sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 11 Apr, 2007 07:05 pm
Cool, thanks.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 10:39 am
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:02 pm
Obama brings a whole new meaning to ethics in politics.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:13 pm
Quote:
While shunning lobbyists money, the Obama campaign still has relied on political and policy advice from Washington lobbyists and does accept donations from lobbyists spouses.


Did anybody read that sentence?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:17 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
While shunning lobbyists money, the Obama campaign still has relied on political and policy advice from Washington lobbyists and does accept donations from lobbyists spouses.


Did anybody read that sentence?


I did now!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:18 pm
Phoenix, Good catch! I missed that one.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:21 pm
It can be spinned this way and that, but bottom line, ALL politicians are beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:26 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
It can be spinned this way and that, but bottom line, ALL politicians are beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists.


They're beholden to those who've contributed the $25 million+ in political funds.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:27 pm
Just for a moment, there, I thought Obama was going to be different.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Just for a moment, there, I thought Obama was going to be different.


If he's different, then he won't need $25 million+.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:52 pm
That makes no sense. Yes, a lot of money is needed to win a presidential election, as stupid as that may be. No, that doesn't mean it all needs to come from lobbyists and such. (Obama got a whole lot of it in the form of small donations from regular people. Way more donations, in smaller amounts, than other front-runners. Can find details on that if people are interested.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 01:09 pm
(Nobody asked, but here's some info anyway):

Quote:

Obama's lucrative Internet campaign
His 100,000 donors are double number giving to Clinton

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has raised $25 million in the first quarter of 2007, bolstered by an innovative Internet campaign that has helped him expand his appeal to a wider base of donors than his Democratic presidential rivals.

The Illinois senator's fundraising between Jan. 1 and March 31 brought in nearly as much as the $26 million raised by Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. But his base of 100,000 supporters surpasses the combined donors of Clinton, with a reported 50,000, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, whose campaign announced he had raised $14 million from 40,000 donors.


-snip-

Quote:
Leading Silicon Valley insiders noted that Obama raised nearly $7 million on the Internet thanks to an aggressive effort involving bloggers, social networking and other activities that far outpaced the endeavors of other leading Democratic candidates. It includes 4,000 My.BarackObama.com groups, 9,000 Obama bloggers and 50,000 online donors.


-snip-

Quote:
"But he's got an extraordinary thing going on in the cyberworld of politics,'' which has put the 45-year-old first-term U.S. senator before voters in an entirely new way, said Westly, who now is a venture capitalist.

Westly cited a mix of "a lot of sophisticated social networking tools, blogging teams and stuff that no one has been coming close to,'' he said. "They have taken campaigning and social networking on line to a whole different level ... because people don't have to wait for the top-down traditional approach. You've got the people fired up on Obama talking to each other.''


-snip-

Quote:
Obama also seems to be getting "people who don't regularly contribute to campaigns, who are willing to give $100 or $50."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNGFAP353K1.DTL
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 01:59 pm
Miller wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Just for a moment, there, I thought Obama was going to be different.


If he's different, then he won't need $25 million+.


Well, that's a bit like arguing that for you, miller, to be a different sort of a2k poster, you'll rise to the occasion and simply cease posting.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 02:00 pm
and I'm guessing blatham would agree if he was commenting via his own computer
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 02:03 pm
soz- Interesting.

I know that somewhere in cyberspace there is a site that lists the various contributors to a particular party. Does anyone know of a site that lists the contributors to a particular candidate?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 02:23 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
soz- Interesting.

I know that somewhere in cyberspace there is a site that lists the various contributors to a particular party. Does anyone know of a site that lists the contributors to a particular candidate?


This one used to show candidate contributions Phoenix. I didn't take time to check to see if there is a comprehensive listing yet.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp

The thing is that so many candidates--Obama certainly is not the only one--to claim superior ethics in campaign contributions but sort of overlooks those little side deals and the soft money that can make all the difference in a campaign. He may in fact be making an honest effort to do it better but he has to get out there to court the black vote, the Jewish vote, the labor vote, the Christian vote, etc. etc. etc. just like all the other candidates are doing. And they all are courting dollars as much or more than they are courting votes.

I hope Obama does keep his nose cleaner than most do, but he simply won't raise enough from the Uncle Joes and Aunt Freckles out there. He's going to have to take some from opportunists too whether or not they actually call themselves special interests.

For instance George Soros who is the godfather of and pretty much rules the policies related to groups like MoveOn.org, Mediamatters, etc. gave a modest amount (for him) to Obama's Senate campaign. By the time Soros' 'family members' had kicked in addiition 'private' contributions, however, Obama had benefitted by some $60,000, a pretty good chunk for a senator.

There's no sense fretting over it though. Nobody is going to get elected these days unless they have many many millions in their war chest.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 02:30 pm
Foxfyre- Thanks for the link. It looks like the stuff that I want to see is in the "coming soon" category. I can wait..............
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 02:33 pm
There is some official filing with the FEC on April 15th -- that may yield a lot more specific info, too.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sat 14 Apr, 2007 02:34 pm
And of course there's the Federal Election site too:
http://www.fec.gov/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 16 Apr, 2007 06:18 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 186
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 08/06/2025 at 01:01:54