Obama's Wealthy Donors and Bundlers

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:10:06 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yesterday I wrote about the wealthy donor fundraisers Obama attended in San Francisco last week.

Here's the Washington Post:

[T]hose with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

What's it mean?

[T]he work of bundlers... will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite....The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers.

Several of these top bundlers previously supported Republicans. Some have agendas markedly different from Obama's platform. Take Ken Griffith: [More...]

Kenneth Griffin, a famously private 39-year-old billionaire ... threw his support behind Obama's presidential campaign just as he hired a team of lobbyists to urge Congress to preserve a lucrative tax loophole.

A year ago, Griffin invited Obama to speak to employees of his Chicago hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, and in subsequent months, employees and their families gave the candidate nearly $200,000. Griffin had previously backed Republicans, including Obama's initial U.S. Senate opponent.

To his credit, Obama "resisted Citadel's lobbying push." There are others who might be cause for concern.

Several on Obama's list at least appear to have interests in conflict with his platform. There is the billionaire casino developer who plans to put a slot parlor in Philadelphia; Obama has decried gambling for its steep "moral and social cost." And there is the director of General Dynamics, the military supplier that has seen profits soar since the onset of the Iraq war and that has benefited from at least one Obama earmark.

Obama's campaign does grant access to the bundlers:

Obama's bundlers help make up a more loosely defined "national finance committee," whose members are made to feel part of the campaign's inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings at which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. At one meeting, bundlers urged the campaign to link Iraq war costs with the faltering economy. And they got an advance copy of Obama's Philadelphia speech in which he addressed the incendiary remarks of his longtime pastor.

Obama policy advisers also meet with bundlers and other top givers. The bundlers maintain they want nothing from Obama in return:

"There's nobody with their hand out," [Boston financier Alan] Solomont said. "People are doing this because they believe in this candidate."

Obama has strategically reached out to the bundlers. One story:

Florida investment manager Mark Gilbert flew to Washington to meet with Obama but got only a short evening meeting before the candidate broke off for another engagement.

Obama did not realize that Gilbert had come just to see him, and when he found out, he quickly made amends. Gilbert got a call that night at his hotel. "It was the senator," he said. "He said he didn't realize he was going to have so little time," and he invited Gilbert to breakfast. "I was very impressed that someone trying to build a national team would reach out like that," he said.

At least one wealthy donor is tied to one of Obama's earmarks (more on the earmarks here):

The Chicago contingent also includes James Crown, a director of General Dynamics, the military contractor in which his family holds a large stake. The company has been the beneficiary of at least one Obama earmark, a request to spend $8 million on a high-explosive technology program for the Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The program got $1.3 million.

The descendants of Henry Crown, architect of a great American fortune, James Crown and his family donated more than $128,000 to Obama's U.S. Senate race in 2004. Crown was among the first people Obama approached as he contemplated a White House run.

Bottom line: Obama has done a great job fundraising from small donors. But his support also comes from big donors and the wealthiest of Americans, particularly in the corporate community, many of whom spend lavishly on lobbyists and try to exert influence in Washington.

< Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Speak at NAACP Dinner | Obama Purges 900 CA Delegates, Then Reinstates Many of Them >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Wealthy Donors and Bundlers | 115 comments (115 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

posted this a day or two ago (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Turkana on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:14:34 PM EST

but the full list of bundlers can be found here.

the list is sobering to be sure... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by white n az on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:24:53 PM EST

I would suppose that Clinton would have a similar list of bundlers but it does cast a different light on his campaign themes (and ads), about not taking money from lobbyists but generating his campaign funds from the little people.


You got to look at percentages (none / 0) (#14)
by Korha on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:40:18 PM EST

You can always compare any politician against an ideal and find them wanting. The more salient comparison is between politicians. It's just a fact that Obama is getting almost all of his money from small donations from individuals over the internet. This is far less true for Clinton and not true at all for McCain. Source.

What Obama has done in this campaign in terms of grassroots fundraising is unprecedented and indeed revolutionary, pointing the way towards a new model of campaign finance. Perfect? No. But indeed, I think, good.


a new model? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:12:16 AM EST

What Obama has done in this campaign in terms of grassroots fundraising is unprecedented and indeed revolutionary, pointing the way towards a new model of campaign finance.

Nope, not a new way of grassroots fundraising. The Dean campaign started it with getting small amounts from what were then seen as tremendous amounts of grassroots supporters. Only $50 mil? How quaint it seems .... What's unprecedented is the quantity of money brought in by Obama in the same way as Dean did. All going to the TV networks, the newspaper chains, the radio networks .... now that's change for ya. (/snark)


: The media (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Manuel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:00 AM EST

You make a great point that this funding system enhances the influence of the media. That is not a positive development.

: How much o the $40Million was from small donors? (none / 0) (#116)
by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:57:03 PM EST

That seems to be the issue of this thread. And the campaign is saying it gets its monies from the small donors--and has quiet, subrosa fundraisers for the wealthy and powerful.
What most pols do, right?
Except for how the Obama campaign advertises itself....

You are right. It is far from perfect. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Manuel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:52 AM EST

This new financing system will just bring its own set of problems. Some examples.

Large potential for fraud.

Poll tested conventional candidates.

Advantage to groups that can mobilize a lot of people.

Advantage to candidates with name recognition.

Advantage to candidates with favorable media coverage.

We like it now because it favors our side but it won't always be that way. The Republicans did figure out how to get direct mail to work for them. They will figure this out as well.


Where to start? (none / 0) (#109)
by Manuel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST

It is trivial to create a fake identity complete with credit card. There are tons of credit cards for sale on the Internet that are accepted at many online stores without question. Do you think the campaigs are going to do the checks to figure out where the money is coming from? As long as theu get an email address and a credit card that works, they;ll let it go. I am surprised no enterprising news organization has gone about showing how easy this system is to abuse.

The sweepstakes people have been using mail campaigns for years with what I must assume are reasonable results. Yes, the Internet is cheaper but it is similar in its one to many aspect. The $100/month web site won't do, however. I bet both Clinton and Obama spend considerably more than that. Particularly if you want to do any of the integrety checking and fraud detectuon you talk about. Bandwitdhh is also extra.

