BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 04:43 PM

mg-

"lightworker"?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 05:35 PM

A lightworker, Charlie, is someone who does profoundly positive work in society, work which improves people's lives in some way.

Consider it this way. You can shed light on a situation or you can shed darkness on it. Someone who does the former is a lightworker.

This is quite different from a "light worker", which means someone who doesn't work very hard. Like my dog. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:24 AM

"I am an American who is a graduate student in the UK, and I have been congratulated by people from around the world over the past couple of days for the Obama nomination. Strangers hear my accent, and want to talk about Obama. One British person said, "America didn't become the nation it did with guns and tanks; it became the nation it did with ideas. An Obama presidency represents everything that America has told the world about itself in the past century--and what the rest of the world wanted to expect out of America. The idea that you talk before acting, the idea that you make friends, not enemies, and the idea that anything is possible."
...
Another Italian told me, "Obama will cause my country to fall in love with America again."

Soft power?

Most Americans have not quite absorbed the enormous blow to America's image abroad delivered by the Bush administration. Obama has helped erase it already."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/email-from-abro.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:59 AM

I think he meant, 'lightweight'

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:14 AM

"There is no doubt about it. The legacy George W. Bush will leave behind is devastating. The United States, the greatest superpower of all time, has lost influence and authority on every continent, even on its own. It's a reality the next president will have to live with, and it will be his job to regain political and moral authority. Number 44 will have to pay off debt, create a social safety net and then stabilize it. The new president will have to bring home the troops and yet continue to protect the country, acknowledge climate change and yet secure the country's energy supply, strengthen friendships and, most of all, reinvigorate America's confidence in its ability to solve its own problems. He will have to restore Americans' faith in their country as a special place.

This is the standard by which Number 44 will be measured -- and voted into the White House. And now, on this Tuesday in St. Paul, it is Barack Obama, the winner of the Democratic semifinal, who suddenly seems infinitely greater than his opponent of the recent past. At this moment, his moment, he also seems greater than his opponent of the near future.

There are several reasons to explain Obama's victory, as well as a number of truths behind Clinton's defeat. Never before has America experienced a grassroots campaign quite like Obama's. Every e-mail address was stored, not a single call was lost and at Obama headquarters in Chicago, people -- not machines -- paid attention to the cares and concerns of citizens. Even at 3 a.m. Instead of depending on major donors, Obama pinned his hopes on the millions of his often-young supporters, who would donate $25 today -- online -- and perhaps another $30 eight weeks later. "This is your campaign," he kept repeating, and the fact that he managed to turn it into a movement is mostly his own achievement.

An Honest and Sincere Candidate

It didn't hurt that Obama came across as honest and sincere. He was upfront with voters when he explained his misgivings about the radical pastor of his church, Jeremiah Wright. At the same time, he told them why he found it so difficult to drop a friend after so many years. The country could have called Obama weak, but instead it believed him.

Another plus for Obama was that no one was as savvy about US election laws as his campaign manager, David Axelrod. In Iowa, Axelrod already knew how many delegates were to be had in which district by the time Hillary's troops had showed up to rent office space.

Finally, Team Obama stuck together. There were no firings, no indiscretions, and not even his campaign slogan, "Change We Can Believe In," had to be fine-tuned. It was the perfect campaign.

The reason it was so perfect was that Obama refused to abandon his conviction that he is precisely what America needs: a fresh face that promises change, absolution for the sins and recovery from the consequences of the Bush era. Obama talked a lot in those 15 months, and yet there were only two words he truly needed to win: "hope" and "change."

..." (Spiegel On-Line International (Germany))

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

Bruce, it would be interesting if you listed what you consider Bush's achievements in these 8 years. Let's see if we can agree on at least a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 12:03 PM

Amos, you are beginning to sound like a professional American speechwriter in the employ of one of the Democratic party. I have added comments in brackets.

"The new president will have to bring home the troops"

(You wish! I'll believe that when I see it.)

"and yet continue to protect the country"

(Say WHAT????? The only people in the world that the frikkin' USA really needs protection from is its own criminal leadership!),

"acknowledge climate change"

(In what way? I propose that the climate changes you see happening are being caused almost entirely by cyclical changes in the energy output of the sun, not by our industrial civilization.)

"and yet secure the country's energy supply"

(Mmm-hmmm. That would be a good idea.),

"strengthen friendships"

(Easy. Stop invading other countries. Only Israel and the UK will be offended by that.)

"and, most of all, reinvigorate America's confidence in its ability to solve its own problems."

(Well, I think that would best be done by electing Chongo. He is a problem solver.)

"He will have to restore Americans' faith in their country as a special place."

(C'mon! Americans are obsessed with the notion that their country is a special place. Everyone in every country naturally thinks that his country is a special place, but that concept has gotten out of hand in the USA. What is needed now in the USA is some measure of humility, not more hubris.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:41 PM

LH:

I am but a vessel for perfection. Your editorial remarks should be addressed to der SPiegel.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Capt. E
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:56 PM

I volunteered for the Obama Campaign and was a Precinct Captain and delegate to the County Convention for the Obama campaign here in Austin Texas. It has been 30+ years since I have been so proud: representing that incredible man through calling voters and casting my vote for him. The crazy thing is I believe Obama will win Texas in the general election. That is an incredible thought after seeing close-up how G. W. Bush operated for 6 years as governor, destroying the State Budget surplus, then getting elected President and proceeding to do the same Nationally in record time while feeding his ego and lining the pockets of all his friends...to have new hope in the future given us by Obama is almost beyond dreaming.   The world was changed and pushed off course by the assassination of Bobby Kenedy, giving us Richard Nixon in his place. Let's put it back on course and all work to elect Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:58 PM

I'm relieved to hear that, Amos. I was being to get a little worried. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:39 PM

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi criticizes Barack Obama

9 minutes ago



TRIPOLI, Libya - Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is criticizing Barack Obama for the candidate's recent comments about Israel.

Gadhafi says the Democratic senator's remarks show that he "has not fulfilled anything from his slogan: 'Change.'"

In his address Wednesday, Gadhafi called Obama "our brother, the Kenyan with American nationality."

During a speech this month to pro-Israel activists in Washington, Obama said Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel, a remark that touched off heavy criticism among Palestinians.

Obama also said there was no greater threat to Israel than Iran.

Gadhafi spoke during a ceremony celebrating the 38th anniversary of foreign troops leaving Libya after he came to power in 1969.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

What's Next?   Organize!!!

This has been a 50-state campaign from the very beginning. A year ago this week, our grassroots supporters organized a nationwide canvass in more than 1,000 cities to introduce people to Barack Obama.

Since then, we've had an unprecedented primary season that built a grassroots infrastructure in all 50 states -- not just for Barack, but for all of the Democratic candidates.

Now it's time to bring all of that energy together for our common cause of change.

All across the country, Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans are tired of the politics of the past and are looking for new solutions to the challenges we're facing.

That's why we're launching a nationwide day of action on Saturday, June 28th called "Unite for Change" -- and asking you to host a Unite for Change meeting in your neighborhood.

In all 50 states, supporters like you -- seasoned veterans and first-time volunteers alike -- will host house meetings to reach out and bring together folks who supported all of the Democratic candidates (and those who are just tuning into the process now).

The goal is to come together and use the common values we share to build a united volunteer organization in your neighborhood that will register new voters and build support locally.

It's going to be an amazing time, and hosting your own event is easy. We'll provide all the tools and resources you'll need. Here are the details:


Unite for Change Meetings
Saturday, June 28th
Host one in your community

Learn more and sign up to host a Unite for Change meeting:

http://my.barackobama.com/unite
http://my.barackobama.com/unite

We're heading into a battle against John McCain, and the stakes are higher than ever before.

But the path to victory is as simple as talking to your friends and neighbors.

From the beginning, this campaign has been about ordinary people reaching out and building the bonds of community -- empowering one another by coming together to make change.

With the general election approaching, it's more important than ever to keep this momentum going. And there's no better way to make this happen in your community than hosting a Unite for Change event.

You'll gather -- not just with Obama supporters, but with anyone who's tired of the politics of the past and ready for something new -- to share your stories and lay the plans for how to build this movement locally in the weeks and months ahead.

It requires some responsibility, but don't worry -- our team will be here with all the support and resources you need to make your Unite for Change event a big success.

Learn more and sign up to host a meeting in your community:

http://my.barackobama.com/unite

Yesterday, our deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, announced that this will be the first campaign in a generation to put staff in all 50 states.

It says a lot about our movement -- and about the enthusiasm and resources people like you have supplied -- that this is possible.

But being in every state will not be enough.

In order to succeed in every community in America, it's going to be up to you to take the lead. Everyone who hopes for real change after November is counting on you.

Thank you,

Jon

Jon Carson
National Voter Contact Director
Obama for America

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 07:08 PM

It might be a good idea, instead of just running about screaming, "Change, change change," for Obama to finally get around to telling the voters what kind of change he has in mind. Other wise, people are going to become even more suspicious than they already are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 07:55 PM

Riginslinger:

He has spoken in specifics in a hundred places, with particular porposals and platforms. Why do you insist on pretending he has not, instead of going tot he trouble of learning what he has said and is saying? If you are too lazy to do so, how can you justify making such uncharitable assumptions about him? Why not find out what the real story is first?




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:01 PM

It must just be when I'm watching him that he fails to say anything specific.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:08 AM

Washington Post

Obama's Economic Challenge

By David Ignatius
Thursday, June 12, 2008; Page A23

It was a telling sign that one of the first things Barack Obama did after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination was to hire a new economic policy director, someone who can help him move from the anti-NAFTA left of the party toward the pro-market center that traces its lineage to Clinton administration Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.

The new economic adviser is Jason Furman, who has been director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, a Rubin-sponsored effort to grapple with the country's long-term fiscal problems. Furman says Obama told him he wanted an "honest broker" who could encourage a broad debate about economic policy. "He told me he wants to be eclectic in terms of who he hears from as he makes up his mind about economic issues," Furman told me Monday, after his first day traveling with the presumptive nominee.

The Furman appointment is a classic Obama move. It sends a signal that his economic policies will be consensual, mainstream, bridge-building -- all the qualities appropriate for a president who wants to break down partisan divisions. It's a sign that Obama's policies will involve "Facing the Music," as Furman titled a recent Brookings paper he co-wrote about repairing the fiscal damage of the Bush years.


But will Obama's domestic economic agenda also be exciting and visionary? Will it connect with the country's yearning for fundamental change? That's a much harder question, and it goes to one of the trickiest problems for Obama: Can a candidate who has gathered such a broad tent of supporters also find the intellectual spark that could make him a transformational president? What will he stand for, other than the generic idea of change? What's the cutting edge here?

The Reagan presidency was potent because it was powered by new ideas; the same could be said of the Clinton presidency. But if there is to be an Obama revolution, what will be its transforming economic vision? A program that is centered on "fixing the Bush mess" may be necessary, but it won't energize the country.

Obama's opportunity is unusual, and not simply because he will be the first African American major-party nominee. If he wins in November, he is likely to come to office with sizable working majorities in the House and Senate. That would give him an opportunity to govern that has been rare, arguably not seen since Lyndon Johnson's landslide in 1964.

When you ask senior members of Obama's team how they would use this opportunity to reshape domestic policy, you get the same well-considered answers. They will focus on health care, energy policy and tax reform. Perhaps because those phrases have been repeated in so many Democratic debates during the long primary season, they may have lost some of their galvanizing impact. The trick for Obama will be to make this agenda sound like creating something new and inspiring, rather than just fixing what's broken.

Furman argues the case for remedial change well in his Brookings papers. A July 2007 paper he co-wrote with Rubin makes a powerful economic case for universal health care. The current system, he argued, is putting a strain on businesses, wages and jobs; it is adding to America's fiscal problems and reducing its competitiveness in global markets. An October 2007 online piece argued for cutting corporate tax rates while at the same time repealing the alternative minimum tax to help middle-class taxpayers. An April 2008 column in Slate offered a sensible road map for fixing what Furman calculated was the $4 trillion impact of Bush's tax and spending policies. He stressed honest budgeting, bipartisan efforts to cut the deficit and a presidential willingness to veto budget-busting proposals. Sensible stuff, but not exciting.

