digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Obama's In Control: NO MORE Lobbyist/PAC Donations To DNC

huffingtonpost.com — On Good Morning America Thursday, ABC News' Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported "the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists, and will no longer take contributions from PACs" in keeping with Obama's well-publicized policy. This is what change is.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • neognostic, on 06/05/2008, -19/+303He has already positioned the Democratic Party to not use 527 committee money for attack ads. So when the Republicans start running them, he only has to go back to McCain's pledge to run a clean and honest campaign to fight that "soiled" money. There are also videos of McCain saying that 527 committees are illegal.
    • Dewhead, on 06/05/2008, -78/+27"Obama’s ban on lobbyists money is not ironclad. He does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. He has had unpaid advisers with federal lobbying clients, and some campaign officials also previously had lobbying jobs."
      Meaning this order to stop taking lobbyist money isn’t so much Obama standing on principle but rather a smokescreen to provide the appearance of squeaky-clean politics even as Obama continues to rake in millions from the usual sources.

      You all are so freaking gullible.



      • waxoff, on 06/05/2008, -13/+591) "Obama’s ban on lobbyists money is not ironclad"

        Nothing is. We would get nowhere if that was the standard for reform.

        2) "He does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government"

        He goal for now is to clean up national politics. i.e. the Federal government, Congress and the office of the President. State and local politics can come next. One step at a time.

        3) "he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists"

        So what? Is there anything wrong with a $200 donation from anyone, family member of a lobbyist or not? That basically means he is treating them with the same rules as any other member of the public.

        4) "He has had unpaid advisers with federal lobbying clients, and some campaign officials also previously had lobbying jobs"

        As long as money is not flowing to his campaign from these advisers, so what? The point is not that he has advisers who may influence his opinion, the point is that he is not being influenced by money.

        5) "Meaning this order to stop taking lobbyist money isn’t so much Obama standing on principle but rather a smokescreen to provide the appearance of squeaky-clean politics"

        FUD

        6) "Obama continues to rake in millions from the usual sources."

        Name them.

        7) You all are so freaking gullible.

        More FUD
        • norman619, on 06/05/2008, -24/+8Ah yes. Try to remember he is an attorney. What are attorneys? Very good liars and great at the old shell game. This is like the BS the Pelosi tried to sell us about cleaning up our government. Like it or not that money will make its way to our politicians. Instead of out in the open they will use more creative ways. Saying they will stop taking that money is like saying they will accept term limits. Remind me please, what happened the last time the PEOPLE voted for term limits? Oh yes congress took the people to court... This is more political BS that the Obama supporters love to eat up.
        • tharju, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1so Norman,, I see. So which candidate you think is better to achieve that cleaning up the government? Because of Bush Admin can get away with alot of things doesn't mean you can't change that system. Got hope?
        • Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1"6) "Obama continues to rake in millions from the usual sources."

          Name them."

          Though Digg does have a generous character limit, the tens of thousands of names this would require would exceed it, I think.
        • Fordi, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1I see failure at reading comprehension has gotten me buried.

          I will spell it out:
          Naming the 'usual sources' for millions in the case of Obama would exceed Digg's very generous character limit because his small-money individual donators number in the tens of thousands.

          Sheesh, people. Droop your heated passion and fill in the reason, would you?
      • noahhoward, on 06/05/2008, -5/+12Anyone can donate, even lobbyists as long as they realise that their donation is a personal one and will not net them any favors.
        • DooM, on 06/05/2008, -2/+12Just to be accurate - Obama rejects even personal donations from registered lobbyists.
        • Monk22, on 06/05/2008, -10/+8just to be accurate

          CHARGE 32 - “I don’t have ‘bundlers’ and I don’t take PAC money.”

          EVIDENCE - Senator Obama has 79 bundlers and has collected over $13,000,000 in lobbyist PAC money. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3, SOURCE 4

          COUNTER CLAIM - Senator Obama has been careful not to compromise himself, “rejecting campaign support from Political Action Committees and lobbyists.”

          REBUTTAL – Here is a starter list of Senator Obama’s registered lobbyists:

          Timothy Broas $100,000, Frank Clark $200,000, Howard Gutman $200,000, Scott Harris (DC) $200,000, Allan Katz $200,000, William Lake (DC) $50,000, Robert S. Litt $not given, Kenneth Lore (DC) $50,000, Thomas Perrelli $200,000, Thomas Reed $200,000, Paul Roth $50,000, Alan Solomont $100,000, Robert M. Sussman (DC) $50,000, Tom Wheeler (DC) $100,000. $1,700,000 dollars from these registered lobbyists, or four times more than Obama’s officially declared lobbyist sum. To date there are at least 38 such individual lobbyists donating to Senator Obama’s campaign. PS – Having the wives of these individuals write the checks does not alter where the money came from.

          VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR

          * * *

          * * *

          CHARGE 33 - “I don’t take money from lobbyists.”

          EVIDENCE - At least 38 Individuals on Senator Obama’s campaign are or work for lobbyists. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3, SOURCE 4

          COUNTER CLAIM – Most of the individuals you site are lawyers, not lobbyists.

          REBUTTAL – Most of the lawyers that make up this list work for firms that lobby the Government. 31 of them manage registered lobbyists. You may parse the definitions – these lawyers and/or their firms lobby the government and donate to Senator Obama’s campaign. Either way, he takes money from lobbyists.

          VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR

          * * *
          * * *

          CHARGE 34 - “I don’t take money from oil companies.”

          EVIDENCE - Senator Obama has taken nearly $250,000 from oil companies. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

          COUNTER CLAIM – Senator Clinton has taken even more money from oil companies.

          REBUTTAL – Senator Clinton never stated she did not take money from oil companies; Senator Obama is the one that said that. Distinguishing himself as a ‘cleaner’ politician, less beholden to the oil companies, Senator Obama has obviously not been forthright about this issue. Senator Obama accepts money from oil companies and does so to this day.

          VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR

          if you want to get the source pages to work.
          http://savagepolitics.com/?page_id=326
        • aliengoods, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8Monk, first of all, copying off a website which mixes fact and FUD and giving no opinion of your own says a lot about you. Second, to address a few key points.

          >Having the wives of these individuals write the checks does not alter where the money came from.

          Wives of lobbyists should be banned? What about their children, or their parents. Perhaps brothers, sisters and cousins as well. By the way, I assume you have a database which contains all of this information.

          >Most of the lawyers that make up this list work for firms that lobby the Government. 31 of them manage registered lobbyists.

          That's right, and if you'd read the sources you would realize they're registered STATE lobbyists, not FEDERAL lobbyists. Read the sources before you copy and paste.

          >Senator Obama has taken nearly $250,000 from oil companies.

          OK, this one looks to be true. But then again, I'm not saying he's perfect, I'm just saying he's a step in the right direction.

          Also, go to BarackObama.com. If you want to donate, you have to state that the following terms are true:

          1. I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
          2. I am at least 16 years old.
          3. This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
          4. This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
          5. This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
          6. This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
          7. The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.

          Can you lie to give Obama money? Sure, but what are you going to get for it? Nothing, and that's the point. We're never going to get corporations entirely out of politics, but we can take steps to MINIMIZE their impact, which is what Obama appears to be doing.
        • Monk22, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2theres not much to have an opinion about. he said one thing, it has been shown to be false. whats the problem here? i dont mind if he does it but hes clearly stating that he doesnt do this when in actuality he does.
      • Stormwern, on 06/05/2008, -4/+73) "he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists"

        It's illegal to donate money in someone else's name, so if the family member's donation is lobbying money, they are breaking the law, and Obama can hardly be blamed for it.

        4) "He has had unpaid advisers with federal lobbying clients, and some campaign officials also previously had lobbying jobs"

        It's hard to find people experienced in politics who have never been a lobbyist. Since being a lobbyist is a job and not a conviction, they should be faily loyal unless they get paychecks from someone else while working for the campaign.
        • barktwiggs, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4If it's so hard to find people without lobbyist ties or difficult to vet all his donations, he shouldn't be making claims that his campaign is free of lobbyist influence and money.
        • Stormwern, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Has he claimed that? Remember him saying "They have not funded my campaign", which they haven't in any discernible way.
      • zelig, on 06/05/2008, -6/+2Shut up and drink the ***** Kool-aid!
    • didiman, on 06/05/2008, -63/+10You obamabots really are morons. Not surprising considering your one or two brain cells are drowned in kool-aid
      • papipablo, on 06/05/2008, -6/+27Someone needs a diaper change.
      • DeadPlasmaCell, on 06/05/2008, -10/+4@ didiman

        Right.. since it's popular it must be bad! I'm guessing you're probably the proud owner of Apple products though.
        • maexus, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6I was with you until that Apple comment, jackass.
        • MWeather, on 06/05/2008, -6/+1"Right.. since it's popular it must be bad!"

          If it appeals to the lowest common denominator, it generally is bad. Look at pop music, or network television. Sure, occasionally something good will appeal to a wide variety of people, but when it comes to politicians, that's almost never the case.

          A genuinely good popular politician who has risen to the rank of Congressman is the equivalent of an emmy award winning TV show putting out new episodes for decades and not only not loosing ratings, but gaining.

          Because if the politician or the TV show become unpopular, even temporarily, it's all over.
      • notoneofus, on 06/05/2008, -2/+15I find it fascinating that people who feel the need to characterize Obama supporters as "bots" are simply regurgitating a term lifted from the worst of the right-wing propaganda spewers. What, do you hold yourselves up as pinnacles of free thought? Give me a ***** break.
    • Rich711, on 06/05/2008, -42/+11So the cash he took from his money laundering fund raisers like Rezko wasn't "soiled"? I'm sorry was that race baiting?
    • MatthewDuke, on 06/05/2008, -38/+21Maybe I should just go to the Huffington Post now when I want to read digg - it eliminates a step.
    • inchrnt, on 06/05/2008, -19/+4And what percentage of the American population would comprehend this? So little it wouldn't matter.
      • p0s3r, on 06/05/2008, -15/+5Only the enlightened, elite, highly intelligent Obama supporters right? I mean as soon as someone says "I support Obama" they immediately become a member of the Ruling Class, right?

        What an arrogant dick you are, just like Obama.
        • papipablo, on 06/05/2008, -6/+5Says the biggest internet troll on Digg. Go ***** yourself *****.
        • arw371, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6inchrnt never declared or implied his political affiliations. you are the pompous bigot here, little boy.
        • p0s3r, on 06/05/2008, -2/+12There's this neat trick, it's not really a secret but you may not know it. When you "click" on someone's username, it takes you to a page where you can see comments made by the person with that username. It's kinda neat.
        • inchrnt, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2@p0s3r and how many times they've been dugg down (at least in your case)
      • inchrnt, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Digg me down all you want, but the fact is that the average American cares more about american idol, the latest celebrity gossip, and eating themselves to obesity than understanding the meaning of "527 committees." Unless a political issue involves something sexual they just aren't paying attention.
        • Hrodrik, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2What you said has some truth. I think that most of the american (and world) populace do not know what this move implies. Lobbies are a real threat to democracy.
    • DarkShroud, on 06/05/2008, -27/+4Is before or after Obama accepted money & help from Tony Rezco?

      /s
      • nocash23, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4that would be after...

        "Rezko has contributed to the campaigns of numerous Democrats, including Obama -- though the Illinois senator has vowed to give up all funds "

        http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/28/rezko.arres ...
        • MacEnvy, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3He already gave them up - donated them to charity.

          This article is from the day after the one you posted:
          http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory? ...
        • nocash23, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1to bad it doesn't clear anything up. I'm still trying to figure out how giving illegal money away clears you of guilt. if you or i did it they would call it .... i don't know.... receiving illegal money? in any case we would be arrested. and why is it ok for charity to accept it? i guess because its been laundered.... funny how politics and money look out for each other. who gets the write off in a situation like this? what kind of "charity" accepts known "dirty" money? i guess obama still gets to look like the good guy at least to that "charity".

          so much doublespeak. according to the Associated Press (Jan. 20, 2008 "Obama gives away "questionable" funds"): "The returned money includes three $10,000 contributions from donors that the campaign identified as having connections to Rezko." and "Our consistent practice in these circumstances is to give the funds to charity out of an abundance of caution," Burton said." well, which is it they gave it back or gave it to charity? doesn't sound very "consistent" to me.

          maybe he should have just given it to the courts (since that's what they would demand of anyone who accepts dirty money) and had them return it to the people his friend of eighteen years stole it from.
        • nocash23, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1so why exactly am i being dugg down? i love that so many people go for the bury button. i bet most of them really dont even know why. they just know that obama wouldnt agree and rather than form an opinion they just parrot what they've heard or take the easy road and simply disagree with no real reason to do so except that its what's expected of them.... "well im a democrat and i have to support my candidate out of sheer loyalty to the party." sad. brainless zombies with nothing to say. argue my points. id like a reason as to why my thinking on this is wrong. dont just take your opinions from the talking heads on "air america" or "the daily show" back up your disagreement.
    • OwdenBowden, on 06/05/2008, -20/+5Yeah - and this will last maybe NEVER.
      The man isn't even elected to the presidency and already they are writing checks. Way to go - put the cart before the horse. Doesn't anyone remember what happen to Dewey?
      • Rich711, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5Dewey WON, don't you read the newspapers? Or are you one of these right wing neo-cons that don't trust the media?
        • OwdenBowden, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Show me a list of all the Presidents of the United States of American that has Dewey on it. Oh thats right you can't because HE DID NOT WIN..

          You must be a one of these Oxygen grabbing idiots that should have been aborted and at least castrated.
    • psiege, on 06/05/2008, -25/+10Get the facts, folks. Are you going to let Obama fool you all the way to the bank?

      Here is a starter list of Senator Obama’s registered lobbyists:

      Timothy Broas $100,000, Frank Clark $200,000, Howard Gutman $200,000, Scott Harris (DC) $200,000, Allan Katz $200,000, William Lake (DC) $50,000, Robert S. Litt $not given, Kenneth Lore (DC) $50,000, Thomas Perrelli $200,000, Thomas Reed $200,000, Paul Roth $50,000, Alan Solomont $100,000, Robert M. Sussman (DC) $50,000, Tom Wheeler (DC) $100,000. $1,700,000 dollars from these registered lobbyists, or four times more than Obama’s officially declared lobbyist sum. To date there are at least 38 such individual lobbyists donating to Senator Obama’s campaign. PS – Having the wives of these individuals write the checks does not alter where the money came from.

      Want more? Read for yourself: http://savagepolitics.com/?page_id=326
      • ldkronos, on 06/05/2008, -2/+17I'm sorry, but that site is garbage. Most of what it says has been debunked (even if they claim the debunking is false)

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

        But good going. Way to believe in utter crap. Let me just pick out one good example from the bunch:
        ----------------------
        CHARGE 23 - “I Was A Constitutional Lawyer”

        EVIDENCE - Senator Obama was a senior lecturer on leave of absence. He has never practiced Constitutional Law, nor ever obtained any such ‘title’. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

        COUNTER CLAIM – He taught Constitutional law at his University and he is a lawyer.

        REBUTTAL – Senator Obama was NEVER a Constitutional Lawyer, nor a PROFESSOR of Law.

        VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
        -----------------------------

        Never a professor of law? Then I guess University of Chicago was lying when they said yes he was indeed a professor at our university: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
      • stuffya, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3You're so dumb. The most anyone can donate to a presidential campaign is $2,300. That is the maximum. When you say that someone donated $100,000 to a presidential campaign, it just goes to show how stupid you are. It's simply not possible.

        If there were no cap, Hillary would have outraised Obama with big donors. Instead, Obama built a massive list of small donors while Hillary's big money donors maxed-out early on.
        • noloveIII, on 06/06/2008, -0/+12300 is only for the primary, the general is different.
    • t0x2c, on 06/06/2008, -12/+4Oh man I'd take a shower in that man's piss.
    • JonGalt, on 06/06/2008, -7/+1I take a boot, on my foot, and shove it in his ass.

      Illegal? I love how all the diggers just bend over and allow the government to tramble roughshod on the first amendment and gleefully say thats its pure to do so.

      You all make me sick. Im not kidding.
    • Naieve, on 06/06/2008, -1/+16It's funny all the people talking Obama down for not doing enough.

      What has your candidate done?

      You know, besides pander to special interest groups without even trying to limit them.

      Or is the problem that Obama took enough money from some donors to have a chance, only ignoring the worst, and actually did what a year ago you all called impossible, and brought himself to the brink of his Presidency?

      Is that what this is?

      Spite?

      Call us Obamabots like the dugg down guys up above me, the truth is we don't really care who does it.

      We are tired of the status quo, and while Obama can't fix the complete mess partisan politics has left this country in, he can start us down the path.

      At least he is trying to fix it, all you are doing is making it harder.

      You people are pathetic, stop wallowing in your self-pity.
  • womensgroup, on 06/05/2008, -33/+309Now NO more big money. Its from the people - for the people. Now that is ACTION. A man you can believe! It is only the 2nd day of his Dem. Nomination and he has taken action - taken control! He is a man you can believe in.