My point about name recognition is not based on the past. It is based on the future. When candidattes with name recognition and incumbency figure out how to use this system, they will have a big advantage. Clinton is a good example. If she had been utilizing online fundraising all along (starting early on 2007) she would have raised a lot more money.

My thoughts on this aren't being influenced by the Obama Vs. Clinton race. The 04 Dean campaign is a good example of media coverage damaging a campaign's ability to raise funds online. The support is going to fluctuate based on perceptions.

My preference is for the public to own 100% of the campaigns through public financing. My prefernce is for campaign spending limits. My preference is for a system where cabdidates are not paying money into the pockets of those who cover them. This new system is another Web mirage.

Campaign finance reform is a lot like term limits. Pols will be for it or against it depending on their side of the funnel.


: Scale (none / 0) (#126)
by Manuel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:20:03 PM EST

The Web has made it much easier to commit fraud on a large scale. Plus once I set up the system, I get replication for free. How woould this work? I'd set up 1000 accounts ready to contribute $2300 each. Then I'd go "Pst, Ms. Candidate, I've got a system to get $2,300,000 to your campaign in small amounts over a period of time. It will be untraceable". And once I did it, I could do it for other candidates as well. This is akin to the pc zombie armies hackers set up. It would be a lot harder and time consuming to do that by going to the Post Office. The candidate might not even know about it.
I would concede that media and name recognition affect traditional fundraising as much or more than online fundraising. The better approach is public financing with spending limits which levels the playing field. I notice you did not argue against public financing.
I'd be more worried about fraud in local elections than big national elections. There a small amount can go a long way.

according to that site (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Turkana on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:56:31 AM EST

obama's gotten some $33,000,000 from bundlers. change you can believe in, indeed.


that site hasn't been updated (none / 0) (#108)
by Turkana on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST

but if you honestly believe $33,000,000 comes with no strings, you've certainly found the right candidate to believe in...


clinton's not running (none / 0) (#112)
by Turkana on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:47:59 PM EST

as some transformational figure who is more clean and pure. she's running as a wonk. which she is.


all politicians are dirty (none / 0) (#115)
by Turkana on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:40:54 PM EST

some only pretend to be otherwise. and that 33 million was when he had raised 194 million. which is more than 13.5%. and let's see what that 33 million buys.


: change (none / 0) (#130)
by Turkana on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST

you can believe in, anyway.

Well, no, that's just not a fact! (none / 0) (#69)
by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:59:28 AM EST

The NUMBER of small donations is large, but
the big bucks constitute most of his donations, right?


: I crunched the numbers downthread. n/t (none / 0) (#71)
by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:13:51 AM EST

Source is not accurate (none / 0) (#80)
by wasabi on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:37:20 AM EST

I looked up my zip code and found that my contributions to Clinton were not included because they were under the $200 limit requirement.
Obama may do a better job of forwarding the amounts of small donations on to the reporting agency, but it isn't a requirement until the donation reaches $200.


Hmm. (none / 0) (#105)
by 0 politico on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST

"It's just a fact that Obama is getting almost all of his money from small donations from individuals over the internet"

That's not exactly what the Post article said. He has gotten a larger percentage from small donors. Around half compared to a third for HC and a quarter for JMc.

All told, the numbers for this Democratic Party nomination are staggering, and BO's are most impressive.

What I find curious is the assertion in the article that most (many?) of these large donators and bundlers are not looking forward to an administration posting. Having been in the DC area for over 20 years, I find that a bit odd. If they are not looking for postings, then what exactly are they looking for? And, don't tell me its just a different kind of politician. They certainly have not found one in BO and his campaign.


another role for bundlers... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by white n az on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:21:12 PM EST

Trusted delegates, says Marcy Winograd

Nothing like an exchange of money to build friendships (not that there's anything wrong with money).

Just sayin'

Oh that is too funny (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:27:57 PM EST

I can't believe the HuffPo ran an article like that against their ONE. That article didn't make their guy look good at all. Someone will need to tell me what is said over at the orange place tomorrow.


The funny thing... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by white n az on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:38:49 PM EST

is that Marcy Winograd is an Obama supporter through and through and it's clear that this got her goat.


I know (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:45:00 PM EST

that is what I found so funny. She made him look like he sold out progressive ideas for money. Ouch.


: sold out progressive ideas for money? (none / 0) (#72)
by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:24:36 AM EST

I never realized he had any progressive ideas to sell out.
Perhaps some Obama surrogate can clue us in with a list of progressive agenda that he may have sold out because in my mind, his progressive agenda is conspicuous by its absence.

Her timing is meant to have an impact (none / 0) (#30)
by felizarte on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:31:02 AM EST

on the upcoming primaries. She must be terribly disillusioned.


: Is Marcy one of the purged now invited back? (none / 0) (#120)
by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST

Seems her outing of the story got some pretty fast response from the Obama campaign--now reports are that many of the purged are being welcomed back.
Marcy? Don't know.

Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by facta non verba on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST

Who are the 18 law firms? I assume Sidney-Austin LLP is one. How many of the others are also registered lobbyists?

Citadel Investment Group is a tough shop (they do their homework). Very active traders so at Goldman we were supposed to call their pm's and analysts at least weekly with our ideas. They also I think were the ones who rescued e*Trade.

I am amazed how every one (even Fox News tonight noted that Obama's $40 million haul in March was all online which is patentedly absurb) seems to think all of Obama's money comes from on line and small donors at that.

: Right now most of it does (none / 0) (#19)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:02:23 AM EST

The big donors already got tapped out last year. Obama did I think one or two fundraisers in the entire month of February, and he raised $55 million from 750,000 donors. He didn't do many more last month, when he raised $40 million from 450,000 donors. Source and source.
A similar phenomenon has happened with the Clinton campaign, but obviously not quite as spectacular.

Is it a surprise? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:33:48 PM EST

NO, but will all the yakkers that told us we don't get it, that this is an "agent of change", that this is bottom up, etc. etc. will they see it yet? Or will they still deny it? Will they get crushed and heart broken?

