Senator McCain has raised more than 70% of his total campaign funds from high-dollar donors giving $1,000 or more. Senator Clinton has raised 60% of her funds from $1,000-and-up donors. And both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton have accepted millions of dollars from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.
Refusing to accept donations from lobbyists and special interests has allowed Senator Obama's campaign to answer only to ordinary Americans like you.
94% of the donors may have given less than $200, but this in no way means that 94% of his cash comes from these donors.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent study on who takes the most money from oil executives, Obama was far above McCain and just slightly behind Clinton. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html)
Obama is far from above the fray here. If you want to be concerned about someone taking money from "special interests," you might also want to look at who big oil, big farm, big pharma, and just about every other "big" are supporting.
Also, if we are truly concerned with a candidates associations, Obama's with Ayers, Rezko, and Wright would probably be particularly worrisome to an unbiased viewer.
ReplyDeleteI know Obamaites don't want to admit that their messiah is flawed, but the cognitive dissonance that it takes to deny these worries (not to mention the overwhelming policy naivte) is staggering.
Can we please just admit that none of these candidates are perfect on character issues? Lets talk about policy; something that Obama rarely likes to engage in. He prefers empty rhetoric, wild promises, and populist demagoguery that is light on substance and heavy on grandiloquence.
Who posted this? Good points, except that Clinton has accepted approximately 50% more oil money than Obama has in the article you cite.
ReplyDeleteObama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.
Why the religious language of "messiash"? Obama is something fresh in politics - no one is claiming he is God's anointed one to save the world. If he can help make the U.S.A. better, God help him.
If you read my comment, I did mention that Clinton took MORE oil money, but Obama was second of the three candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe messiah image is evident for those that are not Obama supporters. I understand the appeal, but he certainly doesn't represent anything fresh. He's an old school politician, but isn't old enough to have the stains.
Obviously, we differ on opinion in politics, but just look at Youtube for the messianic worship of this man. It's kind of sickening.
I did mention that Clinton was ahead, but you are right that it is more than "slightly." My main comparison was between John McCain and Barrack Obama, but that's a fair correction.
ReplyDeleteThe "messiah" language is just a description of the unbeleiveable praise people seem to have for Mr. Obama. When I see the "yes we can" youtube videos, hear Chris Matthews describe the feeling he gets up his leg when Obama speaks, the frequently fainting young ladies in his crowds, its hard not to look at the support of Obama as "worship," especially for someone with little to no legislative success.