Comments on: Obama Raises $100M+ In September?

By: CaptainUltimate

CaptainUltimate — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:32:50 +0000

Can you share you definition of socialism with me? Cause I really think you’ve got it confused with Keynesian economics. At any rate, I can’t see how Barack Obama is going to make this country anymore ’socialist’ than the current administration.

Your whole argument is, I think, just a thinly veiled illustration of the fact that you don’t like Obama simply because a D is next to his name rather than an R. Partisan hackery ftw

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:25:40 +0000

I am for a free market, with full disclosure. Obama is not. He is campaigning on getting money out of politics, but has leveraged his huge amount of wealth to drown out McCain who chose public financing. Obama is not a revolutionary candidate in the sense that he portrays himself to be. Perhaps he is revolutionary in a cut throat, win-at-all-costs kind of way. We have not seen this type of campaign since the early 20th century. Obama is a socialist, “spread the wealth around” kind of guy when it comes to everyone else, but when it comes to politics, he is the cock of the rock.

By: CaptainUltimate

CaptainUltimate — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:32:18 +0000

If there weren’t limits on how much one could donate, you’d have an argument. Then a politician could create a plutocracy with the White House. But there are limits, so some how Sen. Obama has convinced millions of people to support him, even in these economic times.

and thats a bad thing? Really?

I thought you were for the free market Jim. The primacy of the rational individual in decision making. Because that’s all we’re seeing here.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:18:27 +0000

I aint no Republican lackie. They are all kettles or pots or whatever on both sides. Obama is the one who has campaigned on “a new kind of politics.” Sure, buying an election with an unprecidented amount of money after being the first to refuse public funding in 32 years is actually kind of new.

By: CaptainUltimate

CaptainUltimate — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:41:34 +0000

What’s this! A conservative decrying financing corruption? Personally, I like to call it, pots decrying kettles.

Seriously Jimmy. Jack Abramoff ring any bells? Duke Cunningham. Didya think people would just let that kind of stuff just slide? I’d be easier if you’d just admit we’re seeing the tide of a very pissed off American electorate.

By: Split-Party Household

Split-Party Household — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:50:19 +0000

$86 per person is B.S. and you know it. Even if Obama wins, and I think he will, there will be investigations into this kind of money. Seriously, if everyone is this broke, how does this happen? No way it does…give me some precedent.

By: beowulf888

beowulf888 — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:07:20 +0000

Jimmy the Dhimmi: I presume you’re using the term “special interests” as Republican-speak for “ordinary people”. Republican egos just can’t get their minds around the fact that, at least this point in time, a significant majority of ordinary Americans want them OUT OF OFFICE — and it is the in the very “special interests” of these ordinary Americans to vote in a sane and sensible leader. The breakdown of the Obama’s September haul shows that: he had 630,000 new donors in September; the average contribution for the month is still under $100; the Obama campaign said that retirees and students are the two groups which have given the most contributions.

So 3,100,000 individuals have contributed to the Obama campaign so far, and the average contribution is $86. You can check my numbers, but $86 * 3,100,000 = $266,600,000 — which came from that very crafty and subversive special interest group called the American people. Simply amazing!

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:14:11 +0000

Technicalities and loopholes which can be filled, and to suggest anything else is dishonest. The Obama campaign has infused money from special interests into politics more than any campaign in the past 32 years.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:43:19 +0000

Jimmy, don’t attempt to confuse this. If a registered lobbyist gives Obama money through his website, the campaign returns it. There have been numerous examples of this. To suggest anything else is dishonest.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:57:13 +0000

if Obama took the public finance option; ie, he may have lost this thing!

He who takes the most money from lobbyists and special interests wins. A new type of politics, my ass.

By: BenG

BenG — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:58:20 +0000

Justin,

insane is the word, and that’s what it would’ve been if Obama took the public finance option; ie, he may have lost this thing! I know that bothers a lot of his critics, but it’s about time a Dem. did what they needed to do to win – not at any cost, just at a reasonable cost. After all, as stated above, we funded the campaign to a large degree.

To Beow888; people don’t give up that much power without a huge fight, it ain’t over till it’s over so don’t be shocked if there’s more October surprises.

SaneIn S.F; LoL for that. Ain’t it funny too that, as the greatest, largest, most omnipotent economy the world has ever seen, we followed the Brits lead last week on how to inject capitol directly into the banks to effectively get out of this mess? (hopefully)

Justin; From one who is constantly up against a room full of Right Wingers towing the party line, i do appreciate all you’ve done to illuminate so many of the inconsistencies we’ve had to endure over the past 8 years. Creating a fair and less encumbered platform such as this is no small feat. Trying to predict how an Obama presidency will work b/4 he’s even sworn in, though, is not smart. They’ve got three long weeks and there’s a lot of hysterical crazies out there, so don’t fool yourself that this will be a breeze.

By: pico

pico — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:35:50 +0000

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/obama.fundraising/

It’s 150 million. One hundred and fifty. As Justin said, insane.

By: beowulf888

beowulf888 — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:32:12 +0000

Boo hoo. Well, this the the Wall Street Bankers and Fat Cats who fund the 527s are a little out of pocket at the moment â€“ because their Republican political servants gave them a free hand on Wall Street. I’m afraid itâ€™s average Joes (not the plumber) who are putting Obama over the top. An informal poll of 20 of my friends suggests that weâ€™ve donated close to $5000 to Obama between us. I guess weâ€™re just average poor people because we donâ€™t own 7 homes and we make far less than the $5 million/year that McCain calls a middle-class income. Heh, heh. I remember Republicans (or should I say members of the Republic Party?) were criticizing Dems for being sore losers in 2000 and 2004. Well, now the tables are turned, and all the stab-in-the-back lies are being carted out to protect fragile little GOP egos from dealing with the reality that more people in this great country happen to trust the Democratic Party than they trust the Republic Party right now.

By: SaneInSF

SaneInSF — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:38:25 +0000

Can we include his donations as part of determining the trade deficit? With all that money coming from foreigners, we’re bound to have a trade surplus.

By: RPC

RPC — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:33:27 +0000

If the Democratic wins in November are as big as many predictions, with a possible Democratic supermajority in the Senate, the Dems are likely to feel that they have a clear mandate for change. How many examples can you think of in such a situation where politicians decide to sit back and do nothing? No, I tend to think that the Democrats are going to mold many policies to their liking.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:11:02 +0000

The dems won’t have to worry about overreaching, since the public wants them to do something to alleviate the crisis, they want healthcare, and a new energy policy, no the congress only has to worry about inaction

By: Gaucho Politico

Gaucho Politico — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:56:11 +0000

Justin why do you assume that the dem congress will go crazy after the election? personally i think they will do less out of a fundamental belief that the only way they stay in power is not through accomplishing anything but through not rocking the boat. they have a chronic fear that if they actually do something people will attack them for it and they lose their cushy jobs. they will simply continue on short term earmark style spending without major new projects unless obama decides to implement them. The dynamic is going to be obama’s way without a dem congress opposing him.