No (none / 0) (#17)
by Korha on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:52:35 PM EST

Campaign finance is clearly an area of divergence for the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Of course Obama has bundlers and raises money from rich people. But Clinton raises a much higher percentage of money from rich people (and federal lobbyists, whose money Obama does not accept). You're missing the forest for the trees. Some stats:

40% of Obama's total cash comes from individuals donating less than $200. 25% comes from people giving the max $2,300. Obama has raised $197 million overall.

20% of Clinton's total cash comes from individuals donating less than $200. 40% comes from people giving the max $2,300. Clinton has raised $173 million overall.

20% of McCain's total cash comes from individuals donating less than $200. 33% comes from people giving the max $2,300. McCain has raised $66 million overall.

Also note that the vast majority of Obama and Clinton's record-breaking fundraising in 2008 has been from small donations. McCain's fundraising has been precisely the opposite.


Call it what you want (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:09:57 AM EST

it's still President for sale. No better than all the other politicians. The difference is that Obama's rich people are the libertarian/republicans and Hillary's are old line Democrats.


So it doesn't matter? (none / 0) (#36)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:36:33 AM EST

If Obama was raising 70% or 80% of his money from rich people, that would be exactly the same as if he were raising 20% or 30%? The less time you need to go around fundraising at $2,300 a plate dinners and the less the traditional democratic fundraising groups matter to your financing, the less you're beholden to their interests.

I also love how you stated explicitly that rich people are the only ones that matter. Like Obama's 1,200,000 small donors mean nothing--or Clinton's small donors, for that matter. If they hadn't come through for her in February her campaign would have been sunk, and don't you think she'll forget that. Contrast both of them with McCain, who like I said has been raising almost all his money this year from people giving the max $2,300 donation limit. Don't you think McCain is going to forget that, either.

How and from where politicians raise their money is hugely important, and if you think otherwise then you're very naive.


HUH (none / 0) (#42)
by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:49:49 AM EST

how did I say rich people are the only ones that matter?


Of course you did (none / 0) (#44)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:00:47 AM EST

You completely dismissed Obama and Clinton's millions of small donors (they're no better than each other or any other politician, they're all for sale, etc.), and then claimed that it's only the rich people they're selling themselves to that matter. What, are you taking that back now?


NO (none / 0) (#45)
by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:08:52 AM EST

I chose to speak about the big ones.


Okay (none / 0) (#47)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:10:29 AM EST

Will you agree with me then that McCain is significantly more beholden to his rich donors than are Clinton and Obama, who have a much wider universe of donors to raise money from and thus more freedom to ignore their rich donors?


NO, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:18:46 AM EST

Cause the rich donors will always have access. No matter how they got there. The lobbies, for example the bundlers, no matter what they unite around will have access. It's not that simple.


: Simple? (none / 0) (#53)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:31:41 AM EST

Lobbyists and companies give money to politicians for a reason, because they hope their money will influence the politicians to adopt an agenda favorable to their interests. The less important that money is to a politician, the less influential those rich donors will be. The more important it is, the more influential they will be.

Bundlers (none / 0) (#39)
by felizarte on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:44:45 AM EST

do "bundle" many small contributors. That's what they do. Executives of large corporations have the advantage because they have access to many employees and clients, and mailing list. What's to stop a bundler from putting in his own funds and just listing a lot of names? No one is looking at the lists and calling up those people listed to verify whether they really contributed or not.

Reports on donors do not identify each small donor whether they contributed directly or through a bundler.


Not really (none / 0) (#46)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:08:57 AM EST

They mostly bundle high-dollar contributions. Nobody's bundling $25 checks to any productive effect, I assure you.

And you want to allege campaign finance fraud, a federally prosecuted offense, then please back up your allegations with something, anything. The campaigns as well the media do check the contributions--things like that get noticed, and the resulting scandals can easily derail a candidacy. For example, Norman Hsu caused Clinton quite a mess last year.

Again I want to stress that almost all of Obama's donations this year have come from small donors over the Internet. Look it up.


You may stress it all you want, but you are wrong (none / 0) (#70)
by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:11:27 AM EST

"Almost all"? Sorry, you've stepped in it there.

According to opensecrets.org, 40% of his donors gave $200 or less. 32% of his donors have given at least $2,300. Of his total dollars raised, considerably less than 40% would be from small donors (those giving $200 or less). If the average donation in that group was $75, (just for illustration) then he raised 4% (FOUR percent) of his money from small donors. If the average donation in that group is $200, then he raised 12% of his money from small donors.

If you classify as "small donors" anyone who gave less than $2,300, then he's raised 70% of his money from those "small donors." I'd find that a funny definition of "small donors," but even being that generous, your claim that "almost all" of his money came from small donors is flat wrong.


Please Educate Me (none / 0) (#79)
by flashman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:33:53 AM EST

If you classify as "small donors" anyone who gave less than $2,300, then he's raised 70% of his money from those "small donors."

But if the maximum donation allowed by law is $2,300, then it should be 100% of donations are this amount or lower. Where is the other 30% coming from?

(sorry, I know you're in the middle of a debate, I don't mean to distract from it)


: Contributions over 2300 (none / 0) (#91)
by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:04:24 AM EST

Are counted in the general. So the current fundraising totals include money that can be spent in the primary as well as money that cannot be spent until the general.
A person can give a max of 4,600 in the election cycle to a single candidate: 2,300 each for the two parts of the campaign.

Yes I'm wrong (none / 0) (#127)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:20:52 PM EST

I overstated the case. Obama still gets a lot of money from max donors. Nevertheless the percentages involved here are illustrative.

The % donor number is the percentage-wise contribution of that group to the total money tally, not the donor base. So, for Hillary Clinton for instance, she got 25% of her money in Jan/Feb from people giving in increments of $4,600, and 23% of her money from people giving below $200, even though there were only 8,000 total max donors to her campaign, a fraction of her total donor base.


So, does the fact Obama counts the purchaser of a (none / 0) (#122)
by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM EST

ticket or button for $5 count in that percentage? Whereas, per a commenter above, the Clinton campaign doesn't charge for buttons?

