interests. they do not run my campaign. they will not run my white house. and they will not drown out the voices of the american people when i'm president of the united states of america. >> here he is ten days later, doubling down. >> i will take power away from the corporate lobbyists who think they can stand in the way of these reforms. i've done it in illinois. i've done it in washington. >> but by his first full day in office, mr. obama had already started backing off, partly because it's really hard to get things done without washington beltway insiders on board. so he unveiled what you might call a lobbyist unleashes plan. >> if you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. when you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as i am president. >> and by and large, he has stuck to those rules and also to his promise not to take a dime from lobbyists. but keeping them honest, it appears that he's only been true to the letter of that pledge, not the spirit of it. in fact, according to the "new york times," the obama campaign has raised more than $5 million from influence peddlers who are lobbyists in everything but name. their fund-raisers are active in the lobbying business, who call themselves consultants or government affairs specialists and boast, as the "times" is reporting, of their ability to "win results for our clients" and their connections with "key decisionmakers." none is a registered lobbyist. the campaign responded by pointing fingers. spokesman ben labolt blogging, "the only policy that mitt romney, rick perry, and the republican candidates running for president have when it comes to d.c. lobbyists is that they want to raise as much money from them as they can." he goes on to say, "it's noteworthy that on the same day the times story ran the "washington post" ran a story with the headline "lobbyists pour money into the romney campaign." and ben labolt is correct. the other campaigns do take money from lobbyists, lots of money. it's perfectly legal. and so is what the obama campaign does. the question is, and that you can judge for yourself, is the president being true to his word? with now is chief white house correspondent jessica yellin. also on the phone is eric lishblow, who wrote the "times" article. eric, you say yourself president obama isn't doing anything illegal here but his attempt at a transparent administration, i guess some would say it's backfired a little bit on him. >> right. there's definitely a disconnect between the public rhetoric, which as you played, has been very, very harsh from the president in condemning lobbyists, and what we're now seeing is happening out in the field, where you have people who are in the lobbying business and are raising huge amounts of money for president obama. >> jessica, how's the campaign responding to all this? we saw the thing from labolt. >> in addition to digging the republicans who are taking gobs of lobbyist cash, anderson, they make the claim, which should sound familiar by now, that the president, they say, led the way in this disclosure, that this has been a cause for him since his days in the illinois state legislature. and jay carney, the white house press secretary, says this is the most transparent administration in history. now, that claim is a keeping them honest for another night. but here's another question the truth is the president says he won't accept money from lobbyists at a accompany. so then he accepts money from their vice president of operations at that company. does that really lessen the influence of that company? >> do you see the white house adjusting -- does the president then change his rhetoric when it comes to lobbyists? probably not. >> oh, gosh, no. that's an essential part of his brand. and they have fought this charge in the past. and they maintain that they are so much cleaner than the republican opposition, that they will stay with this rhetoric and with this position straight through 2012. it's a great contrast, in their view, to the much more money that the republicans do take from registered lobbyists. so, no. >> eric, not all lobbying is bad. it's got a bad -- you know, a bad reputation outside washington. but i mean, there's a lot of lobbyists who are necessary. >> sure. and that's the gripe you hear from a lot of lobbyists for human rights groups, for non-profit groups, for universities, that the president has sort of painted them all with this evil corporate lobbyist tag when perhaps they don't all deserve it. >> has the -- do you think it's backfired on the president in terms of being able to get things done in washington, eric? >> well, i think there are people who will tell you that he has -- he has limited himself by not allowing lobbyists to work in his administration. you're draining the pool of a lot of experienced people. you're taking a lot of people out of the mix right away who would probably be valuable assets. i've talked to any number of people who wish they could serve in this administration but cannot. you know, it's a plus and minus. he, as jessica said, has held up his -- the transparency and high ethical standards of the administration. he's probably made it a little more difficult to operate at the same time. >> eric lichtblau, fascinating article. thank you. jessica yellin as well. digging deeper with democratic strategist james carville and republican consultant alex costianis. jim, you say you're not shocked by this news at all. why? >> no. because one thing is the republicans are not going to attack him on it. the only people that are going to bring this up are people in the media. and as you pointed out, he's sort of complied with the letter of what he said he was going to do. and some of the things he's done have been actually sort of significant. but i'm not shocked. there's no way to -- that this can happen. what we used to do back in '92, we took -- our campaigns were publicly funded. we got like $70 million or $72 million the night you were nominated. and then that was broken in 2000. i won't go black to blame bush. but i think he was the first one to do that. now no one takes the public money. i don't know why you couldn't run for president on $72 million. >> do you agree with james this is not something republicans are going to be able to raise? >> oh, i don't know about that. i think they will raise it, because i do think it matters. generally