Barack Obama and The Audacity of Deception: The Manufacture of Progressive Illusion

[plantwomyn]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3214905
Bill Clinton profits from company tied to felon, China.
This is where it started.
From the article:
"Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which studies political money and ethics, said even though the law doesn't require former presidents to disclose donations and stock transactions to their foundations, they should do so to avoid the appearance that money was buying special access."

Center for Responsive Politics...okay what else do they have to say?

"Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics."

"Meanwhile, Obama's presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c)."

"Follow the money. Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007."

And here is the entire article.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/15765

Interesting where shit leads you.

[RBInMaine]

1. And how much has Hillary received from PACs and Lobbyists??

[anonymous171]

2. lol plantwomyn, be prepared for a wakeup call.

Hillary has sooo many corporate connections.

[QC]

3. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Look at this fluffy bunny instead!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. ever hear that thing about glass houses and throwing stones?

No?

[Kelvin Mace]

5. If we start digging into each candidates

business dealing far enough, we can find links to Hitler's gold.

I certainly see lots of concerns about Obama's liberal credential, but then, I have lots of concerns about the Clintons.

What I am concerned about from the Clinton camp is her tacit endorsement of John McCain for president, saying he is more qualified that Obama. If she thinks that she won't see commercials run against her parroting back that endorsement if she wins the nomination she "not inhaling".

[tabatha]

6. Really crappy article.

Did you notice, no-one bothered to comment on it.

Obama has taken bundled donations from the people who work at those firms - not the lobbyists themselves.

[plantwomyn]

7. I noticed that you commented on it and the linked post.

You accept the one about Pres. Clinton but reject the same kind of article about Sen. Obama.
Both articles site the exact same source for their statistics.
Did you read the article or did you see that it wasn't pro-Obama and skim it over for fodder?

"August the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital."
FYI the nation's capital is the place Sen. Obama hates so much, otherwise known as WASHINGTON D.C.

"not the lobbyists themselves" is like saying donations from union workers not the LABOR UNIONS.
Can anyone say vested interest?

"Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry."
If you're going to be critical about money and pandering, do it equally.
Are you saying that Obama can dish it out but can't take it?
Come on people!

[boppers]

8. You said it yourself, plantwomun.

"is like saying donations from union workers not the LABOR UNIONS."


Exactly. In the former case, the support comes from, and gratitude is owed to, the individuals, not the power structure the individuals are part of.

Let's take, oh, big pharma lobby donations vs. getting donations from a medical researchers who happen to work for Pfizer.

Imagine a bill came through that altered the amount of testing required for drugs.
If a politician was supported by big pharma, they'd likely try to increase profits for the company.

However, if the politician was supported by the researchers working for big pharma, they'd likely try to increase the amount of researchers working, as well as the amount of research done.

Totally different result, because instead of being supported by a business lobby, the politician is being supported by people who happen to have connections to businesses.

Using your example of union workers vs their unions, there are times when workers are at odds with their own union. In such a case, would you rather have a politician that sided with the workers, or a politician that sided with the union's power structure?

[plantwomyn]

10. The example was SARCASTIC.

If you seriously think that is the way the world works, you are naive.
The reason candidates pursue and tout Union endorsements is that the an endorsement = votes.

"That's when the Boston Globe published a widely circulated article titled "PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise: Data Contrast With His Theme." Globe reporter Scott Helman reviewed campaign finance records to find that a "more complicated truth" lurked "behind Obama's campaign rhetoric."

PACs are whats going on here. They are the new device used to get money to "organize to elect or defeat government officials or to promote legislation".

"Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money, including large sums from "defense contractors, law firms and the securities and insurance industries" to his own powerful PAC "Hopefund."

............................Paid for by Hopefund and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.......................
http://hopefundamerica.com
And where does this take you?
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
...................................not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee........................................
RIGHT!
Please make a token attempt to hold YOUR candidate to the SAME standards you demand of others.

BTW plantwomYn xoxo

[Yossariant]

9. They're explaining that blow jobs aren't really sex. They should be Clinton supporters.

:rofl: