View Story | 724 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
by greenskeeper on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:34:43 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
But remember, the big money politicing won't go quietly into the night either.
Vigilance!
Need something new here... This Space for Rent! (Keith? Your name could be here!) (-4.88, -4.15)
by DrSpalding on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:36:47 AM PDT
Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington Machine
Blood 4 Oil War 2
by TXsharon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM PDT
not pissed-off.
And remember to keep this site positive, people!
This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.
by Mr X on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:18:36 AM PDT
almost pissed me off.
Don't Legitimize Fox News. "Democrats have the heart to care."
by jeepdad on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:39:04 AM PDT
by skipppppp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:45:05 AM PDT
you made this comment before I did REALLY PISSES ME OFF!
Welcome Back, Hillary & friends!
by Krum on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM PDT
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18
by Rogneid on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM PDT
Jeez,
When I read the title of this diary I thought you were going to explain how Gore and Edwards are both cowards for not endorsing anyone because they're too busy taking "daring" stands on positions (global warming, poverty) that are 100% safe. And then I thought you would mention how they're both going to really go out on a limb and come out against the torture of puppies.
But nobody would dare do that around here. That would make people REALLY pissed. And you'd be pretty unpopular.
"It would send a horrible message to cut and run from Iraq." -Tim Kaine, 2006
by nocore on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM PDT
in the next couple of weeks. Why did he turn down four networks who were offering the party free air time to discuss how Democrats will change the country.
They were set up for the new primary states to get a close look at us and compare us to McCaim and Obama is afraid they might give Hillary some free air time?????
But after he wins the nex half dozen primaries, he now says he might do a couple?!!!
What kind of strengeth and confidence is that?
He wants to rule the free world with his new vision and he would hurt the party and hurt the primary voters because he CAN?
Yeah, I'm pissed!
by itsadryheat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:58:21 PM PDT
supporters would be pissed off. She wants to campaign to her strengths but he is insisting on campaigning to his. How dare he?
-7.50, -7.74 Republicans = Borrow and Squander
by GMFORD on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM PDT
We have a chance to make our case to millions of voters for this year and mony years to come!
The neworks are getting huge ratings and retrunning the debates and talking about them for days, reaching millions of potential voters with our story of what Democrats want for America that Republicons don't.
Would trade that for some snide comeback?
by itsadryheat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:01 PM PDT
two democrats beating each other up over minute details of their health care plans, fighting over who is more against the war or arguing about who is the real agent of change is necessarily good for the Democratic party.
I understand what you are saying but after 18 debates, what new information are they going to give anyone?
I say wait until our nominee is selected and then debate McCain will give the voting public a much better idea of which party is the party of ideas, which party has actual plans to fix things, which party will be ready to lead on day one.
by GMFORD on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:37:03 AM PDT
You think Democrats should pass on a the chance to reach millions of people with the differences between us and Republicans and the details of how we would change the nation if they gave us the chance to work at it for the next, say, generation?
We should pass up the chance to sweep the White House and both houses of Congress and seriously reverse some of the Bush damage with an agressive, veto proof majority?
And you advise the Democratic Party to give up this golden situation because one of our candidates isn't good with being questioned or isn't yet confident that he can sell the specifics of his programs or he might attack his opponent?
Shouldn't the candidates hone their skills, if you think they are lacking, before they have to be used on MCCain?
Shouldn't we be thrilled that the networks want to give us free exposure to the voters?
We could have an election that was over by convention because the country knew what the Democrats would do with the power before McCain really got around to discussing it with us.
This is so extrordinary....that we should think it is not safe to expose the country to our candidates if the voters are hungry enough to keep tuning in.
I don't see how this logic benefits us and our values or helps the country out of it's great need to get concensus on a way to start solving soooo many problems we'll be left with next January. We might even get concensus to stop Bush before then!
Doesn't it seem to you that shrinking back now doesn't look good;looks like coving something we don't want revealed?
by itsadryheat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:26:28 AM PDT
your logic escapes me.
Yeah, that makes sense. If we only have two more Dem debates instead of four we can just kiss our chance at winning in November goodbye.
If only elections were won by the number of debates, the Dems would have already won by now.
by GMFORD on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:01:41 AM PDT
by itsadryheat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:38:03 PM PDT
for the link to a most excellent Harpers article!
(¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)
by dus7 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:58:15 AM PDT
fingers firmly planted in their ears. =(
by TXsharon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:13:31 PM PDT
Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. Obama 6/3/08
by Lipstick Liberal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:04:21 AM PDT
gets a reputation for taking on big money. The only candidates that really took on big money in the election cycle that I observed were Kucinich and Edwards. It still looks like an auction from where I sit. I certainly hope that whomever our candidate is wins the general election, but the idea that either of these two can point to the other and say "big money" is laughable.
"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:33:39 AM PDT
The campaign isn't about the candidate--it's about us and how we govern ourselves. That $100 million plus comes from us, damnit.
Those votes are coming from us, damnit.
And Barack Obama is our enthusiastically chosen servant.
It's a whole lot of small-money everyday people pitching in to take on and defeat big money without selling our souls.
*****
By the way, did you catch Nader on the Ed Schultz show this morning?
by chicago jeff on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM PDT
I don't know about you, but when I give $50 to someone, I expect to get my phone calls answered, even if they raise $32 million that month.
/snark
Apparently some people think that the only way to take on Big Money is for your campaign to stay broke. Good luck with that!
"we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization" - Al Gore
by racerx on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM PDT
all came from us little guys-but hers all came from the big corps. Talk about stupid.
No, I missed Nader today. I'm sure you keep up with him though, maybe you could do a series of updates.
by NearlyNormal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM PDT
Sure the hundred million that he started with all came from us little guys-but hers all came from the big corps. Talk about stupid.
If you mean the "all" literally, then it is stupid, but also a straw man. Clinton's original stake came very much more from "maxed out" large donors and very much less from small donors.
From Business Week (I googled obama small clinton "maxed out")
Obama also has a money advantage because he has raised more money from small donations than Clinton. An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from "maxed out" donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.
by Stevie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:27:18 AM PDT
Does that make me part of the big money machine?
;-D
OBAMA '08 -5.00, -7.18
by doschi on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM PDT
I can't exactly cry because a candidate tries to sell influence for lobbyist big bucks and then loses those donations when they become a loser. I say good lesson for Democratic politics and good riddance to the DLC.
by reformdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:55 PM PDT
Sure the hundred million that he started ... all came from us little guys-but hers all came from the big corps.
You really think your little quote is a realistic representation of what I said?
by chicago jeff on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM PDT
I do support him now that Edwards is out, but to name someone collectively as "ours" is a bit much. We are still individuals fighting for common causes (NOT people), right?
"The political system, including elections, is carefully managed to prevent the threat of democracy." ~Noam Chomsky
-5.25, -4.87
by cotasm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:32:47 AM PDT
for his message of positive change and vision.
It was that "servant" word that is grotesque.
by bronte17 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM PDT
a public servant. Which is not grotesque at all.
by Hiro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM PDT
by bronte17 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:22:58 PM PDT
What's the beef?
by chicago jeff on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:55 PM PDT
When you add lots of small amounts of money into one pile, it becomes big money. Money doesn't seem to care where it cam from. When there is lots of it in one place, financial experts call it big money.
Ambition is when you follow your dreams. Insanity is when they follow you.
by Batfish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM PDT
Big Money.
by Nailbanger on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:49:45 PM PDT
by Batfish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:27:34 PM PDT
So what your saying is that in order to claim to be against the influence of big money in Washington is to be poor from a fundraising perspective, like Edwards and Kucinich were.
Sounds suspiciously like the right wing meme that Gore can't be a messenger about Global Warming because he lives in a big house....
The bottom line is that Obama's so-called "big money" is coming directly from regular people like you and me who are giving $10, $20, whatever they can afford. Not because they expect influence, but because they want the change that Barack symbolizes.
On the other hand, you have Hillary, who; unlike Obama & Edwards, has happily accepted donations from Lobbyists and Lobbying firms. The majority of her donor base is maxed out.
The point is this: To claim that Obama, who led the Senate fight for Ethics reform against the wishes of Reid and Clinton, is not against big money simply because he rakes it in from small donors is disingenuous at best.
by John in Chicago on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM PDT
you guys are hilarious with your accusations that others are cherry picking facts when you are blind to the beam in your own eyes. Obama is a big money candidate, accept it, admit it and go from there. His Ethics reform is pale beer compared to what is needed and he has a record of watering down proposed legislation to suit the desires of the corporate players.
I support all you guys giving your 10 dollar contributions, and even more the physical effort of GOTV efforts, but lets stay realistic and avoid the big let down brought on by too big a build up. And get a bigger and better ethics reform scheme if you want to brag about it.
by NearlyNormal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:32:55 AM PDT
Obama is a big money candidate, accept it, admit it and go from there.