To make the repair job sound visionary, Obama may turn to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the best idea-packager the Democrats have. As a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, Emanuel has been walking a tightrope for months, trying to keep faith with Hillary even as he recognized that Obama was an especially charismatic leader. Now he's able to be all Obama, all the time. Emanuel has argued that the Democrats need "A New Deal for the New Economy," as he titled a March op-ed piece.

Emanuel takes the basic agenda -- health care, energy policy and tax reform -- and dresses it up into a new social contract for the age of globalization. That's the Democrats' challenge now. They have the candidate, but do they have the ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:11 AM

Washington Post

The Unvetted Vetter
By Jim Hoagland
Thursday, June 12, 2008; Page A23

Say this for Sen. Barack Obama: He is a lot quicker in these post-Jeremiah Wright days to walk away from controversy caused him by others. By the time he finished distancing himself from Jim Johnson, his former vice presidential vetter, Johnson must have felt like he was on Mars.

After Johnson was portrayed in the Wall Street Journal as having received favorable treatment from Countrywide Financial Corp., a mortgage company Obama has frequently attacked, the Democratic presidential candidate immediately labeled Johnson as being only "tangentially related to our campaign."

Shifting into overdrive, Obama added that "these aren't folks who are working for me," referring to Johnson and his two associates on the vice presidential vetting team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder.

It was enough to make you wonder if the three had somehow broken into Obama's office, stolen his letterhead stationery and appointed themselves to interview the capital's good and great about who should join Obama on the Democratic ticket.

But that was not all. "First of all, I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages. . . . I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters." He was equally dismissive of questions about Holder's role in Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of financier Marc Rich.


Johnson got the message and yesterday announced his resignation from what I guess had become his non-job.

None of this had anything to do with Obama himself, the candidate argued forcefully. And at one level, he is absolutely right. This so far is only a media scandal, not a matter of law-breaking or obvious moral depravity.

Political capitals have distinctive flavors of media scandal. London periodically seizes on the drama of the seemingly happily married Cabinet secretary who is abruptly outed in the press by a hooker or a gay lover for profit or spite. Paris savors secret bank accounts in Luxembourg or Tokyo that somehow bring politicians and intelligence services together.

The current Washington media scandal usually involves an unseemly event or difficult-to-explain situation that lands its perpetrator in bubbling hot water for a while but is never clearly resolved. Scandal in Washington is something that allows us to talk about others maliciously while maintaining a clear conscience.

Or -- if the subject is Bush & Co. -- a sense of refreshed scandal allows us to state with new vigor the moral superiority and disdain we already feel and have stated over and over. That was the case with Johnson's immediate predecessor in the hot media bubble bath, Scott McClellan, the bumbling ex-press secretary for the Bush White House. McClellan's wide-eyed discovery via a best-selling memoir that he had been used for propaganda purposes by his bosses unleashed the armies of rehash and retribution.

Even if you like and admire the subject -- as many in Washington do with Johnson -- a certain schadenfreude settles over the policy community when the headlines singe but do not destroy a career.

The flap over Johnson's mortgages immediately revived investigative reporters' interest in his having served "on the board of five companies that granted lavish pay packages to their executives -- and often playing a key role in approving them," as the New York Times delicately put it in what appeared to be a warm-up pitch for additional digging.


It also brought new scrutiny to the curious decision by Obama to name Johnson to the job in the first place, given the candidate's fierce vows to transform Washington's insider culture and ways.

Johnson is a consummate political insider who, among other things, vetted vice presidential possibilities for John Kerry and played a key role in helping Walter Mondale settle on Geraldine Ferraro back in 1984 -- without, Johnson later told friends with impressive self-deprecating humor, ever imagining that her husband's business dealings could prove controversial in the campaign.

But what is important here is what this incident says about Obama, not about Johnson. The senator's initial reaction was to portray himself as too busy to keep up with the obscure financial doings of people who are not significant to the campaign and to belittle the media for asking him to "vet the vetters."

To treat Johnson, Holder and Kennedy suddenly as mere fact-checkers is as disingenuous as it is ungracious. Obama is clearly the most intelligent candidate of either party since Bill Clinton. But he can outsmart himself if he goes on expecting the media and the public to accept just about any explanation he gives.

Yes, he can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:21 AM

Not all Democrats falling for Obama

Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:55:45 AM
By BEN EVANS and SAM HANANEL

Nothing personal, Sen. Obama, but our re-election comes first. Barack Obama, for all his attention and primary successes, does not go over so well in a fair number of Democratic lawmakers' home districts. So it seems there is little chance that some will endorse him for president.

Some are counting on Republican votes in their re-election bids. Some are newly minted and in rematches with 2006 opponents. Some may be wary of how their constituents will react to a black presidential candidate. Some, too, have made it a practice of distancing themselves from the national party, fearing the inevitable campaign ad that has their face morphing into Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Obama.

Rep. Dan Boren, the only congressional Democrat in Oklahoma, calls Obama "the most liberal senator" in Congress and says he has no plans to make a public endorsement.

"We're much more conservative" in eastern Oklahoma, Boren said. "I've got to reflect my district."

Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, a Democrat and Vietnam veteran who won his last election by about 1,800 votes, said he admires both Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but feels no obligation to state a preference.

"If it turns out one of them is an ax murderer or something like that I'll make a choice," he joked. Otherwise, "I don't think I need to get involved."

For most of these fence-sitters -- at least 14 as of Wednesday -- it boils down to political necessity: They are vulnerable Democrats in conservative-leaning districts who take pains to avoid aligning closely with the national party.

McCain has his own issues in his party. Many conservatives opposed the four-term senator, who has worked with Democrats and strayed from GOP orthodoxy on some issues, before he sealed the GOP nomination in February. Many still express reservations about him as the party leader.

Because McCain secured the party nomination much earlier in the campaign season, Republicans have not been pressed about their endorsements like Democrats have. But only a handful have publicly withheld their support for him. That includes Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who long has bucked the party hierarchy, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is running his own presidential campaign.

On the Democratic side, Boren said he, like most of the undecideds, will go along with nominating Obama at the Democratic convention in Denver in August.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki challenged Boren over his assessment of Obama and said the candidate had worked with Republicans in the Illinois Legislature and in Senate.

Obama, seeking to become the first black president, is hardly the first Democratic candidate to face such resistance. Over the years, moderates and conservatives have avoided associating with nominees going back to George McGovern in 1972 and including John Kerry in 2004. Public endorsements were not an issue in 2004 since Kerry had wrapped up the nomination early.