    Go Mr. Future President Go. - Go Obama/Webb go
    • waxoff, on 06/05/2008, -21/+8I like the sound of Obama/Gore. Anyone?
      • alpha19, on 06/05/2008, -4/+1Replace Gore with... Webb, and I totally agree with you.
        • papipablo, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Replace Webb with Hagel and I totally agree with you.
        • teamgwho, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1replace hagel with Bill Richardson and I totally agree with you.
        • Hrodrik, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Replace anyone with Hillary Clinton and I'll laugh.

          And then cry.
      • secrity, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5I don't think that would happen.
      • waxoff, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4Apparently Gore suddenly became unpopular here.
        • alpha19, on 06/05/2008, -9/+2Or suddenly after he defaced science with his global warming dilusions.
        • stevetrojanman, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2He's an eco-lobbyist...that would be one of the most hypocritical decisions Obama could make...
        • BabyWookie, on 06/05/2008, -1/+11alpha19:

          You are confusing Al Gore and Global Warming with Ben Stein and Creationism.
      • rugabug, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6If by Webb you mean Morgan Webb then by all means yes.
      • Cuchanu, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Yes I'd go for it, but pardon my ignorance can he be VP again?
      • provost, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Gore is not an evil guy, but he is a globalist who is big on PAC money, corporate money and was a huge proponent of NAFTA when it was created. It will be hard to find a match for obama that will hold up to his high standards.
    • stevetrojanman, on 06/05/2008, -31/+3Lol...delusional

      Some of you people are nuts...not all, mind you...but some of you (womensgroup) are
    • TheGrog, on 06/05/2008, -11/+6You really must not live in Virginia if you want Webb to be the VP nom.
      • CCoe, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6"Really" must not live in Virginia? There are DEGREES of living in Virginia now?
      • t0x2c, on 06/06/2008, -3/+9All I got out of that was Vagina and nom nom nom.
    • VaporBro, on 06/05/2008, -16/+10Obama/Koolaid man would be Epic.
      • VaporBro, on 06/05/2008, -0/+17OOOOOOOOOOOOO YEEEEEEAH
      • userperson, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2Koolaid man is tied up working behind the scenes of the campaign. If ... 'um I mean When *smirk/eye-roll* Obama's elected he's going to be the press secretary at least 'til it turns him sour, then he'll turn the reigns over to Tony the Tiger, it's gonna be Gggrrreat!
    • RudeTurnip, on 06/05/2008, -5/+20Morgan Webb?
      • chugatussin, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2is very sexy
        • digitalarcanum, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4no she has a man jaw and doesn't know a good name from her oversized jaw.
        • Ultramagnus0001, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1eh she's okay, but i'd stil do her not picky
    • homercles337, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2I wonder what he is going to do about all the good lobbyists? I researched this a while back and lobbying from good groups, such as unions, constitute a pretty sizable chunk (IIRC, ~30%).
      • Dingo128, on 06/05/2008, -0/+18Since when are unions good lobbyists?

        Big business and unions.... hand and hand sending jobs overseas
      • Cuchanu, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2I think you don't need lobbyists if you just want to do the right thing. Besides it's not that lobbyist don't have their use, but their money corrupts our government, and that is why this is special.
    • Sean42, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3From what I've heard from the guy, I think Webb would be a good veep choice.
    • Cuchanu, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3I agree I think this is amazing and a beginning to a new type of politics. It was an accepted norm that lobbyists were a HUGE part of chosing our president and our government's policies, now Obama (and McCain to an extent) is making it unacceptable and I think this is huge news that seems to be under-reported. Now if he can just get the corporate hand out of the CIA's business (and not suffer Kennedy's fate) than America will truly be a new country.
    • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -8/+3For all of the ass kissing, I am surprised that Obama didn't take money from the AIPAC. Maybe it was more along the lines of "you're a smart man Obama - I'm sure you don't want to have your wife trying to put your brains back in..."
    • paigeinphilly, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4Obama!!



      =0)
    • BrendanSheehan, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Obama/Sebelius
      • scatteredbomb, on 06/05/2008, -3/+1That doesn't roll off the tongue nicely. Not saying they wouldn't be a decent ticket, but it'd just be harder to have a bumper sticker that causes people to trip all over themselves.
    • junkwheel, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7He does have some big money and it's related to the health industry. I think it's insurance. Hillary took the most from drug companies, Obama took the most from health insurance. Pretty sure it's that way around.

      HOWEVER. His no lobbyist/PAC to fund his campaign, and now none to fund the DNC is awesome. And this is just the start. I truly believe Obama will be FAR better than he has pitched. And he's already changed the game.
    • scratched, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6This is the biggest joke. Just because official lobbyists can't donate money doesn't mean corporations aren't funding the party any more. Lobbyist's family members, employees who work for major corporations, and anyone affiliated with a corporation can donate money. This is just hiding it.

      It's naive to think this means much. I'm not saying it's right to take money from corporations, but this doesn't solve anything.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3OK - let's assume you're right.

        How are they going to donate? In their employees names in lots of $200 per person? What are the odds of a large corporation that wants to do this having employees that all support the same party? So how long would it be before someone "spilled the beans" on their boss for donating to someone he didn't support in his name?

        I don't think this is perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
        • ironyinc, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1It is really sad that you are being serious...

          The rich using money to reimburse a group of supporters that each have donated to a politician (essentially donating multiple times) is, while not widespread, is common enough. Try looking up "bundling."
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4I understand what "bundling" is but it still requires you to have a "willing" participant or group of supporters. That might be easy to come up with once or twice but for companies it's going to be a headache & hard to do "quietly". Which is my point. It is quite difficult to hide bundling due to the sheer number of people involved.

          So, is this THE solution to stopping corporate America from having undue political influence? Of course not.

          Is it a step in the right direction? I believe so.
        • scratched, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand how corporations can donate to Obama. Just because a company can't donate directly doesn't mean the people in charge aren't allowed to donate large sums of money to his campaign.

          Having "every employee donate $200" isn't what's going to happen. That's just naive. Obama gets major corporate endorsements, they just aren't as obvious now because corporations can't slap their names on the money.

          I think Obama's awesome, but thinking that he's not getting any money from major corporations is just naive.
    • tomasII, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Well he took PAC money in previous campaigns....just another ploy
    • jetboyterp, on 06/06/2008, -7/+2Obama is still continuing to accept PERSONAL donations from lobbyists. You people are sooo fooled by this guy.
      • rationalist, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4Factually incorrect. Do your own homework rather than painfully parroting puerile propaganda pulled from pissy pitstops on the Misinformation Highway.
    • BevansDesign, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1If by "Webb" you mean "Spider-Man", then I agree completely.
    • poxonyou, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Ugh, no Webb please.
    • Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I'm up for Kate Sebelius as VP. Webb.... not so much.
    • paradexes, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Thats leadership. day 2 and already big changes in the party. Let's hope that momentum sticks.
  • sandy77477, on 06/05/2008, -26/+119Ok Al Your Democrats...Obama and the DNC Are Depending on Us....!!

    Make a Donation to the DNC today!!!!
    • zydeco, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6Al? You mean Al Gore?
    • okaroleo, on 06/05/2008, -1/+9I'm sorry, i can't vote for him. I just can't handle the truth...

    • BertEatsDirt, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8Al your democrats are belong to us
    • Spudster, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Like Obama needs lobbyist money anymore. The guy has easily enough cash now to outspend McCain by vast amounts. I don't see why people are throwing their money towards him anymore.
      • rationalist, on 06/06/2008, -1/+21) "anymore" implies he took lobbyist money in the first place, which he hasn't since the moment he declared his candidacy.

        2) Money raised in the primary cannot be used in the general. It is a whole new ballgame.

        3) No, I guess you wouldn't understand why regular Americans have funded his campaigns in numbers greater than every seen before, nor why our $25 and $50 have added up to more than the bazillions that the handful of wealthy and powerful give to establishment candidates. Nor why we will keep giving until we win.
    • chesstwin, on 06/06/2008, -6/+1If Obama wasnt just another politician id vote for him, just cause hes black doesnt mean hes special. Just like everyone else hell do what it takes to elected...yawn...tell me who wins
    • fload, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0who cares
  • groverblue, on 06/05/2008, -70/+50That's not change. It's a PR stunt.

    You want real change? End the military industrial complex. End the federal reserve and back the dollar by gold. End the income tax and the government's perception that they own us. Restore the power of the states to make decision they deem right for themselves, like drug policy and education and health care. Restore us to the REPUBLIC that our Founding Fathers intented.
    • dinot, on 06/05/2008, -33/+15RON PAUL!!!!!!!
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/05/2008, -9/+42Settle down dude. I like Ron Paul and agree with everything you just said, but this guy is still doing good stuff as far as I can see.
      • reaper527, on 06/05/2008, -7/+5you can't have it both ways. they are polar opposites, and everything obama is for goes against what you just said you agree with.
        • sublingo, on 06/05/2008, -4/+12Yes you can indeed have it both ways.

