Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Buccaneer]

LOL.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So out of $130,000,000 raised, we're concerned about the roughly $300,000 from "oil company employees"? Really?

It was a big deal going into the 2004 election that W got $25,000 in personal donations from people that worked for Halliburton. Seems that if people are going to criticize W for that, you'd atleast have to look at Obama's situation too, right?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Nice spin. Gotcha! for misleading people. Great. Look, he brought this on himself. No one told him to make a big deal about not taking money from oil companies. That he would go out of his way to state as a "fact" something that, by law, NO candidate can do, smacks of "politics as usual." That's the issue.

And then there's the lobbyist thing...again, making a point to tell people he doesn't take money from lobbyists - but hey, if their spouses want to give me money (wink, wink), then that's A-OK!

I don't care that he's doing it, and I don't care how little money it is. I care that his campaign has positioned him as an outsider and all I hear from him is how we need a "new voice" and "change" and "I'm different from Washington people," and then he pulls this kind of shit. That's his campaign's overriding mantra, and he's demonstrating that he's not any different. I know he's a politician, but you can't tell me he's not campaigning as if he's not the usual candidate.

And BTW, I have no agenda here. I'm likely not voting for any of the 3 remaining candidates. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I need more time to digest this whole argument before reaching a conclusion on it. I know most people will just dismiss it or embrace it wholesale based on their already-established position... but I'm doing my best to be open-minded in this election, and I *claim* to really dislike hypocrisy. I don't yet know where to place this on that particular scale.

It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Arles

It was a big deal going into the 2004 election that W got $25,000 in personal donations from people that worked for Halliburton. Seems that if people are going to criticize W for that, you'd atleast have to look at Obama's situation too, right?

...and look how well that worked out for both Bush and Haliburton!

[Butter]

Lot of bored Republicans in this thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, the Republican primary is kind of over .

[Ksyrup]

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from. Obama's getting off because he's not really taking on a specific policy or policies to define him as a candidate. The overriding idea is that he is worth electing because he somehow brings a fresh, outsider perspective to the WH on all issues that's different than a third term of Bush (McCain) or Clinton would be. And yet he's campaigning with all the usual tricks of the trade.

Take Clinton's "experience" mantra. That's what she's defining herself as - ready from "Day One" to take action. I don't see this as any different than Obama's mantra of "change." And even if you throw out the Bosnia under fire stuff, her "experience" has rightfully come under scrutiny. The claim to have 35 years of experience, which dates back to when she got out of school, the fact that her calendars show that when major issues were going on, she was off doing non-substantive stuff, etc. (I love the one about when the WTC was attacked the first time, she went to a museum and caught a Broadway play that day while Bill was off doing substantive stuff). If she gets called out for that, what's the equivalent for Obama? It's scrutinizing just how much "change" from "politics as usual" we'd get if he was elected.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true.

Not really. I have had my changed by pol threads here before. Too often you only hear one side of position (or even two extremly slanted sides), that is nice in some of these threads you read a more moderated view (once you chuck out the complete zealots). There have been many times I've read here a true arguement (not a processed sound-bite) that did make sense and changed my view on something. You, for one, are very good at pointing to something I've never thought of or read before.

Now, I could make a list of people that could stop posting in these threads to make them much better, but I'll refrain.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from. Obama's getting off because he's not really taking on a specific policy or policies to define him as a candidate. The overriding idea is that he is worth electing because he somehow brings a fresh, outsider perspective to the WH on all issues that's different than a third term of Bush (McCain) or Clinton would be. And yet he's campaigning with all the usual tricks of the trade.

Take Clinton's "experience" mantra. That's what she's defining herself as - ready from "Day One" to take action. I don't see this as any different than Obama's mantra of "change." And even if you throw out the Bosnia under fire stuff, her "experience" has rightfully come under scrutiny. The claim to have 35 years of experience, which dates back to when she got out of school, the fact that her calendars show that when major issues were going on, she was off doing non-substantive stuff, etc. (I love the one about when the WTC was attacked the first time, she went to a museum and caught a Broadway play that day while Bill was off doing substantive stuff). If she gets called out for that, what's the equivalent for Obama? It's scrutinizing just how much "change" from "politics as usual" we'd get if he was elected.