And is that second part accurate? Are some buttons sold? Or handed out?


bottom line (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by myed2x on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:36:44 PM EST

when considering individual small time contribs by average people across demographics OB has Clinton beat handsdown...now he also rivals in big time contribs, sounds like he's cornering the market all over...,.but of course you're narrow presentation wasn't meant to convey that was it?

Image (none / 0) (#35)
by Davidson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35:08 AM EST

This is about the image he presents as "different," even "transformative." And the fact he constantly talks about how he talks no money from lobbyists--at all--which is a bit of a stretch.

There's a better article on lobbyists and Obama at Harper's: "Barack Obama, Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine." Ken Silverstein wrote it in Nov. '06.


: Thanx for the link! (none / 0) (#68)
by magisterludi on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:31:48 AM EST

I was trying to remember where i read that article on Obama's "stealthy" K Street Project.

: Is this the article? (none / 0) (#123)
by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST

Silverstein, Harper's link to "Barack Obama, Inc."

Bought an paid for... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:02:35 AM EST

...by the little people. Right? Obama is not going to take money from rich people. He has everything he needs coming in from his army of supporters. He doesn't need to cash in. Clinton, now she can't get money from ordinary people, so she needs to take it from rich people.

How much do you want to bet that even after this report the MSM will be promoting Clinton as the "big money" candidate and Obama as the "grass roots" candidate?

Is this an indication that perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by felizarte on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:28:46 AM EST

some 'true believers' in the Obama camp are now feeling betrayed that is why these kinds of information are coming out through the effort of "insiders"? This is not at all flattering to Obama and reinforces the notion that he is not what he says he is.


Statistically speaking she is the big (none / 0) (#51)
by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23:22 AM EST

money candidate, if a higher % of your donations come from a smaller select group of wealthy individuals then congradulations you win the prize. Its funny how no one attacks Obama for anything that you could not make the same or a stronger arguement against Clinton.


Because she doesn't pretend (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:03:36 AM EST

to do things differently than she does. She's up front about everything and you can take it or leave it. You don't have to wonder about where she stands or what she will do if elected.


Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by lambert on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:31:27 AM EST

Whatever's distinctive about Obama keeps melting away (remember when "Unity" really was a buzzword, as opposed to a mockery?). And we're left with the fact that.... Obama's Obama.

Just give me Hillary's bullet points on policy, please.


Please point me to where someone is (none / 0) (#61)
by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:29:11 AM EST

pretending on campaign finance. I've heard no evidence that supports that anyone of the candidates have been dishonest in anyway.


Up front in that interview certainly (none / 0) (#78)
by andrys on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:23:02 AM EST

Here's a transcript of the interview with the Phildelphia Gay News, which would have had press-mention in Pennsylvania, certainly, so I was surprised she was that forthright, and detailed.

I was also startled when she was asked about whether her health care plan might include garnisheeing of wages for those who didn't make payments -- and instead of saying she was looking over several ideas or plans on how to handle this, she just said "Yes" and then added they'd be looking at several options.

Note that Obama's plan is mandatory for children although their parents don't "have to be" covered and no one has asked him how he would get the money if the parents couldn't make the payments.


the best point Clinton made during the debate (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:48:31 AM EST

that truly showed she not only understands the issues, but anticipates the problems down the road, was when she said re: Obama's mandate to only cover children, "What about when the parents get sick?"

Because that is the crux of the problem. Many, many low income parents sacrifice their own health, their own lives, to take care of their children. Heck, many high-income parents do.

Clinton is so immersed in the ins and outs that she knew instantly what the next step to the problem was and how to solve it, even if it makes some people unhappy. Talk about NOT doing the politically expedient thing.


Children with parents w/o health care (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by andrys on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST

Good point.

I saw Elizabeth Edwards (not looking well) talking up Clinton's plan as the one that would work. This is really tantamount to an endorsement, based on issues.


am I the only one who finds it a tad shocking (none / 0) (#93)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM EST

that an endorser (even tacit) is basing their support on issues?


: You're not the only one (none / 0) (#131)
by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:27:21 PM EST

I remember most Bill Richardson not knowing what it was about Obama that made him want to endorse him.

GE (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Davidson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:31:20 AM EST

He'll be exposed during the GE (assuming he's the nominee) and because the double standard at play, in which Republicans get a free pass, the media narrative will present Obama as a hypocrite (even corrupt, considering his ties to Chicago, Rezko) vs. Maverick McCain, a man who battles against lobbyist influence.

So yes it's a good strategy only if he wants to win the nomination, because the longer he presents this false image, the more the hypocrisy will hurt him in the GE.

The new dictionary (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by OrangeFur on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:33:35 AM EST

public financing - getting all of your money from private contributions over half of your money from people contributing over $200, and a third from people contributing $2,300, much of it collected by super-wealthy bundlers.

universal health care - a health care system in which roughly 15 million people will not have health insurance.

not taking money from oil companies - taking large amounts of money from employees of oil companies.

no, they aren't. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by cpinva on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:02 AM EST

He should cut the patronizing and misleading "New Kind of Politician" crap, and run on his own merits, which are still quite considerable.

try as i may, i am at a loss to figure out what merits sen. obama has that might reasonably be described as "considerable", by comparison to sen. clinton. anyone, beuhler, beuhler? c'mon, someone help me out here!

his primary merit, vs mccain, is that he isn't mccain. other than that, he's just another politician, albeit one with far less going for him, of a substantive basis, than most at his level.

beuhler? beuhler? (none / 0) (#82)
by flashman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM EST

LOL!


If he had any merits (none / 0) (#85)
by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:47:27 AM EST

he would have run on them.

He could only be successful in this race, running against this woman, using these words. That is why he has stated he will not run again. Were he running against a more-qualified man, such as Al Gore, for example, he would have been destroyed immediately. His only success has been due to his taking advantage of the media's CDS and misogyny to smear HRC.

He has nothing new to offer but empty sloganeering and the fact that he is not McCain. Which last fact, frankly, is enough to get my vote at this point, but not to win the GE IMHO.


: madamab (none / 0) (#99)
by bodhcatha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:40:10 AM EST

Isn't that the point Gerry Ferraro was making? For which she got called a racist, f**kin whore.