          I know several people who like both Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I am one of them. A person doesn't have to be dogmatic in one direction of beliefs.

          Independent brains tend to sum up pluses and minuses based on varying issues, and decide who they like that way. Not based on liberal or conservative or libertarian or whatever.
        • nblsavage, on 06/05/2008, -4/+8sublingo, that is one of the most insightful things I've seen on Digg. Pity most people won't see it.
        • teamgwho, on 06/05/2008, -0/+9I can certainly agree with the part of Ron Paul/libertarian argument that says government needs to stop telling individuals what to do, stop meddling in private affairs, and stop treating individuals like children who don't have a brain and therefore must make the decisions for them. What I don't have to agree with him about is that businesses should be completely unregulated and that protections for workers such as minimum wage, the right to safe working conditions and so forth should be abolished. Obama handles the second part well, but Ron paul handles the first part far better then Obama. That said, I'd take either one over John McCain who sucks on both ends.
        • reaper527, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3@teamgwho

          the minimum wage is a sham. all raising the minimum wage does is make everything more expensive and raise the cost of living. people making minimum wage are in the same spot as before, and middle class americans who are above the minimum wage are hurt as they are making the same wage while everything gets more expensive.

          no argument on safe working conditions though, but no changes are needed in that department either.
        • Spudster, on 06/06/2008, -4/+3Sorry but Sublingo's comment was only insightful at showing his complete lack of political understanding. Ron Paul has NOTHING the same with Obama with the exception of ending the war (the death penalty may be the other one).

          Ron Paul is against gay marriage, abortion and raising the taxes of the rich. Obama is for all of those. Hell even on an irrelevent issue like marijuana they are polar opposites; Ron Paul wants legalization, Obama wants to keep the prohibition.

          With the exception of rhetoric about change, there is no question that these two candidates are completely different when it comes to policy.
        • TJATL, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3You can not like ron paul and barak obama. RP is a limited government, fiscally conservative guy. Obama is a big government, big tax/spend type of guy. Huge ***** difference.
        • reaper527, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1"Hell even on an irrelevent issue like marijuana they are polar opposites; Ron Paul wants legalization, Obama wants to keep the prohibition."

          i'd just like to toss this link in to backup spudster's claim

          http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthene ...
        • sublingo, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Spudster and TJATL you're missing the point. You are speaking dogmatically about encompassing ideas. Look, everybody is always conflicted on ways to handle issues, so the only way to independently look at a candidate is to look at their platform item by item, and score them.

          A person can be anti-abortion and conservative but still think that legislating it away is not the actual solution to the problem that causes the need for an abortion in the first place.

          Is that conservative? Is that liberal? No, as the buddhists say, it's a middle way, or a third way. (I'm not buddhist).

          Ron Paul and Barack Obama represent two very different modes of thinking that I can look at and say yes, they're very different, but they both have strengths in different areas. I do love the idea of stronger states rights. But at the same time you can look at history and see that too much autonomy is not a good thing and easily betrays the greater good of a unified nation. Some states would still have slaves otherwise. Remember, while democracy is about majority rule, it is also about minority protection. So if I'm going to evaluate their two different approaches, I might give Ron Paul 3 out of 5 and give Obama 4 out of 5 - but for different reasons! Then I keep scoring. In the end I'll have a tally.

          I don't mean it this literally that I pull out a calculator and start tallying up points. But if you are dedicated to mental independence, you need to do something like this.

          The media and party politicians like to convince people that they have to pick a direction - left or right - and stick to it.

          I'm sorry, that's closed-minded. Go issue by issue, score it up, and decide who has the best score for you. Screw parties, screw political labels. Be your own man (or woman).
    • AxmxZ, on 06/05/2008, -9/+58Dude, Obama's been official head of the Democratic Party for ONE DAY. Give the dude some time before you require him to undo 50 years of military-industrial development. =X-D
    • nblsavage, on 06/05/2008, -14/+52"Restore the power of the states to make decision they deem right for themselves" - like removing a woman's right to choose and making gays 2nd class citizens. No thanks.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 06/05/2008, -15/+1blah
      • klco, on 06/05/2008, -3/+15Man I wish I could dig you up twice!
      • groverblue, on 06/05/2008, -15/+4See, the problem with your argument is that you are relying on the government to give you permission for ***** like gay marriage. Here is a tip: stop being so lazy and do something about it yourself. Oh, by-the-way, it will be easier to change things at the state level, and you can always move to the state that suits you best. In addition, I'm pro choice and gay marriage, but what happens if a ban on both happens at the federal level? Good luck reversing that. Much easier to get the state supreme courts or legislation to rule in favor of these issues.
      • pintomp3, on 06/05/2008, -3/+8he's all about freedom. his freedom to make you live by his religious beliefs.
      • skipdog172, on 06/05/2008, -7/+7The problem is that you believe the Federal Government should have the power to make these decisions. If the Federal Government decided that abortion must be outlawed in all states, you would probably be claiming that the Federal Government has too much power and the states should have a right to choose.

        This is the problem with the way some people think. You believe the Federal Government is "protecting our rights" in this case, but you only believe that because you AGREE with their stance.

        I just know that if the Federal Government passed some "one-size-fits-all" law that you did NOT agree with, you would start believing that the Federal Government should not have that power.
        • nblsavage, on 06/05/2008, -5/+7Don't put words in my mouth kid. You'll note that the examples I listed were of a freedom being protected not taken away. How many states have tried to ban abortiion? How many have tried to ban gay marrage? How many still have stupid laws on the books about sodomy? This is protection from the tyranny of the majority.
        • groverblue, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6@nblsavage:
          But it works both ways, not only the way you want to approach with your argument. You're thinking in the ideal, which will always be flawed.
        • icepick602, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2I hate blind faith in the benevolence of the federal government... that is the real reason why our civil liberties are eroding so quickly..... Centralizing power to Washington is the one thing that Neo Conservatives and Welfare democrats agree on
        • nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3@icepick602 "I hate blind faith in the benevolence of the federal government" and I hate blind faith in state government.
      • vbullinger, on 06/05/2008, -8/+2How does re-instating states' rights mean that gays are instantly ostracized and abortion is instantaneously illegal?

        I live in Minnesota. We're very blue. If we got the 10th amendment fully restored, abortion would remain legal and gay marriage would be completely legalized. Not civil union, marriage.

        Fearmongering about a possible outcome in some states with a very good idea (reinstating states rights) does not counter the argument.

        The forefathers are right: the 10th amendment is 100% necessary and should never be infringed upon.

        The role of the federal government is to protect our rights and the states rights and to protect us from all those that would infringe upon them (other nations). The federal government should deal with interstate issues and international issues. They have no jurisdiction within the states nor within the interactions of people nor with what I do to myself. Period.
        • nblsavage, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8How about Arkansas? Texas? Louisiana? Are you suggesting that gays who want to have EQUAL rights under the law would have to move away from family and friends just to have those rights? How about a scared teenage girl? How easy/safe would it be for her to try to go one or more states away in order to have an abortion? Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.
        • Monk22, on 06/05/2008, -9/+1"How about a scared teenage girl?"

          maybe try not being a ho to begin with.

          "Are you suggesting that gays who want to have EQUAL rights under the law would have to move away from family and friends just to have those rights?"

          its always been like that. there are states that are more liberal and states that are more conservative. that's the point, they wouldn't HAVE to move. but they do have the opportunity to move somewhere that would more support their life style instead of expecting everyone else to change to suit their needs. which is just as ridiculous as what your asking.
        • nblsavage, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8@monk22 - "maybe try not being a ho to begin with."

          Oh very nice. So it''s ok for someone's rights to be infringed if they're doing something you personally don't agree with.
          It's refreshing to see a Paulite show their true colors.
    • stevetrojanman, on 06/05/2008, -5/+9With regard to this "backing our dollars with gold"...

      You do realize that by doing this we will price ourselves out of just about every market for our exported goods, right? We already have enough trouble with our dollars going elsewhere faster than other countries' dollars are coming in...deciding to switch back to the gold standard would collapse our economy for a long time and then would collapse the value of gold after several years of nobody buying our exports...
      • nblsavage, on 06/05/2008, -8/+7Further proof that Paul should have stuck to being a gynecologist.
      • groverblue, on 06/05/2008, -4/+8Not really. If you directly value the amount of circulating dollar to gold, it will freeze the devaluing. Also, a secondary currency can be introduced and the Federal Reserve Note can be phased out.

