"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

Of course, the truth of the matter is quite different. In an August 21, 2007 story in the St. Petersburg Times, titled "Obama won’t accept money from lobbyists… or will he?" reporter Lissa August unmasks the hypocrisy of Obama’s stance on lobbyists and the campaign funds they provide.

For example, Obama has said time and time again that his campaign accepts no money from Washington lobbyists or from political action committees (PACs). Unfortunately, Obama has apparently learned the fine art of parsing from the masters of deceit… Bill Clinton ("that all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.") and former Senator John Edwards ("In my entire time in public life, I have never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC...")

We all know about Bill Clinton’s lies. He was impeached by the Congress and disbarred for lying under oath in a court of law. And in the case of former senator John Edwards, he very carefully avoids mention of the fact that much, if not most, of the more than $75 million raised in his two campaigns for the presidency was raised illegally in "bundled" contributions from plaintiffs’ law firms across the country.

It may be true, as Edwards insisted, that he has never taken a "dime" from a Washington lobbyist or a "special interest PAC." He has, of course, taken millions of dollars, but he has probably never accepted a "dime" from his principal supporters, the trial lawyers… making his statement technically true. However, in numerous investigations by reporters and Federal Election Commission lawyers, it has been found that lower level employees of law firms, and their relatives, have been reimbursed for their contributions to the Edwards campaign… an absolute violation of federal law.

In Obama’s case, he has been very careful to say that "his fundraising ban applies to those who are registered as lobbyists of the federal government." This explanation, of course, sounds really good to the legions of screaming sycophants who attend his campaign rallies, but it creates a loophole big enough to swallow Bill Clinton and a truckload of Big-Macs.

For example, Obama reportedly returned some $55,000 received from registered lobbyists in 2007. But Obama has left himself an out. The St. Petersburg Times reports that Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader, who has endorsed Obama and contributed to his campaign, is not technically a registered lobbyist. However, Daschle works for Alston & Bird, a 700 attorney law firm that earned nearly $7.1 million from lobbying in 2006. Obama has received tens of thousands of dollars from other partners at Alston & Bird.

As reported by the Times, the Center for Responsive politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign funding, has found that Obama accepted more than $55,000 from employees who work at lobbying firms but who are not registered lobbyists. They also report that Obama has accepted money from companies that are not classified as lobbying firms but which have lobbying departments.

Voters also need to consider that there is nothing to prohibit spouses of lobbyists from making campaign contributions. For example, Ben Barnes, a top Democratic lobbyist and one of only eight people in the nation who raised more than $500,000 for John Kerry in 2004, has recently contributed to Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson… but not to Barack Obama or John Edwards. However, Federal Election Commission records show that Barnes’s wife, Melanie, gave the maximum allowable to Obama and Edwards on the exact same day that her husband contributed to the other candidates.

But what is truly frightening about Obama’s well-parsed campaign mantra is that he addresses his threats only to "corporate" lobbyists. Does that mean that he would allow only the favored interests of the Democrat Party… public employees, teachers, radical environmentalists, trial lawyers, gays, and lesbians… the constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?

Obama tries to paint himself as something new and fresh in American politics, but it’s pretty clear by now that he’s just more of the "same old, same old." His politics look and smell like the same old "feel good" politics that the Democrats have been peddling since FDR first set foot in the White House.