Discourse.net

Why don't you think this is fair? What is it that you think is a cheap shot? Lobbyists prevent a good energy policy -- people now are still dependent on gasoline, whose price is high. Pharma lobbyists prevent medicare prescription drug benefit from including government price negotiation -- high prescription drug prices. And Hillary Clinton has taken, does take and (as shown) defends taking lobbyist money.

It's a tiny amount of money by modern political standards -- do you actually think she's really being bought for it? (As opposed to being supportive of agendas that are convenient for these interests, which is the genuine problem.)

The Center for Responsive Politics reports Obama accepted $160,000.00 from major oil companies including Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP. Obama has also taken in millions from other corporate interests. I have a hard time believing that taking millions from investment bankers (see http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638 ) is "purer" than money from "lobbysts." He has to do it, he's a politician who is trying to win. I hope he does win. But he's still taking a lot of money from people who will want favors in return, just like Clinton and McCain. He's not Jesus. Could we maybe stick to a search for the truth? Because at least at this blog, I'm pretty sure that matters more than which candidate we're voting for.

I'm a big Obama supporter, but it's hard to classify that ad as anything other than politics as usual.

You are referring to the past. (His exploratory campaign, and state and fed senate campaigns.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing appears to be an extremely skeptical look at Barack Obama's fundraising. Bottom line, he raised a lot of money for his exploratory campaign from bundlers. Here: "Obama said in his first-quarter[2007]financial report that he received money from 104,000 donors, twice as many as Clinton, suggesting a disproportionate number of small contributions. But the Campaign Finance Institute said Obama still received 68% of his money from donations of $1,000 or more, compared with 86% for Clinton." This percentage has obviously declined as his online small-donor fundraising has increased, though I haven't time this morning to get more citations.

However he has an automated system in place that rejects contributions from registered lobbyists now. (There was a DKos diary from someone who lobbies for a non-profit and was rejected). The worst the source I am referencing can say about him is the guilt by association accusation that he takes money from "associates" of lobbyists. The usual Republican smear equating money from unions with money from corporations is trotted out, together with demonization of trial lawyers. I think my point doesn't merit the accusation that I am not sticking to the truth.

Well ONE of us is referring to the past. The article you link to is a year old. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that some of the tens of thousands that came in from the oil companies came in very recently. Here (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIjsMeUUJFScXcuo4_O64YJgRQwwD9033S3G0 ) is a newspaper article from yesterday that reports: "As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics." We can post and ripost all day long. If you think Obama walks on water, well, whatever. I prefer realism.

I certainly don't think he walks on water but he has received many millions of dollars in small contributions during the time that 214,000 was received. If you think that that kind of percentage makes his ad inaccurate, I'd say someone here is innumerate (I don't impune your integrity by suggesting you don't tell the truth).

Ya know, some employers pressure their employees to give small contributions to particular candidates. And making them can seem like a condition of employment, especially to people who do not belong to unions but desperately need to hold on to their jobs. So it maybe best not to fetishize small contributions too much. Especially when a scary number of the small contributors seem to work in the same industry.

Wow! So now you are alleging that "scary numbers" of Obama's on-line donations are the result of employer pressures to make donations. That's plausible, sure it is.

I've been pressured by employers and colleagues to support particular candidates in various races, and so has almost everyone I know. I don't think that is a particularly novel "revelation." When I was untenured I was a lot more nervous about that than I am now, but outside of academia and union shops, my level of job security is unusually good.

If you are convinced that Obama is the first Presidential candidate to be completely untainted by politics, again, whatever. Though I will say again, I don't think the "Obama is Jesus" mantra is ultimately very helpful to Obama the mortal being, or Obama the presidential candidate.

it's true. especially to people who do not belong to unions but desperately need to hold on to their jobs.