Care to substantiate that comment? Or is it so just because you say it is?
he has a record of watering down proposed legislation to suit the desires of the corporate players.
Again, please link if you're going to cast broad aspersions. Otherwise, we are left to simply trust the words of a cynical skeptic.
get a bigger and better ethics reform scheme if you want to brag about it.
And exactly what ethics reform did John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich get passed? Or anyone before Obama for that matter? Are you telling me that Obama should have not worked to pass the reform bill because it wasn't strong enough?
By your logic, Dems should not have passed the minimum wage increase either, since its
just not enough
!
by John in Chicago on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:39:50 AM PDT
by bernardpliers on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:05:44 PM PDT
the great article TXsharon linked to in a previous comment which despite the title seems rather balanced: Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine
by dus7 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM PDT
No one backing Obama shouting "Change!" from the mountain tops wants to read "baseless" accusations in some article by the "biased" organization called "Harpers".
I want to see in black and white where it says CLEARLY that Obama has never taken money from corporations.
I know for a fact that Obama has a less than sterling record regarding "donations" to his campaigns. In fact, he was "good friends" with Tony Rezko who is now facing serious jail time for large-scale fraud. And fraud that Obama (of course sufficiently buffered from any hard connection) himself took part in.
"The erudite are not wise and the wise are not erudite." - Lao Tzu
by TheKost on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:50:51 AM PDT
try backing up some of this nonsense with some sort of evidence or links.
This ain't RedState. We expect more...
by MJ via Chicago on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM PDT
did you happen to notice Bob's 90% statistic upthread?
I'll bet Hillary wishes she had 650,000 small donors right about now.
Yeah, that's Big Money all right.
Whatever.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
by The Lighthouse Keeper on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:11:20 PM PDT
I think this can be shown to be factually true. Both have taken huge amounts of money from lobbyists and both will be beholden to Big Money if/when he/she gets to the WH.
Edwards refused to go that route and the gamble did not pay off. That says a lot about the state of our democracy, IMHO.
May all beings be free from fear.
by shakti on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:10:25 PM PDT
the DLC just wishes we'd go away.
Instead, we're now hugely outrai$ing them and engaging them in a battle of attrition. Which I suspect we will win. It is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, a battle now fully joined.
There is a lot of work left to do. As a commenter noted in another thread, you can't kick the Machine once and then walk away triumphant.
Like a tiger, a wounded Machine is the most dangerous. A hard fight lies just ahead. Texas and Ohio will be particularly difficult.
by The Lighthouse Keeper on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM PDT
if I might quote you.How true it is.
Ohio has been a mirror of the Republican party politics for the last 20 years or more.
Those of us fighting to turn it around feel like we have been in a battle zone for some time.
If that isn't bad enough there are Republicans changing their political party affiliation to run as Democrats and Democrats that vote with the Republicans on local issues.Bi-partisanship it ain't.
That said,"Bring it on".
by lindalrs on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:19:58 PM PDT
I contributed to Vic Wulsin a couple times during the last election.
Disgusting that Rethugs are trying to don sheeps' clothing. Talk about not having the courage of your convictions.
There is hope, though. You guys crushed Blackwell's governorship run. Just hammered him. That Satanic individual will not be digging out from that grave for a long time, if ever.
Good luck fighting out there for Obama! Man, I love that guy.
by The Lighthouse Keeper on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:56:30 AM PDT
by Batfish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:45 PM PDT
We're in the red-zone, but we need a touchdown.
by brentmack on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM PDT
Kudos WM
I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere ~ Thomas Jefferson
by valadon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM PDT
to these numbers, but in 2004 there were 23 million African Americans of voting age, 16 million were registered and only 13 million voted, a little over half. I certainly hope Obama energizes Black Americans. Nothing can do as much for our Black citizens as voting, having their voices heard and be part of the process. And Blacks aren't the only minority under represented in the vote, Native Americans also have a low voting rate. If his message of hope is going to bring about real change for the future then he needs to start directly addressing the disenfranchised among us.
ROAD2DC ... IGTNT
by snackdoodle on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:10:34 AM PDT
by MingPicket on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:51:57 AM PDT
heard from this election particularly.
by snackdoodle on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:21:33 AM PDT
I just remembered seeing this:
by MingPicket on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM PDT
You know, when you are so-ve-reign (shoulder hunch).
What a f*cking moron.
Bottled hot water for dehydrated babies? WTF?!
by JVolvo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:21:19 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 724 comments