        The reason for the gold standard is to eliminate notes of credit (causing inflation), which is all the Federal Reserve Note is. The only thing backing it up is people's faith in. Do you really want a currency who's value is based on how people feel? The fact that we live in a global economy makes the gold standard more critical. First, many of our products are imports anymore. Second, a foreign government is going to favor their currency over the U.S dollar. A standard is the only thing that will prevent a foreign goods inflation.
        • stevetrojanman, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4So you are saying we permanently lock the dollar where it is now...at approximately 1/900th of an ounce of gold and say this is where we're keeping the value at?

          If we back it with gold, do you not allow gold to be traded on the commodities market?

          All markets are based on how people "feel"... People feel that there is value in purchasing a good for its offered price and so they do it... It's not because they are 100% certain that it will improve, it's that they feel it will improve. If all of a sudden investors don't "feel" too happy with the United States, they can remove their investments in gold and significantly devalue our dollar...

          The gold standard worked when the economy was talked about in billions and global trade was heavily limited compared to today's standards. We are now in a market where trillions of dollars, euros, and yen are traded on a daily basis...applying a gold standard is not practical and has a lot of holes.

          As nice as it is to think about, it just doesn't work.
        • SchmuckofNI, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4Silver is a much better alternative. Hell anything would be better than a dollar backed by debt.
      • vbullinger, on 06/05/2008, -3/+8Gold AND SILVER, as the Constitution mandates.

        You know, John Kennedy issued currency backed by silver.

        It was interest-free (you do realize that we borrow our own money from the Federal Reserve, right? And that the interest goes into the pockets of international bankers, right?) and clearly didn't rely on the gold standard.

        The international bankers didn't like that. Rest in peace, John.

        Learn something:

        http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=federal%20re ...
        http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=jfk&sitesear ...
        http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=jfk&sitesear ...
      • soulkitchen, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4I'm very interested in the gold-backed currency debate. At present, our currency is a "fiat currency", which means that its only value (other than the paper its printed on) is limited to what a majority of people believe it to be worth. This worth is established by what traders in the currency markets will exchange for it; a figure largely based on our overall economic health.

        I can understand the desire to have the money be worth something in real terms, like gold. But my question to you is, what is gold itself worth? I believe that gold follows the same pattern, we can't eat it, drink it, and other than it's electrical conductivity it has few uses. If you're thinking "what about jewelry?" and other luxuries, consider that they are made out of gold because gold is expensive instead of being expensive in themselves. So in sum, gold is worth what everyone else will trade for it, just like a fiat currency.

        With regard to whether or not we should do away with the Federal Reserve, who produce this fiat currency out of thin air and proceed to charge us tremendous amounts of interest so that we may join them in the illusion that it has value on its own, I'd say yes.

        Sorry it got kind of long. Thanks for reading it if you got to the end.
    • Stormwern, on 06/05/2008, -2/+13Right and left wing ideologies both work, but in different ways. Much more important than right/left is to get rid of the things that are not working at all, among them a country run by lobbyists.
    • Pinhedd, on 06/05/2008, -0/+12One step at a time buddy. Getting corporate interests out of washington is a very good first step. Larger and more sweeping changes will follow but only time will tell.
    • TotalHalibut, on 06/06/2008, -10/+1Looney Libertarions...
    • DragonGirl724, on 06/06/2008, -7/+3GroverBlue: these idiots don't even know what the Military Industrial Complex IS! You're debating with a bunch of morons. I understand the absolute disgust you have for uninformed nitwits, but you're better off just saving your breath these people don't know whats going on. Keep taking your SOMA Obama supporters.
    • utexas112, on 06/06/2008, -3/+3If by change you mean widespread poverty and mass chaos...well, then, no, I guess I'm not interested in your ideal "change."

      States rights are great and all but seriously... wake the hell up; its not the 1780's anymore.
  • qweenie, on 06/05/2008, -16/+147Clinton lost because her big money doners (lobbyists etc) were all tapped out...Obama came in with millions to spare, some of it is mine! he's funded by us To fund the campaign and DNC is breath taking.. Its already got the republicans scrambling Obama is my hero... hillary needs to get in on this historic time with him, with us or go get out of the way...if she doesn't get behind Obama now, she will be seen by history as the spoiled girl who if she didn't get her way she went home took all her toys and pouted. I'm a woman, so I know how we act.. I watch my 5 year olds play this game everyday
    • ispellkonfusion, on 06/05/2008, -7/+16I don't really think being a sore loser is gender-based...
      • brettmurf, on 06/05/2008, -5/+20Being a sore loser isn't, but being a bitch is.
    • wonderworm, on 06/05/2008, -2/+21Clinton lost because she will continue the policies of old America, hence her strong support among people who are elderly.

      Obama won because he will bring about policies of our NEW AMERICA, a better America, a fairer America, a more efficient and smart America, a less corrupt America.
      • humptyz, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2I really like this comment.
      • coolred, on 06/06/2008, -6/+1Such as bowing down before AIPAC on his first day as nominee..
      • Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately, the boomers haven't died out yet - they represent old politics rather strongly.
      • paradexes, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Actually I would hope that would be more along the lines of the original america, what the founding fathers intended America to be. A new America will imply changes that may change that vision, but I get your point :D
    • stoanhart, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4They weren't tapped out; they just didn't want to invest anymore in a sinking ship :)
  • x1soundgarden1x, on 06/05/2008, -13/+239That's called putting your money where your mouth is. Would this outcome have happened if Clinton had won? Do we see McCain making similar proposals during his third month of being the Republican nominee? Democrats have to get this man to the White House.
    • 172pilot, on 06/05/2008, -12/+3"Do we see McCain making similar proposals?" Uhh.. Yes.. He's the man WHO WROTE the campaign finance bill, and who's name is ON the bill. He also has a long history of voting NO on ANY bill with a porkbelly spending addition, with NO EXCEPTION. Now, I am NOT a McCain fan in ANY sense of the word, but OBAMA? Are you kidding me? This guy is already pitching all of the ideas that Carter already prove do not work.. Higher taxes, kill the small businesses...

      If Obama gets in, mark my word - We will see 15% or more inflation, interest rates in the 12%-25% range for homes, which will make housing affordable for NOBODY, which means housing prices will crash. Gas price increases will ACCELERATE with the rampant inflation, and the stock market will tumble. GUARANTEED.. Just remember you read it all here...

      If McCain gets in, it'll be 4 more years of the same crap, but if Obama gets in, you will refer to today as "The good old days when gas was cheap and I had a job'
      • wrxpert, on 06/05/2008, -3/+5Can you give me a breakdown of the events that will lead to this terrible economic future we have in store. Please wise one.
        • 172pilot, on 06/05/2008, -7/+4Sure..

          1: Raising taxes, which he's already committed to do,
          2: "Windfall profit tax" on oil, which will make it unprofitable to produce oil in this country, just like in the '70s, which will skyrocket prices here, and ease demand and lower prices overseas in China
          3: Dollar weakens because the "answer" is to continue to print money thats not backed by a hard currency.

          Yep... that should about do it.. Once that happens, the rest is just automatic.. Inflation goes up, interest rates are out of control, housing values PLUMMET (making the last year look GREAT by comparison) and the economy stagnates...

          Take an economics class and google "gas crisis cause" and see if you can't learn something. Static economic analysis only looks good on paper.

        • funkytaco, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5So you believe someone who is a 'graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university professor, political activist, and lawyer before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004" doesn't know about basic economics and inflation? Well, I guess you got a point because apparently Bush doesn't.

          Also Obama has emphasized increasing energy independence.
        • wrxpert, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5Wow so your telling me the oil companies will walk away from there buisiness if they are not allowed to make money hand over fist. I missed that in econ 101. Thanks.
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 06/05/2008, -3/+5You mean as opposed to today when gas is already expensive and employment rates are already low?
        • 172pilot, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4You mean UNEMPLOYMENT rates, right? From the 10 year high, back in 2003 of 6.3%, they're DOWN now, to 5.0% in the most recent (April 08) numbers.. (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle ...

          And, GAS prices are only now reaching what they've been for a long time over in Europe, and theyve gotten that way because we have to BUY our petroleum on the open market with a weak dollar.. Weak dollar means that you have to use more of them to buy something overseas... If the Dems hadn't stopped our finding oil in OUR COUNTRY 10 years ago, we'd now have cheap gas from Alaska, and off the coast of the Atlantic, Pacific AND gulf of Mexico. That, plus the two-faced Kennedy's who will support "alternative fuels" until someone wants to build a wind farm off the coast of THEIR house, then they make it ILLEGAL to do so! By the way - The gas prices are largely set in the comodities market, which sells FUTURES... yes, that's right, they're in effect predicting that gas will cost even MORE in the FUTURE, because of the lousy choices we're being given by BOTH parties.

