UP A VIABLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE !

What a HOOT this non-news article is. Just as ridiculous as the overblown, misrepresented "story" about the Rezko "land deal" so called "scandal" (puh-leez--it involved an entire residential city lot adjacent to the Obamas' house AND the FRONT PAGE Boston Globe "news" that received national coverage that Obama amassed 17 unpaid parking tickets in Cambridge while he was in Law School. Good God...THAT's NEWS? (full disclosure--I probably have that many unpaid Chicago Parking tickets on the floor of MY car, even as I write this. Anyone at ABC want that scoop?)

And, for the people who don't seem to get it--the Center For Responsive Politics link in that Boston Globe Article about Obama taking Lobbyist money is OLD. It gives figures up until December of 2006 -- BEFORE he announced for president and before he returned lobbyist money for the PRESIDENTIAL campaiign.

He never claimed NOT to have taken lobbyist money in previous campaigns. There's No way he would have made it to ANY office without lobbyist money before he became a national phenomenon--his IL General Assembly District was largely poor and he was outside the usual "Daley-Cook County Democratic Machine."

He also raised TONS of lobbyist money in his Hope Fund--which was distributed to boost the campaigns of other Dems in the Midterms. After Bill Clinton, he was the biggest Democratic fundraiser working the money circuit for the midterms.

Politics take money. Lots of money. For the confused here:

Fundraising-- Necessary to the operation of a political campaign.

Quid pro Quo- NOT necessary to the operation of a political campaign--and MUCH harder for 260,000 individual donors to exact than it is for a corporation or a PAC.

There are some arenas where the APPEARANCE of being beyond reproach is JUST as important as actually being beyond reproach.

Yawn. Boring. They actually pay somebody to report news like this? No wonder the economy is crashing more and more.