I don't really think she's gotten hit hard on her claims of experience. I have not yet heard one question as to why her time as a politician's wife counts as experience? You know, that Obama has more time as an actual elected official than she does. Maybe I'm missing it, but I have yet to see her have to defend her experience bit.

[Ksyrup]

Admittedly, it wouldn't have been as much of an issue yet if the Bosnia thing hadn't come out, but since then, I've been hearing much more about it.

[ISiddiqui]

I have not yet heard one question as to why her time as a politician's wife counts as experience?

Really? As Ksyrup points out, after the Bosnia mess, it was all over the place. And of course it was mocked mercilessly on shows like the Daily Show and Letterman for months now.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Really? As Ksyrup points out, after the Bosnia mess, it was all over the place. And of course it was mocked mercilessly on shows like the Daily Show and Letterman for months now.

Not really. No one ever addressed it directly. It's been implied during the whole race. But NO ONE has ever explicitly said "how is being First Lady really experience?" And even when they debunk it (i.e. Hillary didn't even have a security clearance and never carried a portfolio on her abroad visits) the myth that she's got all of this "experience" keeps just getting accepted.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

But NO ONE has ever explicitly said "how is being First Lady really experience?"

If you're talking about her time as First Lady of the USA, I have seen that very question addressed quite a few times. If you're talking about her time as First Lady of Arkansas, that hasn't really been looked at too closely at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-going-public/

April 4, 2008, 1:06 pm McCain Going Public?

By Tobin Harshaw
Tags: Campaign Finance, Elections 2008, John McCain

Money for nothin’? “In another sign that John McCain is moving toward accepting public financing this fall, the Republican’s campaign is returning about $3 million in checks to contributors who have given money for his general election campaign, funds he could not use if he opts into the public system,” the Boston Globe reports. “McCain’s campaign, in letters to contributors, is asking supporters to write new checks to a special fund created to help the Arizona senator pay legal and accounting expenses related to compliance with the public funding system.”

Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central finds a bit of glee in the fact that “the man known for campaign finance reform is asking his contributors to write checks to a new fund ­ a fund set up to help him pay legal fees and other expenses in his dealings with the public finance system.”

“Frankly, he’d save the taxpayers $42 million if he just quit the race now,” adds a skeptical James Joyner at Outside the Beltway. “Barack Obama’s probably got $84 million laying around the office in checks he hasn’t bothered to deposit. McCain will likely be at a financial disadvantage either way but it would be political suicide to unilaterally disarm. Even with his problems with the base, he’ll be able to raise a couple hundred million if the alternative is Obama; more than that if Clinton somehow gets the nomination.”

The interesting part of this is that Obama has said in the past that he would take federal matching funds if his opponent did. That would REALLY mess up Obama's advantage if he followed through (and that's probably why McCain is flirting with going public... Obama would look like "politics as usual" guy if he went back on his word).

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Lot of bored Republicans in this thread.

Actually, I'm a registered Democrat who will be voting for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time.

[Ksyrup]

I'm a registered Republican who will probably not be voting.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Actually, I'm a registered Democrat who will be voting for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time.

Really? What exactly about the past eight years has caused you to make the switch to the Republican party? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I need more time to digest this whole argument before reaching a conclusion on it. I know most people will just dismiss it or embrace it wholesale based on their already-established position... but I'm doing my best to be open-minded in this election, and I *claim* to really dislike hypocrisy. I don't yet know where to place this on that particular scale.

It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true.

FWIW, CamEdwards has changed my mind on a couple of things - nothing earth-shattering, but he has that effect on me

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

nothing earth-shattering

Cam has that effect on his wife, too.

[albionmoonlight]

This article seems to touch on some of what Ksyrup is saying about Obama and the "hope" based campaign.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20080...%2FuozJmsTs%3D

[Butter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, the Republican primary is kind of over .