james is right, though. they care more about the trillions the president spends on things than the billion he might raise for his own campaign, even if it's from special interests and all of that. but this goes to the core of obama's brand, i think, as jessica astutely pointed out. he ran as a -- i'm going to be a different kind of candidate. i'm going to reject the old politics. i'm going to change washington. and the question now is has he become part of what he was sent here to change? it goes to who is this guy. because you've now seen him taking a lot of money from wall street. a lot of money from k street lobbyists. the solyndra problem where there are questions of special favors and special interest there. so, who is barack obama? is he the same president who says he's going to spend more while we're going to reduce the deficit? there's a lot of ambivalence to this man. >> james, do you think that's fair? >> well, first of all, i have no recollection of saying in this conversation that people cared more about the trillions he spent than the millions that he raised. but maybe somebody heard something i didn't. >> i took a slight liberty with that, james. >> okay. all right. thank you. i appreciate that. secondly, i do think people care about the intersection of money and politics. i think this is becoming an increasingly big issue, and i think it's -- i don't know where it ranks on the scale, but i think it's ranking increasingly up there. but again, is this a fair kind of observation to make? is it fair for eric to write the story in the "new york times"? is it fair for us to bring it up? sure, it is. you know, it also goes -- i think that, you know, probably during the campaign, what is a lobbyist? you've got to define it. if you're registered, are you a lobbyist? if you work in a firm that -- it's kind of an elusive definition that we're dealing with here. and probably it's the kind of thing when people do this, we should seek some kind of clarification of what their definition is. >> alex, obviously -- >> anderson -- >> sorry. obviously, mitt romney isn't shying away from taking money from lobbyists. is there a place for lobbyists in presidential campaigns, alex? >> well, i think one of the symptoms, when you have a government that reaches into every part of your life, whether it's a health care company or whether it's a foundation that wants to help kids, everybody wants a voice in their future. and the washington policies that shape them. and so that's why you're seeing more people lobby in washington because government's gotten so huge, it's intruding in every part of life. if you really want to diminish lobbying, special interest lobbying, reduce the magnet, which is the size and power of government. but right now, how can you attack any american for trying to make their voice heard in washington any way they can? >> alex castellanos, james carville, appreciate it. up next on the occupy wall street protests, late word on the iraq vet who was hurt in oakland. michael moore joins us to talk about the movement and why he thinks capitalism no longer works. later, in the michael jackson death trial, a crucial doctor for the defense. what he said on the stand today about why dr. conrad murray is not responsible for giving jackson the dose of drugs that killed him. a lot of patients are using toothpaste to clean their dentures. you really want to be careful, you can't use something as abrasive as a toothpaste because it will cause scratches. as a result of those scratches, bacteria will get lodged in that denture and as they multiply in the mouth the odor can get stronger. i always advise my patients to use polident. it has specific agents in it that can kill bacteria. using polident daily, you definitely will not be creating the scratches. you're going to have a fresh bright smile, and you're going to feel confident. fortunately... there's senokot-s® tablets. senokot-s®. for occasional constipation associated with certain medications. now you can save big on senokot-s® tablets! go to senokot-s.com. so i wasn't playing much of a role in my own life, but with advair, i'm breathing better so now i can take the lead on a science adventure. advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator, working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. if you're still having difficulty breathing, take the lead. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. the occupy wall street movement in lower manhattan went north today. an offshoot called occupy the boardroom, marching on five major banks in midtown manhattan, delivering thousands of angry letters, inviting morgan stanley's ceo to lunch. a spokesman politely declined and the head protester politely shook his hand. back in lower manhattan, the fire department removed a number of generators and fuel containers this morning. snow is in the forecast for tomorrow. the protesters say they will stick it out. meantime, a new development in the case of scott olsen, an iraq war vet who was badly injured, allegedly by a police tear gas canister on tuesday at the occupy oakland protest. a veterans group today called for an official investigation. filmmaker michael moore is with protesters in oakland. he joins us shortly. we always find a lot to talk about when he's on the program. tonight, i want to get his reaction to a guest we had on last night, wall street ceo peter schiff, who's been confronting and debating protesters on camera. he blames the government for the financial meltdown and says the answer's more free market capitalism and drastically less regulation. we had him on last night with princeton university professor cornell west, who took, obviously, the opposing view. >> i think it's very clear that the occupy movement is very much not about hating any individuals but rather we hate injustice, that we hate obscene inequality. and i think peter would agree that there are human values that are not reducible to market price. there's precious human life that's not reducible to market calculation. and the real question is how do we deal with social justice and market price? there's always a tension there. and that's where the tire hits the road. >> peter schiff, you think these protesters should be angry at washington, not wall street. but washington didn't force financial institutions to invest in credit default swaps or offshore