Obama's comment to Emil Jones (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:45:16 AM EST

still resonates with me because it can be applied in so many areas to so many people: "How'd you like to make a Senator?"

To superdelegates, influential state endorsers, big money donors: "How'd you like to make a President?"

The only thing I want to know is what he promised Jones in return for his complicity in getting all meaningful legislation in IL directed across Obama's desk during his Senatorial run. As a result I want to know what Obama might be offering his billionaire boys club in return for their sponsorship.

I don't think it is a leap as a pattern can be inferred by the documented Jones/Obama team-up in IL. I'm sure one poster might disagree.

Yeah I'm concerned how Bill and Mark Penn (none / 0) (#54)
by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:36:53 AM EST

are working to elect a candidate that is against free trade and yet Bill Clinton accepts $800,000 from the organization trying to push the legislation through. And is vocal about his support. And the campaign strategist is then tied to lobbying for it. Of course once the media caught wind a nice little demotion was in order along with a "I don't agree with my husband on everything" speech (but as people say words are meaningless righ). But having two very powerful individuals in your campaign working on the side to make policy happen that you vow you will stop if elected is quite interesting. If we are going to start playing the make up conspiracy game then I haft to say. I believe Hillay deeply supports free trade but in an election year where key swing states oppose it she has changed her message to support it. Every action I've seen so far from Clinton supports this. I have hear her words and a recollection of someone once saying behind the scenes she was opposed to it. But actions speak louder then words.


Hillary felt NAFTA was 'Republican economics' (none / 0) (#81)
by andrys on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:37:59 AM EST

Here's a story by Sam Stein for Huffington Post quoting former advisers on this in Bill Clinton's presidency.

[extracts from Stein's article]
Indeed, as [Mickey] Kantor [former Secretary of Commerce and free-trade advocate] went on to note, Hillary Clinton long held reservations over the labor and environmental fallouts of the free trade agreement . . .
Carl Bernstein, another Clinton biographer, echoed much the same tale during a recent appearance on CNN.
"'Bill,'" he recalled Hillary Clinton as saying, "'you are doing Republican economics when you are doing NAFTA.' She was against NAFTA. And if she would somehow come out and tell the real story of what she fought for in the White House and failed in a big argument with her husband she would end up moving much closer to those [John] Edwards followers."

: anyone who is strictly against free trade (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:03:07 AM EST

is a moron, in my opinion only.
Hillary AND Obama have it right, NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO need to have parts of their charters rewritten and to have the rules of the agreements be enforced by all members.
However, Hillary is saying just that. Obama, when he speaks on NAFTA et al, is suddenly absolutely against them--which doesn't jibe with his actions in the Senate--of course the only time he has been deadset against free trade was while campaigning in the state that hates the trade agreements most, Ohio.

two things (none / 0) (#87)
by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:54:31 AM EST

Hillary didn't make a deal with someone in power to make her appear more "legislatively active" win she ran for Senate.

Two, Penn is not running for president, neither is Bill Clinton. You can try and tie Bill's actions, the actions of the Clinton Fund, Bill and Hillary's investments---to Hillary's campaign and not once NOT ONCE will I bite unless you can prove that such is the case.

I merely posited that a candidate who has already asked for and received preferential treatment from party elders probably has no compunction about asking for the same again. As a result of nothing in politics being free--I expect those party elders are going to be compensated in some fashion.

I freely admit that my argument is a strawman and acknowledged that in the original post. You respond with a strawman of your own---BUT whereas mine was built on a reasonable expectation of history repeating itself YOURS is built upon baseless speculation that Penn doing his personal business is somehow criminal, that Bill Clinton accepting money on behalf of his library or the Clinton fund is somehow criminal.

The best and the brightest have already anxiously torn apart the Clinton tax returns and found NOTHING suspect so don't use monies received by an organization associated with the Clintons as evidence that they are somehow "on the take". If it were true your shrieking Obama cohorts in the media and the blogs would be making every effort to exploit the fact.


Here is an article that addresses (none / 0) (#106)
by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST

that very question. It is by Todd Spivak and he says..

So how has Obama repaid Jones?
Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.
Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.
I'll never forget what he said:
"Some call it pork; I call it steak."

He repaid him with tens of millions of tax dollars. So, I guess Obama is the same-old same-old after all.


Well...not true (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:47:17 AM EST

I gave the max to Edwards and Hillary, I will vote for Obama if I have to in the GE but will not give him a penny. It's simple.

You're a good example, actually (none / 0) (#48)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:14:36 AM EST

Hillary relies significantly more on people giving the max donation to her campaign, while Obama raises more money more sustainably from millions of small donors who feel inspired by his message of hope and change. Bottom line is that Obama has raised record-breaking amounts of money, and there's a reason for that.


A problem (5.00 / 4) (#56)
by cal1942 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:45:56 AM EST

with the argument that his small donations make him pure is that the small donors get NO access.

The large donors have access.

These lines from the story are telling:

" Obama policy advisers also meet with bundlers and other top givers.

The bundlers maintain they want nothing from Obama in return:
"There's nobody with their hand out," [Boston financier Alan] Solomont said. "People are doing this because they believe in this candidate."

And I'm the King of Sweeden

If the bundlers want nothing in return then why in hell are they meeting with Obama's POLICY team? It's all about access.


another problem (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:42:45 AM EST

with the argument is that if you go to an Obamarally and buy a five dollar button, you're a small donor. Ten thousand people buying a five dollar button or a three dollar bumpersticker go into the computations, so when you divide the total number, it lowers the total per contributor. Thus:

1,000,000 divided by 100 = 10,000
1,000,000 divided by 1,000 = 1,000

I would call it fuzzy math, but "media math" seems more appropriate here.

And Clinton doesn't charge for buttons, signs or bumper stickers. It's quite a new thing for presidential elections to not only take money for these items at rallies, but to record the "donor's" info to register them as such.


: So, essentially the small donors who (none / 0) (#104)
by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST

buy some of the Obama campaign stuff are contributing twice?? Their money paid for the stuff, and their money is buying it. And he is being cheap about the tips to campaign workers in PA? Just exactly who or what is it that Obama is supposed to care about? Besides himself, that is.