You make a good point.

My mind has been changed!

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by path12

Really? What exactly about the past eight years has caused you to make the switch to the Republican party? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

I voted for Clinton/Gore twice, and I don't regret it. They won in 1992 and 1996 running on the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) platform, which stated the the modern democratic party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. As "New Democrats", Clinton/Gore ran and governed as centrists in many areas like welfare reform, free trade, fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Tony Blair adopted a similar platform when he ran under the mantra of "New Labour", ousting John Major in Great Britain,

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, but I was becoming increasingly concerned about their move to the left and populist class warfare rhetoric. However, Bush was not a viable alternative, so I voted Democrat, although I would have seriously considered voting Republican otherwise.

In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me.

Thanks for the reply. It's interesting how people can see things so differently -- my feeling is that the left-right spectrum has steadily moved rightward since 1980 or so, so that positions that are now considered "far-left" were much more centrist positions back then.

I don't have time to find the link right now, but there was a recent Economist article that talked about the political differences between Europe and ourselves, and there was one thing in particular about the English Conservative party having positions that are now to the left of the American Democratic party.

Personally, I don't think that finding a way out of the Iraq mess, proposing a universal healthcare system, reinstating some of the tax cuts on the very wealthy in order to help both balance the budget, reverse some of the widening income disparity and repair some of the social services net that has been slashed over the past 20 years are far left positions at all. But of course that's just my two cents......and I'm not even getting into what has happened at the Department of Justice, etc.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by path12

Thanks for the reply. It's interesting how people can see things so differently -- my feeling is that the left-right spectrum has steadily moved rightward since 1980 or so, so that positions that are now considered "far-left" were much more centrist positions back then.

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

[path12]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

I don't know about that. The Supreme Court certainly seems to have continued it's rightward drift, and I haven't sensed a great lessening of the evangelical right since Bush 41 (a small lessening over the past year or two, but that's about it).

The country does seem to have become much more polarized since Bush 41 though.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Cam has that effect on his wife, too.

Dammit, now you need to ask a FTB question that would allow me to refute you.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me.

A healthy chunk of this perception is based on the fact that the candidates are still running in the primary, so the issues they are talking about are targeted directly at the spectrum that will be voting. Normally, this is all out of the way by now, and the presumptive nominee is already redrafting his/her message to appeal to the middle.

When the party finally has a nominee, they'll run back to the middle for the most part. But Path makes a good point. The electorate is shifting some to the left, in no small part as a reaction to this Administration forcing things so far the other way.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

If you mean Bill Clinton, I don't think that's much of a measure of leftward trend. Bill Clinton was a very centrist Democrat, and spent most of his term pissing off progressives. I'm not sure that i agree with your assessment, but it would suggest a centrist trend, not a leftward one.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Autumn

If you mean Bill Clinton, I don't think that's much of a measure of leftward trend. Bill Clinton was a very centrist Democrat, and spent most of his term pissing off progressives. I'm not sure that i agree with your assessment, but it would suggest a centrist trend, not a leftward one.

Left and right are relative terms. If you start out right of center, and move left, that is both a centrist drift, and a leftist drift.

[Autumn]

They are both relative terms, and marks along a spectrum that represent real opinions about real issues. The position on the spectrum matters just as much as the direction of movement. You could say an obese person lost weight if they went from 455 pounds to 450 pounds, but to suggest that they're "becoming thinner" would not convey I think the truth of the matter.

My point only being that if we forget that Clinton was an extremely centrist Democrat, and he instead becomes the new standard of "the left" we'll have lost a lot of accuracy in our measurements of who is 'moving left' or 'moving right'.

[Buccaneer]

"Very" centrist? "Extremely" centrist? Hypebolic words for a president that was all over the spectrum, from far-left to right-of-center.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

"Very" centrist? "Extremely" centrist? Hypebolic words for a president that was all over the spectrum, from far-left to right-of-center.