"They are all scared to death about getting beat by a Republican," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., one of Obama's most prominent supporters. "I don't think that if the good Lord himself had been nominated as a Democrat that some of those folks would have endorsed him. They are afraid of looking too much like a Democrat because of the kind of districts they're from."

As in the past, many uncommitted Democrats are from the South, which has favored Republicans in recent elections.

Although Obama swept the region in the Democratic primaries with near-universal support from black voters, he often fared poorly among working-class whites. As a result, he is seen as an asset in some districts but a question mark at best in others.

Rep. John Barrow, for example, represents a coastal Georgia district where blacks make up more than 40 percent of registered voters, mainly in urban areas around Savannah and Augusta. Not surprisingly, Barrow -- who won his last election by fewer than 900 votes -- endorsed Obama in February.

But Marshall, the Democratic incumbent in a neighboring district in rural central Georgia, has stayed quiet.

Marshall's district is less than one-third black, and he needs the support of white Republicans to win, including votes from the military community around Robins Air Force Base. He faces a fresh challenge this year from a retired Air Force general.

Republican campaign strategists already have shown they want to link Democratic candidates with Obama and other national figures, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor.

In special elections last month in Mississippi and Louisiana, Democratic candidates Travis Childers and Don Cazayoux faced television ads attempting to make those connections.

But Childers and Cazayoux won surprise victories, raising questions about the strategy's effectiveness.

Still, Childers is staying out of the presidential race, as is his fellow Mississippi Democrat Gene Taylor. Cazayoux recently announced he is backing Obama.

Obama's campaign has made some progress in converting the holdouts. Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who had insisted she would not budge from the undecided column, budged on Wednesday and endorsed Obama.

Boyda "has been impressed with Senator Obama's campaign because they're willing to take their discussion to all 50 states, rather than just the swing states," spokeswoman Liz Montano said.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a Democratic House leader who helped orchestrate the party's strategy for winning control of Congress in 2006, argues against reading too much into the holdouts. He said most of them always stay out of national politics and that the party is generally unified around Obama.

"They're just going to stick to their knitting," he said. "It's not that they're anti-Obama."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:17 PM

NEW YORK: Presumptive Democratic candidate for the US presidential election Barack Obama has established a small early lead over his rival Republican John McCain, a new poll shows.

The poll, conducted for Wall Street Journal and NBC, shows that Obama is leading McCain by 47 per cent to 41 per cent. But still the lead is significantly smaller than the Democratic Party's 16-point advantage, 51 per cent to 35 per cent, when voters are asked, without candidates' names, which party they want to win the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:43 PM

Not all apes are falling for Chongo either, BB!!!!! I know it's a shocking thing to hear, but it's true.

And what's even more mind-numbing than that is this. NOT all Republicans are falling for McCain!!!!!!

My Gawd.....WHAT is the world coming to? ;-) Can NOTHING be depended upon anymore? Is no knee-jerk tradition or unthinking and mindless form of repetitive programmed behaviour safe any longer?????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:43 PM

McCain is having the problem I mentioned earlier--he has to appeal beyond his base but when he does try, the base threatens to desert--or at least stay home.

1) Quite a few figures on the "Religious Right" are not happy with him. Even if they eventually do vote for him, at a minimum he will not have the army of foot soldiers they provided to Bush in 2004. Whereas Obama will still have his legions.

2) WSJ has pilloried him several times recently--including once for embracing the "cap and trade" approach to emissions and then today for voting against opening ANWR to drilling.

3) Tancredo and his followers are not huge fans either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

Regarding the worth of polls on the election 5 months in advance: there are at least 2 big reasons to heavily discount their value, in addition to just the time element.

1) Against Obama---the "Bradley effect"

2) For Obama---the fact that most polls only cover land-lines--whereas many of his strongest supporters have cell phones, and no land-lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:51 PM

This from Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal:



We can't find a single issue on which Obama has broken with his party's left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting NAFTA. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the "change" he's proposing isn't merely more of the same, circa 1965.

There is also the matter of judgment, and the roots of his political character. We were among those inclined at first to downplay his association with the Trinity United Church. But Obama's handling of the episode has raised doubts about his candor and convictions. He has by stages moved from denying that his 20-year attendance was an issue at all, to denying he'd heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks, to criticizing certain of those remarks while praising Rev. Wright himself, to repudiating the words and the reverend, and finally to leaving the church.

Most disingenuously, he said recently that the entire issue caught him by surprise. Yet he was aware enough of the political risk that he kept Rev. Wright off the stage during his announcement speech more than a year ago.

A 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Obama mentioned three men as his religious guides. One was Rev. Wright. Another was Father Michael Pfleger, the Louis Farrakhan ally whose recent remarks caused Obama to resign from Trinity, but for whose Chicago church Obama channeled at least $225,000 in grants as a state senator. Until recently, the priest was connected to the campaign, which flew him to Iowa to host an interfaith forum. Father Pfleger's testimony for the candidate has since been scrubbed from Obama's campaign Web site. A third mentor was Illinois state Sen. James Meeks, another Chicago pastor who has generated controversy for mixing pulpit and politics.

The point is not that Obama now shares the radical views of these men. The concern is that by the senator's own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate's vision as a transracial peacemaker. Their patronage was also useful as Obama was making his way in Chicago politics. But only now, in the glare of a national campaign, is he distancing himself from them. The question is what in fact Obama does believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 10:42 PM

When Obama was speaking in North Carolina this week I saw coverage on NBC and CNN but when I switched to Murdoch's fair and balanced network they were covering a chain of Christian excercise gyms in which the word of God is being spoken over loudspeakers and a strict dress code for women is enforced.


Who knows, Murdoch's next media buy out might be the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 11:33 PM

Will Republicans disappointed by the dirty tactics of their party go for Obama in November?

(AlterNet)

David Iglesias is an evangelical, Hispanic Republican -- yes, that one, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico -- and he has positive things to say about Barack Obama.