          Look.. I am NOT a McCain fan, but if you think any mainstream canidate from the Democratic party is going to do good for the economy OR the country, you're CRAZY, and I'm afraid we're in for a LONG ride down with the economy.
        • guyincognitoo, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Only people actually receiving unemployment benefits are counted in the unemployment rate. So if the economy is bad long enough, that number will drop as people tap out their benefits.
      • userperson, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Your hitting on some great points... but so things will be tough for a while, but Obama will end the war right? /S
      • Cuchanu, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5#1 he hasn't commited to raising taxes on anybody but wealthy people
        #2 there is no such thing as unprofitable oil are you kidding?!? Exxon is making more than any company ever and they have some to spare (11 billion of pure profit in one year!)
        #3 GWB is the one spending money we don't have, all in Iraq, going straight into the pockets of war profiting companies. McCain wants to continue this. Obama wants to put this money into our infrastructure by creating green jobs that will give us jobs and energy that is renewable. Which do you prefer?
    • chukd, on 06/05/2008, -5/+1Why does he need Lobbist/PAC money? Isn't he the same person that proposed if the other side takes public financing, he would to?
      NY Times (2007)
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us/politics/23fe ...

      Where is his announcement for public financing?
      • FairDinkumMate, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7I think you're missing the bit where McCain actually applied for public financing so that he had the backing to borrow money for his campaign & then withdrew his application(illegally until Bush changed the rules to make it OK!)
    • pixeljedi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6One issue at a time. Lobbyist money is the lifeblood of alot of political campaigns. This declaration is huge and worthy of both note and admiration! Great Job, Obama! Start strong from beginning!
  • MarilynBB, on 06/05/2008, -23/+185
    Not just Democrats but all Americans need to get this man in the White House!
    • stevetrojanman, on 06/05/2008, -19/+12That's alright...I choose not to spend an extra $1500 a year on taxes to pay for someone else's health care...

      And spare me any rebuttal arguments...I disagree wholeheartedly with the government handling any more of my money to provide health care for someone else
      • papipablo, on 06/05/2008, -6/+8Sorry douche, but taxes are going up no matter who is in the White House.
        • p0s3r, on 06/05/2008, -8/+2For those of us that pay taxes. Lucky you.
        • stevetrojanman, on 06/05/2008, -7/+7Uhh...ok, douche

          The argument is that I don't want my taxes to increase for the sole purpose of funding someone else's health care...

          Did you miss that point or choose to ignore it?
        • CaptainShaun, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4You know tax rates can be changed - ie reduced or increased, right?
        • btschul, on 06/05/2008, -4/+1I seem to remember some alternative to McCain and Obama. Some guy who would have almost eliminated taxes by reducing the size of the goverment. Some guy who was going to get rid of the federal reserve and the irs. some guy who promoted personal freedom and personal responsibility instead of a huge bloated welfare state. I remember, just about everyone on digg supported him. what the hell was that guy's name? oh well
      • apothekari, on 06/05/2008, -5/+19And I choose that none of my tax money go to piss down a goddamn sewer in Iraq...Oh wait.
        ***** you assholes I love how its ok to spend billions and billions to wage endless ***** carnage on my fellow man with taxpayer dollars, but GOD FORBID we spend it on health care of the citizenry.
        I could "spare" you the argument but then I'd just be calling you an ***** and what does that accomplish?
        • RayKinStL, on 06/05/2008, -4/+7I agree whole-heartedly...and not only that, but the day this guy lost his job, was down on his luck, and his kid needed to go to the doctor, he'd be whining that the government was doing nothing to help him. I love how Republicans are more interested in TRYING to solve the problems of other countries at the expense of our own problems at home. IMAGINE the things we could have done with all the money we wasted on Iraq. Suddam was never a threat, we all know that now. If we had taken every dollar wasted on this useless war and invested it in alternative fuel research, we could already be rid of our oil-dependency. But just like Republicans, its never about the greater good, it's about what keeps the money in the richest people's pockets the longest...nothing more.
        • eggmunkee, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3If you've never heard, there's a whole range of independent thought outside Republicrats and Demopublicans. I'm against raising taxes, against the Iraq war, against government sponsored health care. If we weren't paying as many taxes, if the government didn't mandate that no one charge under what it decides in medicine, there would be no health care crisis. The current state of health care is a product of government intervention for decades; thus, it sounds quite laughable, that what we need to save it is more government control. Those who have money don't use government health care, they go get real service, while those on it wait in long lines for normal procedures. The service will get worse, taxes will go up even more. It increases everyone's dependence on the government. Tyranny flourishes in this environment. Just know what you are wishing for.
        • stevetrojanman, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2@eggmunkee...

          Thank you for getting it...

          As for you, Ray...I will never demand that my government do anything for me except protect my way of living...

          If I lose my job I'll find another, because I've been educated and prepared by my parents for operating in the real world. I have a disease...a rather debilitating one as a matter of fact, but not once have I been upset that someone other than me hasn't taken care of me and my needs. I accept personal responsibility for myself and understand that what I've been dealt is for me to deal with and not for you or anyone else to deal with...

          I also could give a ***** about what's going on in other countries...I don't know if it was right to go into Iraq or not, but the administration (and just about everyone else in government) was convinced that it was the right thing to do to protect us and it happened...Would I have rather had the money spent inside our country or not collected from us at all? Of course, but if it protected us, which neither you nor anyone else will know for sure...then so be it. It happened, get over it, and we'll deal with the aftermath.

          Finally, oil prices are a product of environmentalist policy over the last 30 years and that is it. Not the market's failure to respond, not some foreign conflict...environmentalism...that's it.
      • AngryAngryBrian, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4I would rather spend that money here fighting diseases that kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Instead we spends it to put thousands of Americans to death far from home and kill around 84,000 civilians. Modern warfare is like trying to kill 20 people on the other side of a full sports stadium with rocket launchers. Sure you may pick 10-15 of them off, but you take 300 bystanders with them. I'm going to go hug a tree and eat some granola.
      • x1soundgarden1x, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4So do you not want your taxes to pay for Army medics, or prison medics? I think you completely miss the point about the current healthcare debate. It isn't about taxing you more to pay for others, it's about reforming a system where people who ALREADY BOUGHT health insurance are DENIED COVERAGE because companies don't want to lose money.

        Obama is proposing that people have to buy healthcare for their kids, and people over 18 don't have to buy it at all. He is proposing a plan that would lower average costs of insurance policies. If you really think that your tax dollars shouldn't be spent on ensuring the physical health of your compatriots, then I question why you don't protest the CDC and your kid's school nurse while you're at it.

        For that matter, why stop at complaining about healthcare? Why should your taxes have to pay for educating other people's kids? Surely you get no benefit from your neighbors being healthy, not going bankrupt from medical bills, or from being educated and having economic opportunities...I'm sure those three things aren't lacking from anarchist territories like Palestine and Iraq...rrrrrrrrrright.
      • jhart3, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1typical selfish American putting his 2 cents in when noone cares. besides the FACT that you have no idea what you're talking about, you clearly only care about your self and your horrendously miscalculated hair cut/appearance. And spare me the rebuttals, anyone who has a digg pic like you must not be heard.
    • paradexes, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Of course the MSM in an interest to score ratings will make the rave seem like it is running neck and neck. Which sad in itself because it is misleading and could lead to the same retarded issue that got Bush in the white house.
  • OSWW, on 06/05/2008, -29/+170We're FIRED UP and READY TO GO!

    How REFRESHING to have a LEADER to follow!

    God bless ya, Barack!
  • fr0ng, on 06/05/2008, -23/+136Awesome. Time to donate.
  • bullnation, on 06/05/2008, -21/+132This is brilliant. Anyone who cares about reform should be proud of these changes.
    • TJATL, on 06/06/2008, -10/+3If by reform you mean putting us closer to a socialist economy with redistribution of wealth and nationalization of industries, then no you should not be proud. If Obama wasn't the most liberal candidate ever, I might listen. I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and the fact that Obama will increase the amount of tax that the government steals from my paycheck, he will not get my vote.
      • maccam94, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3well if you're rich he'll probably revoke those bush tax cuts on the wealthy. otherwise he'll probably be better for you than Bush/McCain ("Bush's 3rd Term")
      • rationalist, on 06/06/2008, -2/+5We already have a redistribution of wealth - from the many to the few with connections and power.

        We already have nationalization of industries - the GOP administration regularly bails out corrupt and bankrupt corporations, while leaving small business owners and home owners out to dry. That is socialism - corporate socialism.

        We already have the government stealing money from your paycheck and squandering it on a useless, horrific war, instead of spending it on infrastructure so that American businesses can have their raw materials and finished goods delivered without container trucks falling off crumbling bridges.