I'm curious, Bucc. What policies did Clinton enact during his presidency that you would consider "far left"?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by path12

I don't know about that. The Supreme Court certainly seems to have continued it's rightward drift, and I haven't sensed a great lessening of the evangelical right since Bush 41 (a small lessening over the past year or two, but that's about it).

The country does seem to have become much more polarized since Bush 41 though.

We really don't know about the SC yet. Based on confirmation hearings, that would probably be correct, but the jury is out regarding the body of actual rulings.

Since Bush41? He was no close friend of the evangelical right. But the so-called religious right is fracture, always have been. So I'm not what great generalization you are making.

More polarized? Yes. And will continue to be more polarized (it makes great press). But with that polarization, come a significant rise of independents and libertarians.

You have been around long enough, path, to know that American politics have and will always be used as a divisive yet ever-changing force. The next 4 years will be different than the previous 4, even with McCain. But many things will remain the same. Besides, it looks bad on you to act surprise that a (D) would even possible consider voting (R) based on the past 8 years. Vegas Vic gets it (in regards to actually thinking instead of going along with the red/blue crap). As one who did not support (R) the past 8 years, I'll be voting for McCain simply because of what I feel is the critical necessity of having a split Executive/Legislature.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'm curious, Bucc. What policies did Clinton enact during his presidency that you would consider "far left"?

I believe he tried the first two years to enact a few such policies but then a (R) Congress forced him to move centric. Besides, terms like "far left" and "far right" are laughable for we have not had such things in the country. I throw them out once in a while jokingly but mainly to counterbalance those that actually believe such positions exist.

But I was thinking more along the lines of speeches, rhetoric and the typical demonizing political opponents. Perhaps Hillary was worse at it but I could not and still do not separate the two.

However, you asked for specifics and I would have to dig up something from a few years back that placed certain people (politicos and otherwise) along the red/blue spectrum. In that article, Clinton was placed from a 2-6 (depending on the time of day) on a 1-10 point scale.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I believe he tried the first two years to enact a few such policies but then a (R) Congress forced him to move centric.

Yeah, I know it's a common opinion that the "republican congress" should get credit for things like the budget surplus of 1998, but The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (passed by a democratic congress) is now credited by CBO as one of the main factors in the economic growth and later budget surplus in 1998. Ironically, even though many people have the perception that the republican congress was the reason for the budget surplus of 1998, the CBO data shows that the combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican Congresses added $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998.

"There's no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down through the 1993 budget bill set in place a series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way--which has led us to where we are." Alan Greenspan - In testimony before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998.

[BishopMVP]

Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-pennsylvania/

[Buccaneer]

I wasn't even thinking about the budget. I was thinking more along the lines of socialistic ideas, social engineering and expansions of federal powers at the expense of private entities and properties,

[Buccaneer]

But it's Friday, long week. Got to start doing the yard thing tomorrow.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-pennsylvania/

No joke, our 3-year old bowled a 54 a couple of months ago.

[Buccaneer]

Vegas Vic, one of the authors that I read is Calebresi, founder of the Federalist Society, a somewhat libertarian organization that exposes and chides liberal judicialness (is that a word?). I recall something that I've read that looks back on the actual rulings of Clinton's judicial appointments in terms of Constitutionaliity. It wasn't pretty.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Vegas Vic, one of the authors that I read is Calebresi, founder of the Federalist Society, a somewhat libertarian organization that exposes and chides liberal judicialness (is that a word?). I recall something that I've read that looks back on the actual rulings of Clinton's judicial appointments in terms of Constitutionaliity. It wasn't pretty.

I think that's a valid point, Bucc. There's no question that both of Clinton's Supreme Court appointees -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- have been on the liberal side of virtually every court decision since their appointments.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

We really don't know about the SC yet. Based on confirmation hearings, that would probably be correct, but the jury is out regarding the body of actual rulings.

Maybe so, but I don't think there's much debate that both Alito and Roberts will hew much closer to a Scalia/Thomas viewpoint than a Ginsberg/Breyer one.