I interviewed Iglesias the morning after Obama became the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party: "Obama represents all the promise of America, that a biracial man from a broken family can rise and have a strong shot of becoming our next president." Asked if he's endorsing Obama, Iglesias replied: "I'm not endorsing anybody. Our country has elected white males from northern European countries going back now 230-or-so years. This finally represents that the top position in American government is really open to everyone, and I think that's sending a powerful message not only to Americans, but throughout the world."

While Iglesias does not dislike John McCain, his own party's nominee, his comments bear directly on strategy for a campaign of Obama versus McCain. As the Puerto Rican primary results suggested, Obama still has to make major inroads into the Latino community. Iglesias' home state, New Mexico, is a "majority minority" state -- that is, people of color outnumber whites in the state (others include California, Texas and Hawaii).

Iglesias represents another population at play in this election: disaffected Republicans.

In his new book In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration, Iglesias paints a picture of a highly politicized U.S. Department of Justice, allegedly following Republican Party strategy to prosecute people accused of voter fraud in cases where voter registrations could be seen to help Democratic candidates. Iglesias was not prosecuting these alleged voter-fraud cases, which did not sit well with New Mexico Republicans. Al Gore won New Mexico in 2000 by a mere 366 votes, and George Bush edged out John Kerry there in 2004 by about 6,000 votes. New Mexico is definitely a swing state. Congresswoman Heather Wilson barely held on to her congressional office in 2006. Every vote counts in New Mexico, and the Republicans know it: All three House seats are up for grabs in November, along with the Senate seat being vacated by Pete Domenici. Wilson is giving up her House seat to run for his.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 11:35 PM

TIME remarks:

"When Barack Obama says a John McCain Administration would amount to a third term of George W. Bush, he's not just blowing smoke, especially when it comes to economic policy. Yes, McCain is a very different kind of man, with a different history, who will face a set of challenges and opportunities that are different from those confronting Bush. But look through the Republican candidate's campaign pledges on the economy, and you'll see that they really do add up to a continuation of Bush's focus on cutting taxes (especially taxes on corporate and capital income) and moving economic decisions (and burdens) into the hands of individuals.



The McCain camp has responded to Obama's digs by trying to link Obama to Bush (because both are supposedly big spenders) and to Jimmy Carter (because both are supposedly big taxers). It's hard to see either parallel sticking, though--the first is too ridiculous, and the second is too dated. If this election becomes a referendum on the economy and Bush's handling of it, Obama wins and McCain loses. It's as simple as that.
The question, then, is whether Obama can turn the election into such a referendum. The economy appears to be doing what it can to help, with the minirevival of April and May giving way to less encouraging data. But Obama's campaign has never really been about people's pocketbooks. That was more Hillary Clinton's thing.

Now, with Clinton finally out of the picture, the presumptive Democratic candidate is trying to make up for lost time with a two-week campaign swing through battleground states like North Carolina, Missouri and Ohio, talking about the economy at every stop. That's smart. But if Obama's early speeches are any indication, his reinvention of himself as the economy candidate is not going to be a slam dunk.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 11:20 AM

Still, I think the strongest thing going for McCain is the fact that a lot of voters are going to realize that the Democrats are probably going to end up with strong majorities in both houses of Congress. That being the case, huge numbers of them a going to be very nervous at the thought of Barak Obama at the helm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 12:01 AM

WASHINGTON: If Barack Obama were running for leader of the world, instead of leader of the US, he would probably romp home.

The annual global survey of attitudes by the independent Pew Research Centre shows that the Democratic nominee for president has won the confidence of people in Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia and is strongly preferred as president of the US over his rival, the Republican John McCain.

In Australia, 80 per cent of participants said they had confidence in Senator Obama, against 40 per cent for Senator McCain.

Similar results were reported from Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Japan and Tanzania. ...

Reprinted in the Sydney Herald.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 11:52 AM

"..Gallup says this morning that when voters are asked about which candidate will win, Democrat Obama comes out well ahead of Republican McCain. According to Gallup, 52% of the 822 adults surveyed last week said they think Obama will win the race for the White House. McCain was the choice of 41%. The margin of error on each number: +/- 4 percentage points.." USAT

"After the first full week of general election mode, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are statistically even in the latest Gallup poll.

But that survey, released this morning, shows that a clear majority of Americans believe Obama will win in November. He leads in the perception measure 52 percent to 41 percent, with 76 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of independents predicting an Obama victory. Two-thirds of Republicans believe McCain will win.

Gallup notes that interestingly, while Obama's support during the primaries was skewed toward younger voters, they are the least optimistic that America will elect its first black president. Only 48 percent of those 18 to 34 said they believe Obama will win, while 52 percent of those between 35 and 54 did, and 55 percent of those 55 and older did.

..." (Boston.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

June 16 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Al Gore will step off the sidelines and make his first campaign stop with Democrat Barack Obama tonight.

Gore, who made the announcement in an e-mail to supporters, will appear with Obama at a rally in Detroit that is scheduled to begin at 8:30 p.m. local time.

``A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan, to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama,'' Gore wrote in a fundraising letter. ``From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected president of the United States.''

Gore, who was the party's presidential nominee in 2000, had stayed out of the race between Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who conceded the contest June 7. He's appearing with Obama in a state that will be a crucial battleground in the general election. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who ended his own bid for the Democratic nomination earlier this year, also gave his endorsement to Obama in Michigan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

"This from Rupert Murdoch's Wall St. Journal"

Gee I wonder what would make one of the Mudcatters allegedly most against Mr. Murdoch cite a column in the WSJ.

Couldn't possibly be that the column is negative on Obama. Of course not.

So much for that poster's supposed opposition to Mr. Murdoch. He's against him--unless he can use something from the WSJ. A slight whiff of hypocrisy?   Of course not.

And of course the poster is also likely trying to prove Mr. Murdoch's domination of the WSJ. Wrong again. He quotes a column from the editorial page--which has always been Neanderthal--long before Mr. Murdoch came on the scene.   But, as I've said more than once, it does not reflect the quality of the actual reporting--which for my money is the best in the world---and contradicts the editorial page all the time.

And we have yet another baseless and pointless allegation from the same poster--blissfully free from any logic or evidence, as always----that many voters would be uneasy with Obama "at the helm".   Sounds like another special at Smears R Us.