        No wonder you are bitter - your ideology is ***** up your own country, and you are too proud to change and grow.

        Fortunately for the rest of us, you can fool all of the people only some of the time.
        • TJATL, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Where did I say I agreed with bush and his administration? Most true conservatives do not, please quit the generalization.
  • sulthernao, on 06/05/2008, -17/+121Totally love this guy.
    "Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

    While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

    Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

    Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

    Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.

    Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus."
    • wild, on 06/05/2008, -4/+45The link to which you are referring:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/lieberman ...

      Obama has cajones.
    • jordan314, on 06/05/2008, -5/+28Wow, I thought you made that up, but it's real. That's ***** rad.
      • p0s3r, on 06/05/2008, -31/+3A militant black Senator accosting a Senator because he's a Jew is "rad"?
        • byronm, on 06/05/2008, -2/+16hahaha i didn't know they still made nuts like you!
        • banmaster, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Extra salty.
          Its the ***** that corrupt bastards like Lierberman keep pushing for that in part (a BIG part) have made the US the most hated country in the world.
          Hes more an Israeli politician than an American one.
        • rationalist, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Forget it - I used to react to his ***** until I realized his troll name is perfect. He is, indeed, nothing but a poser.
        • chickentonight, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Meh - Welcome to block town.
        • nonstop87, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Oh p0s3r. How you continue to make me giggle.
        • p0s3r, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Why do people think others give a ***** if they block someone or not? Just click block and STFU. No one cares who Random Digger #13428709810 has on their blocklist.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 06/05/2008, -3/+26"Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances."

      Yet another reason to vote for him. ***** Lieberman.
    • BabyWookie, on 06/05/2008, -9/+22Leiberman is a neocon douche who works for Israel.
    • 172pilot, on 06/05/2008, -19/+9"Complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus??" Uhh.. Lieberman ran as an INDEPENDANT and WON, because the Dems wouldn't support him because he isn't the money wasting, America-hating lefties the rest of you guys are. Lieberman was the last REAL democrat, and Ron Paul is the last real Republican. All the rest are just no-backbone, blowing in the wind professional politicians that couldn't make it in the world without being paid tax dollars.

      The REAL ticket to beat would be Ron Paul / Lieberman.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 06/05/2008, -3/+5Lieberman must be doing something right if neither party likes him.
        • eggmunkee, on 06/05/2008, -3/+1You would think so. Generally, I would agree, but, actually I really dislike Lieberman. I can't stand those that treat Israel like a god that we bow down to. They have hundreds of nukes, they enjoy having a police state year round, and we don't have any reason or obligation to support them. So, I would not like Lieberman teamed up with Ron Paul. He just seems like an odd mix of a neocon and a neoliberal globalist, and that's why he doesn't fit into our two party system.
      • texpundit, on 06/05/2008, -3/+7Are you ***** insane? Lieberman is a Neocon that just hasn't had the balls to INFECT the Republican party like the rest of his Neocon buddies. He and RP are damned near polar opposites.
      • notanidiot, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4Hah! Ron Paul and Lieberman! I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is against supporting Israel unconditionally, and Lieberman bases his whole platform on Israel. Ron Paul would never run with that jive jew.
      • razor150, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4I just love idiots like you who think liberals "hate America" as well as the rest of your brain dead regurgitation of supposed Liberal sins. Does the signal from Rush Limbaugh's radio show go straight into your brain? Try thinking for yourself once in awhile you dittohead douche bag.
        • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Does the grease from KFC go straight into your brain?
      • employeeno5, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3What exactly is freedom loving about promoting censorship? Lieberman is a huge champion of censorship and in the pocket of the Israel lobby.

        I don't think either of those things represent the Democratic Party, the Libertarian or Constitutionalist view, or even just a healthy sense of patriotism.
      • Gemfinder, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1"The REAL ticket to beat would be Ron Paul / Lieberman."
        I'd like to see that ballot.
        Instead of boxes marked "Yes" and "No," it'd be "Hickory" and "Bamboo."
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/05/2008, -2/+28I really hope they don't talk sense to Liberman and he gets taken to the wood shed.

      I can guess what Obama was saying; "You are falling in with the Republicans while they are falling out. This next election is going to be a landslide -- and your tie-breaking position will be gone. You will caucus with a group that meets at our pleasure. You will not be on any committees, because, I will see to it that any Republicans who put you on any group are going to get the displeasure of the President. So, you take a look a this crowd out there, and you think long and hard about joining McCain and his chances for winning. Because a lot of his friends are going to go to prison if we ever get the justice department working again."

      >> OK, that's what I'd be saying and I'm fantasizing a bit. If this isn't just some theater for the masses -- Obama is shaping up to be the right hero at the right time. I'll hold off on my "A New FDR" moniker because we've had our hearts broken before.
      • 172pilot, on 06/05/2008, -16/+6You ADMIT that Obama is the new FDR, and yet you still want him?? Perhaps a "new, new deal" because FDR's OLD "new deal" hasn't screwed us enough?

        Let's review.. FDR's Social Security, which is now threatening to bankrupt the whole country is a pyramid scheme. It only does good for the first generation of people into it, and we are now having kids that are BORN with their share of the Social Security burdon over $33,000.00.... AND, it's only getting worse.

        FDR also started farm subsidies, which have artificially RAISED food prices, while charging us tax dollars to pay the farmers NOT to raise more crops... On the surface, it helps "farmers", but over the years, it has been corrupted, and now the "farmers" it supports are large corporate farmers like ADM corporation, and lucky washington insiders who understand how to work the system, such as Senator Tester from Montana, who gets over $230,000.00 per year to NOT grow crops on land he owns. (http://www.heritage.org/research/agriculture/bg204 ...

        If they would FIX social security, and DO AWAY with subsidies, we'd all have LESS TAX (so we could invest in our OWN retirement) *AND* the food we eat would cost less because it wouldn't have an artificially low supply...

        Hey - Having more corn right now would be a good idea, right? We could all make ethanol and run our cars on it, right? Well, no.. because there's farm subsidies, so instead of plentiful, cheap corn to eat AND make Ethanol out of, we have to buy expensive foriegn oil while we watch food prices continue to rise...

        I'm SICK AND TIRED of "feel good programs" that look good on paper, but that can not be sustainable in ANY way, and you are CHEERING because this guy is the next FDR? Learn some history, and have faith in private charity.. we do NOT need big government to fix every problem we have!!!
      • michaelb1, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3I also predict a landslide Obama victory. I twittered it so I can link to it in November.
    • Griberal, on 06/05/2008, -15/+2I'm sure he was telling him what happens to a Jew that ***** with a Muslim.
      • jaydoj, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6Which Muslim are you talking about? No one in here is talking about any Muslims.
    • dpjames, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2http://img.nytstore.com/IMAGES/NSAP358_EXTR.JPG
  • grlykool, on 06/05/2008, -22/+103Wow he is the real deal. This is huge.
  • phorty40, on 06/05/2008, -17/+84This is good for America. This is good for democracy. This is good for the world.
    • btschul, on 06/05/2008, -14/+5this is good for socialism. this is good for lazy assholes on welfare. this is good for people who like higher taxes. this is bad for people like me who work hard to make a living.
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 06/05/2008, -4/+5While I somewhat agree, you're exaggerating the point greatly. I'd rather complain about some level of socialism than having no economy left to speak of.
      • byronm, on 06/05/2008, -4/+9Please Pull your head out of your ass. Then remind yourself that if America is so socialistic why would MILLIONS volunteer money to have this fella be our next president? They're doing so by choice. That very choice is the foundation of our democracy. Are you telling me you support fascism and anything that isn't shoved down from an authority figure is "Socialistic" because you can't handle a society that has ultimately become responsible for itself and its own well being? puhhhhlease
        • btschul, on 06/05/2008, -9/+2People support Obama without knowing his stance on the issues. they say McCain is an evil republican and Obama is a cool black guy who wants "change and hope", i better vote for obama. Obama will turn our country into a socialist welfare state.
      • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -3/+11***** if am am not sick of all this whining about "socialism" - why don't you ***** go back to working 7 days and 60 hours a week and STFU. In the REAL world, a certain degree of socialism is required to keep massive populations under control. Individual welfare is ***** pennies compared to corporate welfare.
      • Ebonsteel, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4Hopefully he does something to help the public education system in this country, so we can reduce the number of ***** like btschul.
        • Subliminational, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2The gov't is the reason I got such a crappy education.
        • AlexBurgess, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Correction: Republicans in government are the reason you got such a crappy education.
  • MrTito, on 06/05/2008, -13/+130No lobbyist money, and he's keeping Howard Dean in place to pursue a 50-state strategy. His policies of reshaping the DNC are further proof of what he's gonna do as President, and it's about damn time. Power to the people.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/05/2008, -10/+9You mean 57-state strategy.... I'm just sayin.
      • MrTito, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8Well, maybe McCain can deliver bottled hot water to all the dehydrated babies in those states.
    • BrendanSheehan, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3At least he can read, unlike McCojsgln
    • TJATL, on 06/06/2008, -5/+1Ah...proof that Democratic voters are the biggest sheep around..."power to the people". Yes that's what the communists used as well to make it appear that power was in the hands of the people. What you Obama fans, democrats, and liberals fail to realize by voting Obama and his ilk in positions of power, is that they make the government more powerful. They give government more control of your life and you are blindly stripped of your power.
      • MrTito, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Blah, blah, blah. I was quoting a John Lennon song, but I'm sure you'll just consider that more liberal hippie propaganda since it's not some redneck anthem about the wife leaving, the dog dying, and the home burning down. See, I can stereotype, too. Isn't it fun?