You have been around long enough, path, to know that American politics have and will always be used as a divisive yet ever-changing force. The next 4 years will be different than the previous 4, even with McCain. But many things will remain the same. Besides, it looks bad on you to act surprise that a (D) would even possible consider voting (R) based on the past 8 years. Vegas Vic gets it (in regards to actually thinking instead of going along with the red/blue crap). As one who did not support (R) the past 8 years, I'll be voting for McCain simply because of what I feel is the critical necessity of having a split Executive/Legislature.

I think you simplify my viewpoint, and for the record, I did not vote for Clinton either time, nor for Gore in 2000.

This is not about the "typical red/blue crap". This is about an administration that has been blatent in its disregard of the rule of law in favor of power, and as a libertarian I'm surprised you would even think of supporting the party that has grown government to a size never seen before. The irony is that as they have done this, they have also repeatedly boasted about how big government is bad -- and then gone and proved that boast to be true.

I have no great respect for politics as a whole, and certainly don't believe it is going to solve all of our problems, nor should it. But I do not believe in a government that spreads fear instead of hope, goes against the principles of honor that made this country what it is (via torture, cancellation of habeus corpus, etc), and besmirches our Constitution. Not one bit. We are less of a country because of the past eight years of this administration, and I think that is a sad thing.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-pennsylvania/

One of the other boards I post at regularly is a music board based in Chicago. So as you can imagine, not only is the board almost entirely liberal, but the vast majority of them are huge Obama supporters. So I posted this info over there as an obvious joke, and this was the first response:

he only bowled 7 frames, so actually he was on pace to bowl 53... and as I understand it he stopped when he got a spare, presumably after 7 frames, so he likely would have broken 60, maybe even 70, which, while it still sucks, isn't too horrible for a non-bowler without any practice.

LOL at a serious response to this!

[flere-imsaho]

Hey, bowling is serious business!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

Really? After 1994, Clinton was a pretty laissez-faire President. Bush has been very meddling & hands-on (in the context of fighting with Congress). Their approach to military intervention is pretty different, though I suppose you could argue that 9/11 "changed everything". Their budget priorities (& sizes) are radically different. SC & federal bench nominations are also considerably different.

I don't want to sound snarky, as I'm honestly interested - where are the two in line with each other?

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from.

There are two problems with this:

1. Everyone views every candidate through a particular lens, based on their own impressions of them. For instance, while you think Obama's getting a "free ride", I have, at the same time, been trying to point out the various areas where McCain has been getting a free ride. Consistency and objectivity would be great, but since everyone has their own preconceived notions (even if they're unaware of them), these things are very hard to come by.

2. The media, which whether we like it or not influences us greatly, likes to pigeonhole candidates. Obama is the "inexperienced" candidate of "change". Clinton is the "truth-challenged" "democratic machine" candidate. McCain is either a "maverick" or "Bush's 3rd term". This stuff all feeds into our preconceived notions.


I have to say, though, if anyone's getting a free ride, it's McCain. Ever since Romney dropped out, almost all of the attention has focused on the Democrats, and increasingly in digging up and nitpicking all their faults. I mean, here's a guy who doesn't understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni terrorists. Surely that's at least as relevant, if not more, than campaign donations, but it certainly didn't get equal time either in the media, or even amongst us.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't care that he's doing it, and I don't care how little money it is. I care that his campaign has positioned him as an outsider and all I hear from him is how we need a "new voice" and "change" and "I'm different from Washington people," and then he pulls this kind of shit.

As far as I can tell, the crux of the matter is this quote from factcheck.org:

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

Basically I'd disagree with factcheck.org that this is "a distinction without very much of a practical difference". One of the key problems with PACs is that they allow large donors (individuals or other entities) to give a huge amount to a candidate, but do so legally by distributing their contributions through various PACs.

Additionally, the argument about individual donors representing corporations is spurious. No campaign has the resources or manpower to check each donation for the donator's employer (or their spouse's employer). Watchdog organizations like factcheck.org do (although in this instance their data came from OpenSecrets.org), and the results are always invariably used by opposition partisans.