The best things in life don't change, they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:00 AM

Very happy to be included as one of the "best things in life..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:22 PM

THe smartest people in life, however, _do_ change as they meet differing conditions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:30 PM

It's a tough choice, trying to decide to be, or not to be, the "best" or the "smartest."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:46 PM

I think one gets a lot more mileage out of life if he settles for being the smartest and best he can be, and does not worry about comparing himself with every other human being ever made; it's a huge waste of effort, a game not worth the candle, with no "there" there.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:27 PM

I think one gets a lot more mileage out of life if he/she settles for being happy with what one has rather than always trying to seek or afford the best.

As for personal betterment, follow your bliss.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:15 PM

Yes indeed, baseless and pointless allegations from the CEO of Smears R US are indeed one of the best things in life. Or maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:31 PM

As Sen. John McCain steps up his criticism that Democratic presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama's talk of bipartisanship is hollow rhetoric, the presumptive Republican nominee finds one of his convention delegates in the cross-hairs of the debateÑIllinois state Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale).

The suburban Republican, a former GOP county chairman, appeared in a TV ad for his friend and one-time colleague in the Illinois legislature attesting to the Democrat's willingness to cross the political aisle. The ad was run by Obama campaign throughout the extended primary campaign.

But Dillard, elected on Feb. 5 as a convention delegate for McCain, has asked Obama's top political strategist, David Axelrod, not to use the TV ad for the general election campaign, now that the battle for the presidency is down to a one-on-one partisan contest. Dillard sent a letter to Axelrod at a request of the McCain campaign. Obama campaign aides said they would honor Dillard's request.

The ad, which began airing before Iowa's caucuses in January and was used in later contests, showed Dillard saying that Obama "worked on the deepest issues we had and was successful in a bipartisan way." In the ad, Dillard also said, "Republican legislators respected Sen. Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well."


Dillard also took part in an early Obama campaign conference call with reporters and discussed the hours he worked with the Democrat in a bipartisan way on issues such as ethics and death penalty reform. But Dillard's involvement with the Obama campaign rankled some Illinois Republicans as inappropriate for a former DuPage County GOP chairman and former member of the Republican State Central Committee.

"In campaigns of any kind, people will want to twist and distort individuals' records. But I owe it to the American public and my friend, Sen. Obama, to tell the truth, for better or for worse, [about] what were the early years of his elected life in Springfield," Dillard said recently. "In many ways, because he is the first African-American to have a realistic chance of being the president, I owe it to everyone to not be partisan in my reflections upon what was Sen. Obama's record in a city in which Abraham Lincoln lived."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:05 PM

The Chronicle discusses Obama's foreign policy missteps.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 12:52 PM

Gutsy Move...declare independence from the broken system of campaign finance!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 01:44 PM

From US News:

"Obama Up 5 Nationally In ARG Poll An American Research Group poll of 600 likely voters taken June 13-17 shows Obama leading McCain 49%-44% nationally.

McCain Up 1 In Ohio A Rasmussen Reports automated poll of 500 likely Ohio voters taken June 17 shows McCain leading Obama 44%-43%.

Obama Edges McCain In Virginia A Public Policy Polling (D) surveyed of 893 likely Virginia voters taken June 14 and 16 shows Obama leading McCain 47%-45%.

Obama Up 12 In New Hampshire An American Research Group poll of 600 likely New Hampshire voters taken June 13-17 shows Obama leading McCain 51%-39%.

Obama Up 9 In Wisconsin A SurveyUSA automated poll of 538 likely Wisconsin voters released June 18 shows Obama leading McCain 52%-43%. The poll also tests a number of potential tickets, and most combinations show an Obama-led ticket leading a McCain-led ticket by 5 to 7 points.

McCain Up 4 In Alaska A Rasmussen Reports automated poll of 500 likely Alaska voters taken June 16 shows McCain leading Obama 45%-41%.

Obama Up 22 In Maine A Rasmussen Reports automated poll of 500 likely Maine voters taken June 16 shows Obama leading McCain 55%-33%."

---

I just love a good horse race.

Especially when the fate of Western civilization rides on the dark horse, win, place, or show.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 01:19 PM

"Although he's been very successful raising money online, and in small dollar contributions, I think Senator Obama would prefer to be within the system, rather than having to race around the country asking for money," says David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to improving America's campaign finance laws. "But with the way things are now, anyone who opts in does so at their peril. And of course every presidential candidate makes his or her decision on how to fund their campaign based on what they think will bring them to victory."

Obama of course has been extraordinarily successful at raising money from individual donors, mainly through his website, with nearly half of the $270m he has already raised coming from small donations by individuals. McCain in contrast lags well behind - so it isn't surprising that his campaign wants to tie Obama's hands over financing. In fact, Obama's advantage has already seen him launch a television advertising campaign in 18 states, including Alaska and North Dakota, that Democratic candidates would not be able to afford at this stage of the campaign.

John McCain's senior adviser Charlie Black has upbraided Obama for his decision, saying: "It seems to me if you're trying to change politics in America that this is a step backwards, to move away from public finance, which everybody's always participated in, rather than a change for the better." But is the fact that "everybody's always participated in" it any reason to continue doing it - especially if you're trying to effect change? Black has rhetorically invalidated himself.

But beyond any semantic sparring - and more to the point - it's Obama who seems truly committed to reforming the finance system, at this point. As Donelly writes: "McCain once authored a fix to the broken presidential public financing system but now refuses to add his name as cosponsor to the same bipartisan legislation." Obama, by contrast, has co-sponsored the same bill and says he would make passing it a priority if elected. Among other things, that would free up about $200m in taxpayers' money for more useful purposes.

Donelly also points out that while McCain has complained about the undue influence of lobbyists when it comes to electing politicians, McCain himself has five times as many lobbyists raising money for his campaign as Obama does: 70 to 14, according to Public Citizen. It doesn't take a statistical genius to realise that's one lopsided fight."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:16 PM

Washington Post:

The Politics of Spare Change
Even $85 million wasn't enough to get Barack Obama to keep his promise.


Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A18

BARACK OBAMA isn't abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it's in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn't about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he'd get if he stuck to his promise -- and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer.

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.

Mr. Obama didn't mention his previous proposal to take public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same -- the one for which he received heaps of praise from campaign finance reform advocates such as Mr. Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, and others, including us. He didn't mention, as he told the Federal Election Commission last year in seeking to preserve the option, that "Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money."