: Right (none / 0) (#121)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:02:00 PM EST

And it was a good fundraising idea.

That's not the argument I was making (none / 0) (#118)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:00:08 PM EST

Please read my posts, and the ones I was responding to, more carefully. I was specifically referring to Obama's fundraising strategy, which is a superior one for the reasons I stated.

Of course I agree large donors get more access. That is irrelevant to the argument I was making.


And yet, (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by magisterludi on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:18:53 AM EST

those same small donors are denied a "seat at the table" and "purged" as delegates (they were removed for strategic reasons and re-instated for political ones).

His grandma ain't the only person Obama is willing to throw under the bus.

For the record- I was an early enthusiast for Obama. I thought he was great at the Dem convention. I thought then he was potential presidential material. I was willing to listen when he announced his run and I did. And I was sorely disappointed, especially with all the GOP dog whistles and legitimizing Reagan and the Gingrich Republicans. Oh, and please do not tell me WORM. I know EXACTLY what he meant.


I looked at both (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:39:43 AM EST

the Clinton and the Obama bundlers. While I recognized names on both lists, I recognized more names on the Clinton list. They included:

Warren Buffet, Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs CEO), Walter Shorenstein, Douglas Shorenstein, Rob Reiner, Stephen Speilberg, Jon Corzine, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Burkle, Carol Biondi, Robin Duke, Vernon Jordan, Geraldine Ferraro, Barbara Lee, John Mack (Morgan Stanley CEO), Robert Torcelli.

On Obama's list:

Anthony Lake (President Clinton's NSA), Robert Blackwell, David Geffen, Stephen Mandel (Lone Pine Capital LLC), John Sculley, Jeff Katzenberg, Oprah Winfrey, Douglas Hickley.

Here are some observations: Obama is getting more law firms to bundle for him (Wilson, Sonsini; Latham & Watkins; Sidley-Austin; Morrison & Forrester; Watts Law Firm; Kirkpatrick & Lockart Preston, Gates Ellis; Phillips & Cohen; Thelen Reid Brown; Arnold & Porter; Levin, Simes, Kaiser; Vinson & Elkins; Covington & Burling; Crabbe, Brown & James; Williams & Connolly).

Another is that Obama is getting a fair number of hedge funds: Lone Pine Capital, Eagle Point, Eton Park, Ariel Capital, Loop Capital, York Capital Management and Capri Capital. He has also done well with VC firms: Hummer Winbald, TSG Ventures.

But what suprised me most is that two of his bundlers are from the Carlyle Group and another from Bain Capital. The Carlyle Group owns Hertz, Dunkin Donuts, Baskin-Robbins and a host of defence an high tech companies. On its board have sat a who's who of politics and banking. Its investors include the Bush family, the Bin-Laden family, Nicolas Sarkozy, John Major, Tony Blair, Otto Bleim, Helmut Kohl, James Baker, the Hertz family, Henry Kissinger, the Saud family, the Emir of Kuwait. Both Carlyle and Bain are odd company for a Democratic candidate for President. These private equity funds have not been kind to Democrats nor Democratic causes in the past.

This is not to say that there aren't private equity or hedge funds supporting Clinton. There are. But they are ones that have traditionally supported Democratic causes in the past. Ron Burkle of Yucaipa Investments is part of that list.

I am really perplexed by the Carlyle connection.

Guilt by association seems to be the latest (1.00 / 1) (#64)
by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:35:07 AM EST

craze these days.


Actually, it's not as popular as ... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by cymro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:42:53 AM EST

... burying one's head in the sand.


I'm perplexed. (none / 0) (#97)
by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:11:04 AM EST

Why would Bain Capital (they own Staples, Toys R Us, Dollarama, The Sports Authority, Home Depot Supply, Domino's Pizza, Burlington Coat Factory), a firm founded by Mitt Romney, be bundling money for Obama? It is hard to figure. It is not a large organization though they have several arms.

Bain and Huawei of China unsuccessfully tried to buy 3Com for a reported $2.2 billion but the Committee of Foreign Investment blocked the deal last month. Is Bain buying access by hedging its bets?

Same with the Carlyle Group given their close association with the Bush family and Jim Baker.


: Maybe they see Obama as (none / 0) (#107)
by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST

"Republican light". Or they think they can get to him more easily than McCain. Either way, support by Carlyle Group in any form should be a screaming siren with red flashing light to any Democrat. But, I guess it's ok if Obama does it. IOKIYAO..It's OK If You Are Obama.

Clinton Rules (none / 0) (#102)
by bodhcatha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST

Guilt by association is not a new fad. It has been unquestioned for the last 16 years, but only when it can be used to smear the Clintons.


Can you provide the full list of private equity or (none / 0) (#63)
by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:33:41 AM EST

hedge fund supporting Clinton?


: Here you go (none / 0) (#96)
by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST

Law firms bundling sources: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe (they also deal in municipal and state bonds); Barrack, Rodos & Racine; Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley; Coale, Cooley, Leitz; Broad & Cassel; Patton Boggs; Grant & Eisenhofer; Arnold & Pottier; Ratzan & Alters; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobs; Greenberg Taurig.
Private Equity: Berkshire Hathaway, Yucaipa Investments, First Mark Holdings, Centerview Partners, Apax Partners (also a VC), Quadrangle LLC, Shorenstein Properties, SL Green, Forum Capital; Highbridge Capital; Arden Realty.
Hedge Funds: DLA Piper, Galen Capital, INS Capital, Millenium Credit; Chopper Trading; Hall Capital, Milestone Capital; Avenue Capital, Mapleton Investments, Nemazee Capital, Carrett Capital.
Investment Houses (buy-side): Capital Guardian, Prudential, Lazard LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald, Karsch Capital Management, Northwestern Mutual.
Investment Houses (sell-side): Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS Securities.
Note: Obama has also has bundlers at various investment banks especially at Lehman Brothers. Interestingly they overlap at both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Difference is that the CEOs of both Goldman and Morgan are bundlers for Clinton.