u.s. jobs or give themselves million-dollar bonuses. do you think that any of the anger at banks and corporations is justified? >> no. >> none? >> washington did create that environment. it was the federal reserve that kept interest rates down at 1%. if we didn't have a central bank keeping rates so low, we never would have had all this speculation. we never would have had the mortgage bubble. and in fact, it was freddie and fannie, government-created entities, that were insuring all the mortgages. that was responsible for the bad behavior. you know, the people down there -- >> wait, aren't people responsible for their own bad behavior? aren't companies and individuals supposed to be responsible rather than just blaming government for bad behavior? >> well, look, if the government liquors you up and now you're drunk and you do stupid things, i mean, you've got to understand why wall street made all these mistakes. remember, i was there for years, warning about these problems. i saw this crisis coming from a mile away because i saw how government was distorting the market. >> pretty good chance michael moore also disagrees with that. he's a social activist, filmmaker, recent author of "here comes trouble: stories from my life." we spoke shortly before airtime for the big "360" interview. >> we saw the crackdown there, he saw the veteran who was injured. how are things now? >> there are, first of all, no sign of police presence. they have completely backed down, which is an amazing thing to see. just two days later, the people are in control of their city hall and the grounds around it and they're not being abused for peacefully assembling, which is their constitutional right. so i was very happy to see the situation here today. >> where do you see this movement going? i mean, there are some who say, well, look, the cold weather's coming, it's going to start to snow, it's going to snow in philly tomorrow, maybe in new york. where do you see this occupy movement going? >> the snow and the winter is not going to stop the collective anger of tens of millions of americans who have suffered as a result of the economic policies of corporate america. if you think a little bit of snow or cold weather -- i mean, i think it will only harden people's resolve, frankly. i think everyone is prepared for the long haul, if it is a long haul. i'm hoping for actually a short haul, because when tens of millions of people speak up and they get up off the sofa and leave the house and participate in their democracy, you know, the top 1%, they only get 1% of the votes. they try to buy the rest of the votes. and they've been pretty successful at doing that. but you know, when the curtain closes, they can't put their hand on my hand to pull the lever. those top 400 richest americans who have more combined wealth than 150 million americans combined, 400 have more than 150 million combined, they can have all the money they want. but as long as our constitution is still in effect, they only have one vote. and that is the good news to this movement. >> but where does it go in terms of -- we saw early on, the tea party eventually fielding candidates, eventually having a big impact on the republican party and continuing to. does -- i mean, do you expect to see candidates from this movement, you know, rising up? do you expect to see an impact on the democratic party because of this? >> yeah. this movement is so beyond just hey, let's get behind this candidate, get them elected to office. those days are over. you know, we've all worked for candidates. we've all voted. we've all participated. and what have we gotten out of it? we've all written to our congressmen and women, please pass house bill number 3428. where did we get? where are we? we're in the worst shape we have been, this country, that i've seen in my lifetime. and so this movement is not concerned right now with candidates or specific bills in congress. we're -- our first job right now is to build this mass movement, which is building -- this is what's so great about it -- on its own. you know, we don't have to go and spread the seeds of this. the seeds are everywhere. they've been spread by bank of america and citibank and chase and goldman sachs. they've created this movement really. and they -- i hope if any of them are watching right now, if they're sitting there in new york or wherever, connecticut, i hope they're thinking about how they overplayed their hand. if they had just been just a little bit greedy, like they always were, as long as people, you know, had a job and they could have a roof over their heads and send their kids to college, nobody really put up much, you know, fuss about it. but being a little greedy wasn't enough. they had to go the full monty. they had to try and get everything. and i think that's what did it. that's what organized this. >> last night on the program, we had a really interesting debate between cornell west, professor cornell west, and a businessman named peter schiff, who actually had gone down to the protests in new york. i just want to play you a little soundbite from something peter schiff said and just have you respond to it. >> peter, one thing we haven't seen a lot at occupy wall street protests is wall street businessmen like yourself going down there. what are you trying to accomplish in doing that? >> well, you know, i sympathize with the situation that they have. but i'm trying to help encourage them to direct their anger toward washington. you know, it's big government that has wrecked the u.s. economy, not capitalism. they need to understand that. and if they really want a bright future for this country, it's capitalism that's going to provide it, not government. >> what do you think he does not get? >> oh, my god. wow. wow. that's -- that's such a huge disconnect. i'm afraid anything i would say would be just too mean. and -- >> i'll tell you, professor cornell west said he needed both to sit down with him over coffee and cognac because it would require that to kind of come to some sort of understanding. >> yes. yeah. yes. i think so. i think what he doesn't, mr. schiff doesn't understand, is that the reason we're not occupying congress or d.c. right now is because the congressmen and the senators are the employees of wall street. they work for wall street. they're funded by wall street. and they do the bidding of wall street an