Instead, he cast his abandonment of the system as a bold good-government move. "This is our moment, and our country is depending on us," he said. "So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people." Sure, and if the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd have bundlers, too.

Mr. Obama had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation. He made a different choice, and anyone can understand why: He's going to raise a ton of money. Mr. McCain played games with taking federal matching funds for the primaries until it turned out he didn't need them, and he had a four-month head start in the general election while Mr. Obama was still battling for the nomination. Outside groups are going to come after him. He has thousands of small donors along with his big bundlers. And so on.

Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:18 PM

Washington Post:

A False Moderate?

By Michael Gerson
Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A19

It was not quite a Roger Mudd moment, but it was close. Mudd, you might recall, posed a simple question to Ted Kennedy in 1979: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's vague, unprepared answer raised serious questions about his candidacy.

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues, but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue on which Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.


The contrast to John McCain is stark. Contrary to some depictions, McCain is not a moderate. He is a conservative with a habit of massive, eye-stretching heresy. He has supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, and campaign finance and comprehensive immigration reform -- leaving many conservatives in fits of sputtering, red-faced outrage. He joined the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations and supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain has the scars to show for it. Sen. Mitch McConnell dismissed McCain's campaign finance legislation as "stunningly stupid." Another Republican senator, quoted on background in 2001, vented: "Every time McCain accuses President Bush's budget of favoring the rich or sides with Sen. Ted Kennedy on his patients' bill of rights or Sen. Joe Lieberman on more gun control or all those other Democrats on restricting the First Amendment on campaign finance reform, it's news only because he's a Republican. It's 'man bites dog,' and it hurts us far more than if he were attacking our philosophy and agenda as an independent or a Democrat."

This is not to argue that defying your party is uniformly admirable. Sometimes McCain's courage gets mixed up with his pride -- and maybe, in the end, they are indistinguishable. But the same could be said of Winston Churchill, who changed parties more than once. We tend to admire this kind of disruptive independence.

Obama's four years in the Senate have provided fewer opportunities for heresy than McCain's 22. Yet Obama draws scrutiny to this subject by making his transcendence of political categories one of his main campaign themes. He has shown occasional hints of independence on education -- supporting charter schools and merit pay for teachers. But for the most part, Obama's post-partisanship is more a matter of tone. He speaks movingly about the positive role of religion in our common life. He urges fathers to meet their moral and economic responsibilities to their children. He rejects the demonization of pro-lifers (though he refuses to oppose partial-birth abortion). He defends the good intentions of Democratic senators who voted for Chief Justice John Roberts (though he was one of only 22 senators who voted against Roberts).

These are welcome gestures, but they are not policies. Perhaps Obama is just conventionally liberal. Perhaps he has carefully avoided offending Democratic constituencies. Whatever the reason, his lack of a strong, centrist ideological identity raises a concern about his governing approach. Obama has no moderate policy agenda that might tame or modify the extremes of his own party in power. Will every Cabinet department simply be handed over to the most extreme Democratic interest groups? Will Obama provide any centrist check on liberal congressional overreach?

It is an odd thing when a presidential candidate bases his campaign on a manifest weakness. Rudy Giuliani ran on a platform of foreign policy experience while lacking it completely. Obama promises post-partisanship while doing little to demonstrate it in the Senate. And the independent voters so eagerly courted in this election may eventually ask about Obama the odd but appropriate question: What dogs has this man bitten?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:23 PM

Washington Post:

McCain's Oil Epiphany

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A19

...


As expected and right on cue, Barack Obama reflexively attacked McCain. "His decision to completely change his position" to one that would please the oil industry is "the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades." One can only marvel at Obama's audacity in characterizing McCain's proposal to change our policy as "old politics," while the candidate of "change" adheres rigidly to the no-drilling status quo.

McCain is a lot of things, but the man who opposed ethanol in Iowa - as Obama shamelessly endorsed the most abysmally stupid of our energy olicies - is no patsy of the energy producers. Americans know that increased production is needed to complement reduced consumption as the only way to get us out from oil shocks, high prices and national security blackmail.

Alas, McCain's proposed reform is only partial. Still better than Obama, however, who refuses to deviate from liberal orthodoxy. But that is the story of his campaign, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:24 PM

Washington Post:

The Small-Donor Fallacy

By Jay Mandle
Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A19

Not long ago, Sen. Barack Obama criticized special-interest lobbies that "use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years." He has said that his army of small donors constitutes "a parallel public financing system," one in which ordinary voters "will have as much access and influence over the course of our campaign" as that "traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

Obama has raised record-breaking sums from small donors, so his announcement yesterday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election did not surprise many. And the idea that the Internet and grass-roots donations will somehow reinvigorate our democracy is appealing. But this notion is not borne out by the evidence.

As of April 30, the Obama campaign had collected more than $120 million in contributions of $200 or less. In April alone, the latest month for which data are available, Obama raised more than $31 million, about 65 percent of which came from contributions of $200 or less. This seems good for democracy -- but it may not be as good as we think.

Despite the importance of small donors, both Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain are still taking lots of big donations from wealthy special interests. In fact, when the nominating system as a whole is studied over time, the evidence suggests that the role of big donors will turn out to be growing, not shrinking.


Through March, small donations amounted to 39 percent of the combined fundraising of Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. But over a comparable period four years ago, such contributions made up an even greater share (42 percent) of the fundraising of the two leading Democratic contenders, Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. On the GOP side, small donors were much more important for McCain in 2007 than they were for George W. Bush in 2003. But for most of last year McCain was not the front-runner, and his campaign was famously broke. Now that he is the presumptive nominee, big donors are his bread and butter.

Contributions of less than $200 do not have to be itemized in reports to the Federal Election Commission, so we have no idea how many are made. We also cannot rely on the candidates' rhetoric to match the facts. During a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, for example, Obama said that "we have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50." His campaign's own data from January 2007 through January 2008 show that 36 percent of donated funds were from small donors. Obama probably meant that 90 percent of the individuals who contributed were small donors, but the number of donors has not been verified.

Small-dollar donations to Obama have surged this year, and those donors became crucial in the spring as the battle to secure the Democratic nomination intensified. But for most of his campaign, big donors have been Obama's mainstay. Employees of investment bank Goldman Sachs, for example, have contributed more than $570,000 to his campaign.