This is NOT Public Financing of elections (5.00 / 3) (#74)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:44:02 AM EST

Obama is just dishonest when he tries to equate this to public financing of elections. Only half his money comes from the small donors he is claiming are effectively the same as public financing. The media and Harry Reid are also picking up on this framing - I just heard Harry Reid on the Bill Press show this morning and he went along with that idea.

I would love to hear Al Franken's take on this, sicne he was a big advocate of true public financing.

What a farce.

hmmmm well (none / 0) (#2)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:16:37 PM EST

in the end all politicians take money from the rich. eventually its about trusting them to not be influenced or corrupted by it. I am confident Hillary and Obama can do it, McCain not so much.

It's OK if you are Obama... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by ricosuave on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:32:09 PM EST

Why does this seem to be the fallback position for Obama supporters. First it is "he is great because he is not like other politicians" then when faced with evidence that he plays in the same mudhole as everyone else they fall back on the "he is no different from everyone else so stop picking on him" argument. Which is it--is he special, or is he just like everyone else?


Simple answers (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by jen on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:02:06 AM EST

to simple questions!! Me, me, me!! I know this one!!

Mr. Hope, Change, New Kind of Politics is just what many of us have always known he is: JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! (Only he comes with a whole lot less experience than most who have thrown their hat in a presidential race.)


You left one off... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:04:35 AM EST

..."Clinton did it too", while ignoring the fact that Obama is supposedly running on being "different" from Clinton.

Could somebody please remind me about why Obama is the candidate for "Change"? He seems to be running the same campaign run in the last election. By Bush.


Bush ran on change in the last election? (none / 0) (#25)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:14:13 AM EST

Maybe you mean 2000. Obama represents change because he is black, young, exotic, and new. Now Bush ran against Washington in 2000, certainly, but he didn't and couldn't have embodied change in the way that Obama does--I mean his father was an ex-president, you can't get any more establishment than that.

P.S. I think it's patently ridiculous to compare Obama to Bush. Obama is the living antithesis of Bush... they are unlike in every possible way.


Obama is pretty "establishment" (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:25:40 AM EST

But he is claiming to be the "change" candidate. It worked for Bush (yes, it was in 2000, not 2004 - it would be silly for an incumbent to run on change). If I see similarities between Obama and Bush, I will point them out. Obama is running a campaign that could very well be using the Bush campaign plans. Attack your opponent by pretending that they are attacking you. Attack using surrogates whenever possible. Have large crowds of carefully screened screaming people at your campaign events. Don't say anything too meaningful that you might be held to. Provide speeches with vague, feed-good generalities and have position papers with popular positions on your web site - but make them vague enough that nobody can pin you down as supporting something unpopular.


lol what? (none / 0) (#43)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:55:33 AM EST

Obama did a whole year's worth of town hall meetings in Iowa and NH. He's been doing lots more now too. None of those events are pre-screened, it's false to suggest otherwise. His large campaign rallies are also not pre-screened (obviously, the campaign isn't going to screen 10,000 people). Obama's policy positions are also at least as detailed as Clinton's. You just haven't paying attention to what Obama actually says or does.

And yes Obama does represent change, for the reasons I stated. It's extremely difficult for me to comprehend how you don't understand that a President Barack Obama would be a tremendous change from a President George W. Bush.

As for your grievances with the way he's conducted his campaign, those are generally applicable to every presidential campaign. Attacking using surrogates? Attack your opponent by pretending they are attacking you? These are Bush innovations? What? The Clinton campaign and many others past and present have done their fair share of precisely those things. Which is fine, because that's politics. But don't be a hypocrite.


ANY Democrat would be a change... (none / 0) (#49)
by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:16:01 AM EST

...from George Bush. I thought that we were looking for more than that. Or is that the catch - is Obama only promising that he won't be Bush? The problem with Obama using hits is that he has said repeatedly that he is "different". He doesn't do that kind of stuff. And don't pretend that his events aren't staged. The people sitting behind him are carefully chosen to promote the message of the day. Even Bush never screened everybody at every campaign event. You don't need to. All you need is to make sure that the biggest fans are at the front and any troublemakers are not allowed. Obama has done both. I'm not being a hypocrite in saying that Obama has done these things. You are supporting hypocrisy when you defend your candidate against them.


They're not staged! (none / 0) (#52)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:26:03 AM EST

I am supporting a Clinton/Obama ticket right now, actually.

Arranging the people who sit behind you so your photo-op looks better (basic politicking) is completely different from only allowing pre-screened people into your town hall meetings so they won't ask questions you don't like (anti-democratic). Everyone does the former, Bush did the latter. The former is not called screening, the latter is called screening.

On the topic of change, I would certainly argue that Obama represents a bigger change from Bush than Clinton does, yes. She would also be a big change of course, but in relative terms a smaller one. This is mostly due to the fact that her husband was the ex-President and she already lived in the White House once. In that respect Clinton represents a change back to the Clinton years in the 90's, while Obama represents a change to something entirely new--and therefore, a bigger change.


90s, What (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by cal1942 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:26:00 AM EST

Policy, good policy, is dictated in part by need. The needs of the 90s were not entirely the same as today's policy needs.

Hillary Clinton DOES NOT represent a "change back to the Clinton years in the 90's"

AND

"while Obama represents a change to something entirely new--and therefore, a bigger change."

Your logic is astounding. You really think that Hillary Clinton's policies would be a replay of the 90s? You really think that Obama represents a change to something entirely new?

Some of Obama's proposals have been based on tax cuts for God's sake. Causing me to ask; when does the stupid stop.

Obama wants to keep Blackwater. Clinton wants to show Blackwater and like others the door.

The list goes on and on.

Look very, very closely at the policies especially those constructed in response to current emerging events and conditions. Obama's have been timid and Clinton's have been "bold and progressive" to quote Krugman in the matter of the Clinton response to the mortgage/foreclosure crisis. Krugman was right.

For this old Roosevelt Democrat reading Hillary's proposals for handling this threatening situation was a major breath of fresh air.

It's policy, policy and policy. Policy told us what GW Bush was in 2000. Policy tells us what Clinton and Obama are today.

Obama's 'change, unity, post-partisan' crap has the same value as GW Bush's 'compassionate conservative.'