        Anyway, what you trolls don't realize is that this campaign is funded by more people than ever and while it may not be the only interest that the Democratic party is beholden to, it's is the most prominent and influential one. See, the problem with people like you is that you have no faith in other people who don't think the same as you, who don't goose-step to the same neocon warmongering agenda. We're the party of freethinkers and ideas, and we know what we're doing and who we're putting into power. You're just bitter that you can't say the same for the flip-flopper that you guys are struggling to hoist onto the crumbling pedestal of the Republican party.
        • TJATL, on 06/06/2008, -4/+1One, I'm not a republican. Two, John Lennon was a true activist and great idealist. Three, if the democrats are the party of freethinkers then you would value the individual and not ditribution of wealth. Have a great day!
        • MrTito, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2One, well, you attack Democrats like a Republican. Two, no argument there. And three, nice try but I never said anything about the redistribution of wealth, which is fantastic Orwellian jargon but not the same as making sure that people pay their fair share. When Warren Buffett has an effectively lower tax rate than his secretary, even he will tell you something is not right with the way the people are being taxed. But why change a system that's working for the rich and powerful right? I guess we serfs shouldn't complain.

          You have a blessed day!
  • zacharytelschow, on 06/05/2008, -58/+25Perhaps Obama should start with himself. This guy is all talk and no action or truth to back it up.

    Obama taking Lobbyist/PAC money:
    1996-2004 --> $296,000
    Senate run, 2004 --> $1.428 million
    Presidential run, 2008 --> $1.4 million (from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists)
    • altinnovation, on 06/05/2008, -12/+8You have no idea what you're talking about, because what you said is totally stupid.
      So just don't talk at all.
    • Gerz1219, on 06/05/2008, -7/+22Ironically, you've provided no evidence or examples to support your vague claims.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/05/2008, -3/+9Exact numbers are hardly "vague." For vague, see: how Obama will implement his plans. For source, see: below (I ran out of time to edit).
        • Gerz1219, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3I blame the five minute editing grace period. Your original post only had your first line.
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/05/2008, -8/+17www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

      Obama has been accepting PAC/Lobbyist money if you ask anyone but him. Just because he says it doesn't make it gospel.
      • p0s3r, on 06/05/2008, -6/+5Oh yes it does.
      • defska42, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6from your link: "And some good-government activists say that, past fund-raising practices aside, Obama has genuinely been a champion for ethics and campaign reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and in Congress."

        from your link: "Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February"

        It's common knowledge, for example, that the Rezko monkey was donated to charity.

        And to prove that you are clearly trying to blindly prove a point: you reference the $1.4 million as his "2008" Presidential run, despite the fact that the article was written in August of 2007.
    • Aadain, on 06/05/2008, -11/+5What the hell are you talking about???? He did all is money raising through small donations. This is all public knowledge, reported to the SEC, just like every candidate. He doesn't take money from lobbyists.
      • p0s3r, on 06/05/2008, -5/+12You are an idiot. You completely believed the campaign claim, no questions, no follow-up, no nothing. They said it. You believed it. You refused to believe otherwise.

        The claim: Obama said his campaign has "raised more than 90% of our donations from small donors — $25, $50."

        The facts: Slightly more than 50% of the $138 million Obama has raised came from donors who gave $1,000 or more, according to the Federal Election Commission. Obama got 34% of his money from donors who gave $200 or less, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008 ...
        • robmillernow, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4"You are an idiot." Personal attacks are unnecessary.
          And in case you noticed, asshat, the $1000 is well within personal donation limits, and is probably around the total he'll be receiving from ME, personally.
          Has EVERYthing he's EVER said been comPLETely true? No. Everyone fudges the truth. EVERYONE. If you don't believe that, you're hopelessly naive.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4Ease up on the Kool-aid.
    • Mejari, on 06/05/2008, -3/+8"Presidential run, 2008 --> $1.4 million (from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists)"

      How obtuse do you have to get?

      "People who work for people who consult lobbyists gave him money!"
      I've seen Obama's donation form, and it does ask if you are a lobbyist, it doesn't ask if you work for someone who works for lobbyists. There's a certain level where a connection to a lobbyist is so small it doesn't matter.

      Even if that were true, you realize Obama has more DONORS than those people gave him MONEY. For every dollar they gave Obama has a Donor who gave at least $25.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2I'm obtuse? Are you literate?

        He's accepted donations from people who are members of law firms where the partners ARE lobbyists, not for law firms whose partners CONSULT lobbyists.
        • Mejari, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5So you're accusing people of wrongdoing just because they work with a lobbyist? What's the point of that?
        • zacharytelschow, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3I'm simply accusing Obama of lying, not anyone of wrongdoing. He's made a huge deal of this stance, and hasn't actually followed through on it. If he's the candidate of honesty and integrity, how are his own supporters not upset about this?
        • cannarymburns, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4umm, because nobody really cares that 1.4m of 138m came from people who work with lobbyists, no high profile politician is totally clean, but obama is a hell of alot closer to paul/gravel/kuccinich than he is to hillary or mccain. don't deal in absolutes...
        • mabs0, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2By your logic, soon enough, if I own a car and donate to his campaign it's going to mean he accepted money from the auto industry. Go get a life! It's absurd to demand that people be shut out of the process based on associations. This is not a witch hunt against lobbyists as individual citizens and all members of their family and all their employees. If the assistant of a law firm decides to donate money to a campaign, he/she does it as an individual and not in the name of a lobby group. Just because someone works for someone who is also involved with a lobby group does not make that person inherently evil or a saboteur of democracy.
    • vbullinger, on 06/05/2008, -11/+10Shhhhhh! You're not supposed to tell everyone what Mike Gravel told everyone at the debates!

      Also, did you insult Obama? That's not well-liked here on Digg!

      Who cares if you mention 100% factual evidence with exact numbers? You can't insult Obama!

      I remember at the DNC a couple of years ago - I saw it on TV - they unveiled him like he was the next messiah. At that point, I knew he was going to our next president, no matter his stance on the issues. He's CFR, Trilateral Commission scum, and that's why he's going to win.
      • userperson, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I remember that it was at the 2004 Convention I think ... He made a speech ... sounded like he meant it... not all that great otherwise, though everyone in the media acted as if he had laid a golden egg.
        • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1He's Al Gore 2.0.
        • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2@danfive555
          Ya think? Did Al Gore ever have this sort of following? maybe I just wasn't linked into the Internets then. I'd think he's more like Clinton 2.0 i.e. Bill . When Gore spoke I didn't believe it. When Obama speaks I do. Don't get me wrong, I know he's lying... but man is he sure good at it.
    • AwesomousPrime, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4Lol, so like 0.01%? Wow, lots of cash, they really are influencing that guy arnt they?
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2That isn't the point, captain oblivious. The point is that Obama has constantly said he doesn't accept special interest donations, but he does. One of his most important talking points is blatantly false.
    • topherbook, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4Let's say that all of your points are true (except the last one, which is quite a stretch). I have not done the research, so I won't contradict you. At this point it is obvious that his policy is to no longer accept money from those groups. Perhaps he started out accepting those monies just like every other politician in DC and later decided that it was the wrong way to go. There is no problem with learning from past mistakes.

      As of his presidential candidacy forward, you cannot accuse him of accepting dirty money, and his leadership of the DNC into the same policy cannot be rationally criticized. If you don't like Barack Obama, that is fine. However, this policy is unprecedented for a presidential nominee let alone an entire party. If you must criticize, your position would be better served by finding something more worthy of criticism.
  • TheBogie, on 06/05/2008, -15/+40George Stephanopoulos still has a job? Anyone know why?

    The only job he has been doing for the past year is carrying water for the Hilliary campaign.

    He is a water carrier, not a journalist.
    • Cuchanu, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2He has a crush on her it's not his fault maybe he loves older powerful women.