Another problem with asserting that small donors are an antidote to undue influence by wealthy contributors is that even small donors are almost certainly much richer than the average American.

In a study of $100 contributions to state campaigns in six states during 2005, the Campaign Finance Institute found that more than half of donors earned between $75,000 and $250,000 a year. The median U.S. income that year was $46,000. While it's tricky to extrapolate to the presidential race, it is unlikely that campaign giving has suddenly become a common pursuit of working-class families.

Meanwhile, big-ticket fundraising among the very wealthiest is surging into record territory. Even as he touts his base of small donors, Obama has continued to woo large contributors at events costing thousands of dollars per plate, as has McCain. This suggests that, by themselves, small donations do not offer a real corrective to the pay-to-play system.

Neither does the public financing available to the candidates. This funding is frozen at 1976 levels, which is why Obama has rejected it -- he can raise from private sources more than the amount of the government grant. McCain no doubt would have taken the same path if his fundraising had taken off.

The idea that small donors will somehow reinvigorate electoral democracy, without the trouble of fundamentally reforming our campaign finance laws, is attractive but not yet reality. For candidates to be equally responsive to all their constituents and to open to ordinary voters the same kind of influence and access now afforded a wealthy minority, the only realistic option is to increase the amount of money we allocate to the public campaign finance system. In fact, the small-donor illusion may even be functioning as a fig leaf, averting our gaze from the continued and intensifying stranglehold that big donors have on our democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:05 PM

"Since we announced the decision not to accept taxpayer funds for the general election, tens of thousands of people like you have come forward to declare their independence from a broken system.

This decision frees us to build a movement of millions of people giving whatever they can afford to a campaign that is truly reforming the way our political process works.

It also frees us to take our campaign for change to parts of the country where Democratic presidential candidates haven't spent too much time in the past.

Our first television ad of the general election season goes on the air today.

Sure, we're on the air in places like Ohio and Florida, the typical battleground states. But we're also on the air in North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska -- places that have emerged as competitive because of the unprecedented grassroots energy supporting our campaign.

These ads are supporting a 50-state ground operation that is being built right now by staff, volunteers, and thousands of Obama Organizing Fellows.

But we have our work cut out for us, and we need to grow this movement. Right now, you can declare your independence and help us run a campaign that is funded by the people and for the people.

If you make your first donation today, a fellow supporter is standing by to match your gift and double your impact. You can even choose to exchange a note with them and share why you are supporting this campaign.

Add your voice to our movement by making a matching donation now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

Choosing not to accept these taxpayer funds was not an easy decision. I remain committed to fundamental campaign finance reform, and as president I will work to fix this broken system.

But we're facing opponents who have become masters at gaming the broken system as it stands today -- collecting money from Washington lobbyists, special interest PACs, and relying on so-called 527 groups that can take unlimited contributions to peddle lies and smears.

We have chosen to do things differently. You can see for yourself what kind of people own our campaign -- each of these folks have made a donation in the last 24 hours:


Sandra from Tennessee:

"I'm on disability and can't afford to give much but I figure the $10 is worth it. This is the first time in a long time that even the ones who can't afford it are giving, and are excited about a candidate and excited about the process."

Monica from South Carolina:

"The way that this primary and now this general election campaign have been funded truly gives the power to the citizens that are voting. This administration will owe the American people, not lobbyists and special interests groups."

Mauve from Iowa:

"THIS is true public financing. Getting average Americans from all backgrounds and tax brackets to care enough and to believe enough and to hope enough to give what they can."

Tim from Texas:

"Today, for the first time in my life, I contributed to a political campaign. I did so because I have always believed that true power rests with the people, if only those people could be organized. We have the power to take back our country from the special interest groups. There are more of us and when we act together, we are the force that can dictate the direction our country will take."

(Excerpt from an Obama email).

Bruce:

A lot of screed for very little signal...maybe you could use hyperlinks to improve the ratio.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:47 PM

YT:

"... In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, ÒIf I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.Ó

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.

Mr. ObamaÕs campaign has been notable this year for its success in raising money; he outstripped his Democratic opponents in the primary and seemed well-positioned to out-raise Mr. McCain.

Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million.

All indications this year are that Mr. Obama will have no problem raising more than that amount for the general election; he raised $95 million in February and March alone, most of it, as his aides noted Thursday, in small contributions raised on the Internet. More than 90 percent of the campaignÕs contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.

That said, the Republican National Committee Ñ which does not operate under the same contribution limits as the candidates Ñ has proved to be much more successful than the Democratic National Committee in raising funds.

Mr. Black said that the McCain campaignÕs fund-raising was improving, and that its efforts to raise money in conjunction with the Republican National Committee and several state parties working to elect Mr. McCain Ñ which allows donors to contribute far more than the $2,300 limit that they can give to presidential campaigns alone Ñ was yielding results.

ÒI assume heÕs going to outspend us,Ó Mr. Black said of Mr. Obama, but he added that the money advantage would prove to be less important than it appeared: ÒWe donÕt have to spend as much as he does to win.Ó he said.

For his part, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision to opt out of public financing as one that would limit the influence of special interests in the campaign.

ÒInstead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, youÕve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford,Ó he told his supporters in the video message. ÒAnd because you did, weÕve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans.Ó

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 07:14 AM

"A lot of screed for very little signal...maybe you could use hyperlinks to improve the ratio."



Why, certainly Amos: I shall do what you do, and give ONLY the parts that support what I want people to belive, and then let the rest ( ie, the entire, balanced statements) disappear off the net after a few days, as most newspapaer editorials do.

You seem to be a little selective about who the "pop" in popular are- Why not just state "Supporting views on Obama", or "Opposing views on Bush"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 08:54 AM

BTW, Charles Klodhopper, Mike Gerson and Bob Novak are the Rush Limbaugh's of the op-ed pages of the Post...

BTW, Part B... The editorial staff at the Post isn't all that flaming liberal... You missed and Obama slam/slime, bb, in yesterdays edition... Hint: the "other side", half way down.... And this is from the Post itself...

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Post endorse McCain... They seem to delight is slaming Obama every chance they get... And they still are ardent supporters of the Iraq war just as they have been since the very beginning...

So much for the liberal media???

B~