: In the respect I specifically cited (none / 0) (#117)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST

Obama represents an entirely new change. On the other hand, in the realm of policy Obama and Clinton are two peas in a pod on the issues.
Please read more carefully and don't impute to me claims I never made. I've been very precise and specific.

You know who he's like.... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by andrelee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:36:02 AM EST

he's like that guy at the video arcade with that belt with the metal row of columns, filled with... 'change'. He gets all the attention, he's on everyones mind in the arcade, he's the one everyone wants to be, to be friends with, wants on their side. He is the only one that can make 'change' happen unless, of course, there is a HRC2008 automatic change machine available. Not considered to be the cats meow, receives less adoration, no fawning fans, no one really wanting to be a 'machine'... just steady efficient predictable work thats not really celebrated or appreciated. Complaints and condemnations abound when some want to present it with old, wrinkly, mussed up or phony bills that some want to pass off as legit.


Well, Bush the Younger delivered more change (none / 0) (#128)
by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:28:22 PM EST

than anyone dreamed possible.

He ran as a change agent of the ReThug Party-as the Compassionate Conservative.

Right off the starting block he began by abrogating treaties, issued presidential orders to reverse Clinton administration orders, and went from the small stuff to the big Constituion abrogating actions. We do know a lot of that part of the story, will learn more (such as Cheney saying that election promises to the sheeple mean nothing).

Change you might not have wanted--but change you better believe did happen.

With Bill Clinton, per Kathleen Hall Jamison, what he promised is what he delivered--or tried to deliver. When he realized he had to deal with the deficit, he explained why he was raising taxes on the rich. Cost him the Congress, most likely--with help of the MCM and their love affair with the House banking "scandal"--but Dem Reps lost seats for supporting the legislation which lead to a surplus. Which BushBoy promptly began spending down, plus.

I believe that what Hillary says she will do is going to in line with the way Bill did things, which I base on both their public histories.

I don't know what Obama actually will do, but I have discomfort based on his praise of Reagan and Repub policies, his early decision to use Repub talking points about SocSec, his inclination to use fervor instead of facts about policy.


Again: (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by cal1942 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:59:28 AM EST

Why do Obama's fat cat contributors get regular access to his policy team?

Argue percentages, number of donors all night, all day if you want. I still want to know why Obama's big contributors have regular contact with his POLICY team.


That stood out to me, too (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Dawn Davenport on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:29:58 AM EST

It's Bush's "Rangers" and "Pioneers" all over again.


: Looking for the next (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Fabian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:57:50 AM EST

Tom Noe...
Gotta admit - that was a classic - take money from the state goverment collected from businesses(not taxpayers, but businesses) and then illegally funnel it into a presidential campaign.
Why contribute your own money when you can embezzle it?

Everyone takes money from donors (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:46:31 AM EST

but they don't all try to call it Public Financing, and thus trash a core progrssive goal.


Parallel Public Financing!!!!! (none / 0) (#84)
by Burned on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:44:37 AM EST

We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful," Obama said.

Does the internet make me richer?


: oops (none / 0) (#89)
by Burned on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:56:38 AM EST

Parallell Public Financing
Because links are tiny beacons of hope.

Hmmm (none / 0) (#3)
by blogtopus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:19:44 PM EST

I'm too busy reading my friend's exclusive link to WHY PEAK OIL IS A FAKE TO MAKE MONEY, to read about his other exclusive link to WHY OBAMA WON'T SELL OUT LIKE CIRQUE DE SOLEIL IN VEGAS.

Jeralyn, don't you know this is heresy? They burn people for that.

a quarter of a billion dollars (none / 0) (#26)
by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:21:05 AM EST

to win a PRIMARY is obscene. If Hillary and Obama keep raising and spending money at current rates they could probably top a half billion. Wonder how much Dem donors are going to be willing to fork over in the GE regardless of the nominee?

Between Obama and Clinton (none / 0) (#28)
by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:26:16 AM EST

There are something like two million small donors who have donated to a democratic presidential campaign. They can and will give more. The fat cats will also give again. Money is really one of the last things we need to be worried about in this race.


uh huh (none / 0) (#33)
by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:33:39 AM EST

The under 2300 donors don't have limitless pockets. If the economy keeps going south, oil prices go up, gas goes up, groceries go up---even incrementally---the people who are donating 25 bucks a month might decide that they need that money for gas or food instead.

The fat cats will show up? Only if they think they have a winning pony. Obama's donors might stick with him...will Hillary's big donors give to Obama? or vice-versa?

So what is the "most" of our problems at this pt...if money is the 'least' sensei?


The 'most' (none / 0) (#77)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:01:58 AM EST

of our problems is seating the Florida and Michigan delegates.

They get shafted, no Democrat wins in November.

Solve that one Mr. Wonderful...


I'm wonderful? really? thanks (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST

as to the solution? A couple guys named Jimmy "Two Chins" and "Tiny" Scalabrini need to pay a visit to Howard Dean, give him a little talkin' to, grease the wheels of communication so to speak.

Honestly MI and FL are dead sticks. The DNC, Obama, and the state parties are absolutely unwilling to sit down and hash out a feasible solution. Dean continually puts it on Clinton and Obama to come to an agreement.

Like it or not the delegations of both states will only be seated after a nominee is named. I am one hundred percent positive that Hillary would win FL and MI in the GE and I am equally positive that Obama has no chance to win either.


: Ummmm....no.... (none / 0) (#129)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:55:10 PM EST

I wouldn't hurt your feelings for the world but actually...I was ironically referring to Obama with the Mr. Wonderful title.
Sorrrrry.
Let me know if I should call Vinny....we're on the same page, disgustwise.

Where is the outcry (none / 0) (#95)
by TalkRight on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST

Several of these top bundlers previously supported Republicans. Some have agendas markedly different from Obama's [stated] platform.

Where is the outcry from the Keith Obermann [MSNBC the most righteous] , or Donna Brazille [CNN.. the most trusted].

Please email the news network/blogs to cover this story and ask them is this the campaign finance reforms [parallel financing] that Barrrack OOOBamaa calls a "campaign funded by public" stunt!