The idea that any campaign does this work on individual donations to the end of tallying them up so they can say "well, Company X gave $368,000 in total, so let's be nice to them" is risible. However, it's very well within the realm of possibility that the head of Company X would take aside a candidate and let them know that they'll be contributing $1 million through various PACs and individual donations.

I think the real problem here is that the Obama campaign is drawing a fundraising realities distinction that is simply lost on most Americans.

One is either going to:

A. Trust in Obama's motivations and ignore the details (which can be spun oh so many ways)

or

B. Be skeptical.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by path12

as a libertarian I'm surprised you would even think of supporting the party that has grown government to a size never seen before.

I don't support the party or any parties, never have. Do you actually think the federal govt will actually get smaller with a (D) Executive and (D) Congress (or substitute (R)) vs one that is split? If I knew that Congress (at least one of them) would go (R), then I would vote for (D) Obama for Executive. But from what I've read, that is very unlikely. As some have said here, the next president - regardless if (D) or (R) - will love the expanded powers, and Congress will continue to ensure its power to solve every problem by growing the legislations, budgets and bureaucracies. I am on record here opposing many of the expansions of power but for most Americans, the past 8 years were no different than the past 20 or past 40 years in watching the decline of home rule local govts at the expense of the federal powers.

[path12]

I certainly understand the arguments for a divided government, and think there are absolutely times where that isn't a bad thing. But I believe we are in a delicate period of time right now where:

The energy source that is the backbone of our society is for the first time starting to show signs of scarcity, even more so with the rapid industrialization of China.

There is finally a solid scientific consensus that we are entering a period of atmospheric change, which will require new thinking.

The healthcare system is broken, with millions not covered and millions more living on the edge of a major illness or accident wiping them out, especially as we see the job loss numbers steadily creep up.

The problem with a divided government is that it does not lead. It keeps the status quo. I don't think we have time to keep the status quo at this point in our history.

Do I think the Dems have the stones and the leadership ability to actually solve these problems? I'm not terribly optimistic, though I at least see a possibility of leadership with Obama as opposed to the same old partisan ground-scorch approach of Clinton. But I know for a fact that the Repubs policies will not lead us forward, especially based on the stands that McCain has taken so far.

[Buccaneer]

I think that's the key difference, path - what you consider forward progress. There are many evidences that when the federal govt tackles a major problem with good intentions of forward progress, they actually, at best, maintain a marginal level of progress at greatly increased costs. Most often, they make the problems worse at greatly increased costs, necessitating more legislation, deficit spending and bureaucracies. And now you expect things will be different all of a sudden??

You mentioned healthcare. For a majority of Americans, it is not broken. It is expensive and will get more expensive, but we demand better care, better drugs and more instant diagnosis and treatments. If you want care for those uninsured, first find out why they are uninsured and then find an acceptable level of care vs cost. For the rest of us, we still will demand what we have now (and more so as we get older). No way will we want a one-size-fits-all solution that will reduce the level of care but cost just as much.

That's just one example of what will be backwards progress but others are dreaming that it will actually be forward progress. Therefore, why would I want leadership when Washington DC is not smart enough to do many things right but instead, they need to cut expenditures and do things better, smarter and cheaper? I would measure forward progress if they would just think more Constitutionally and libertarianistic. But I don't expect that, and I certainly don't hear that from Obama or Clinton. What I do expect is more individuals, local and regional public and private entities, communities, churches and charity organizations to take much more personal responsibilites in making a difference within their sphere of influences.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think that's a valid point, Bucc. There's no question that both of Clinton's Supreme Court appointees -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- have been on the liberal side of virtually every court decision since their appointments.

Breyer might be on the liberal side of the hot button social issue cases, but is pretty conservative when it comes to corporate cases.

[Young Drachma]

Mark Penn is stepping down from the Clinton campaign.

Mark Penn, the architect of much of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, has been replaced as the campaign’s chief strategist in the wake of revelations that he lobbied on behalf of a trade treaty with Colombia that Mrs. Clinton opposes.