quote:

---

Senator Obama's call for a significant change of direction amounts to far more than a compelling rallying cry. It is buttressed by his record of consistent support for workers, by his call for sweeping changes to our health care system, by his unflinching support for Employee Free Choice, and by his insistence that America’s trade policies must, first and foremost, serve the interests of America’s working families ...

---

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?source=refresh

Unionists Support Obama

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

God endorses Obama:

In other news,

Borat endorses Obama

Senator Byrd (former KKK member) endorses Obama

Pres. Josiah Bartlet endorses Obama

West Virginia State Auditor Glen B. Gainer III endorses Obama

Arthur Fonzarelli endorses Obama

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

God endorses Obama:

---

Oh I have done nothing of the sort!

I will say though, that given the contenders most likely to get in without one heck of a major direct intervention from Yours Truly, I tend to be least bothered by Obama.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Me.

---

You know, with real workers?

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

Must I point out what would happen if a similar list of "silly" endorsers of HRC was posted?

Would anyone here rather see McCain making these appointments? If he wins, it will be because he spent the campaign fence mending with, and pandering to the absolute worst elements in the American political fabric and he will owe them big time.

Should Obama take the nomination, I for one will be cheering along from the sidelines up here in Canada. Should Clinton be nominated, my cheering will be somewhat more ambivilent, but I'll still root for her over McCain.

(edited because really, I couldn't spell to save my life)

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
I can understand that those on the left don't see Barack Obama as a real left choice (I agree, with hopes of being surprised if he's elected). But this mockery of him, specifically in M.Spector's thread of endorsers? Really? Just because the majority of active posters on babble support HRC?

---

ETA: Things are getting pretty bad on babble when you can't mock a capitalist politician without being accused of hypocrisy...

Actually, my primary purpose is to mock mr. house, whose breathless announcements of the latest trade union bureaucracy endorsement, each starting a new thread, are intended to embarrass the left for not supporting Obama. The idea that these labour endorsements somehow endow Obama with street cred among workers is ludicrous. It can only be the product of a petit-bourgeois intellectual mind that is disdainful of working class politics.

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Just because the majority of active posters on babble support HRC?

---

quote:

---

But this mockery of him, specifically in M.Spector's thread of endorsers? Really?

---

If, as Spectre, you really support another party, but can't come out and say so, then you have to just resort to mockery.

One of the favorite journalists of the far left, John Pilger, actually called Obama an "Uncle Tom" for not going along with the radical agenda he supports. That kind of borderline racism is all too common.

"All Power to the Soviets" "All Power to the Soviets!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Should Obama take the nomination, I for one will be cheering along from the sidelines up here in Canada. Should Clinton be nominated, my cheering will be somewhat more ambivilent, but I'll still root for her over McCain.

---

quote:

---

But what kind of movement is behind Obama? They want us to think that they are a grass roots organization of neighbors, friends and family. But something just isn’t right. They aren’t concerned community members against the disease afflicting our economy, culture and government. They aren't even the PTA trying to fix your kid's school.

Obama’s “activists” and “organizers” are trained (and sometimes even paid) to appear as if they are part of some grassroots initiative when, in fact, they are representatives of some distant institution. In this case it’s a centrally directed, national, political machine trying to sell an image.

In terms of tactics and management Obama’s “movement” is no different than Clinton and McCain’s campaigns. Just like their rivals, Obama’s cadres coming to a doorstop or intersection near you have been prepped in their talking points.

Many of his supporters genuinely desire real change but the sad truth is that Barack Obama only wants change of very limited scope. In his humbly titled Audacity of Hope, he describes himself as “progressive” working for “social and economic justice.”

But actions speak louder than empty platitudes.

One of his more prominent supporters includes David Brooks, a Republic columnist for the New York Times. Brooks dubbed Obama a “Hamiltonian” and a believer “in limited government” and “free trade.” He went on praise Obama for “a mentality formed by globalization not SDS.”

Brooks honest appraisal of Obama fits the would-be-President’s positions. In the 1990s, as an Illinois State Senator, he argued for universal healthcare. Now he advocates for “market-based” health care reform.

Obama’s mainstream neoliberalism leads him to support the most destructive kinds of free-market fetishism. He voted against an amendment to a 2005 bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Like most American politicians, he was just dancing for his donors. According to Ken Silverstein’s Harper’s article, Barack Obama Inc., “Finanical firms constitute Obama’s second biggest single bloc of donors.” Silverstein’s article closed with a particularly damning revelation:

“On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a ‘player.’ The lobbyist added: ‘What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?’”

---

quote:

---

Brooks dubbed Obama a “Hamiltonian” and a believer “in limited government” and “free trade.”

---

quote:

---

According to Ken Silverstein’s Harper’s article, Barack Obama Inc., “Finanical firms constitute Obama’s second biggest single bloc of donors.” Silverstein’s article closed with a particularly damning revelation:

---

The linked article entitled "Barack Obama Inc" is from 2006, so i'm not sure how that's so relevant. If it's the case with his campaign today then it should be easy enough to demonstrate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
The linked article entitled "Barack Obama Inc" is from 2006, so i'm not sure how that's so relevant. If it's the case with his campaign today then it should be easy enough to demonstrate.

---

According to CNN, to take the example of a single month this year:

quote:

---

727,972 donors contributed to the campaign in February. More than half of them were first-time contributors.

A majority of the money, $45 million, was raised online, the campaign said. More than 90 percent of the donations were under $100, and more than half were under $25.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/democrats.campaign/

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Um, 2006 is when the campaign began!

---

So how much of the hundreds of millions of dollars that he's raised were raised in 2006? The article from 2006 is making claims about his donor base. So again, how relevant is info from 2006?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The absolute best thing about the Obama campaign is the way in which it is getting MILLIONS of small donations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Obama is getting more money from Wall Street than any other candidate...so I don't see how he represents a threat to Corporate America.

---

In the same vein,

Obama is getting more money from young people than any other candidate...so i don't see how he represents a threat to young people.

Obama is getting more money from first time contributors than any other candidate...so i don't see how he represent a threat to first time contributors.

Does this kind of argument make much sense?

Obama's going to be the next president, so yeah Wall Street is giving more money to him than anyone else.

quote:

---

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.

---

In other words, you need me to stick around, just in case, is all I'm saying.

Hillary has crossed the line of no return.

[ 23 May 2008: Message edited by: Transplant ]

quote:

---

Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has moved on from Indiana, leaving behind $55,000 in unpaid bills for campaign events at Indiana University.
The debts are for appearances made by Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, during March and April leading up to Indiana's May 6 primary.

Barack Obama's campaign, meanwhile, has already paid the $108,142 it owed IU for two Assembly Hall events -- a rally featuring the Illinois senator and an Obama-sponsored concert by Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds.

---

quote:

---

In spending reports filed this week, Clinton listed $19.5 million in debts, including $10 million she has lent her campaign.

---

Yeah you hang in there till the bitter end HC.

ETA: hat tip to mark1tc

[ 23 May 2008: Message edited by: wage zombie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transplant:
In other words, you need me to stick around, just in case, is all I'm saying.

---

I am sure Hillary Clinton actually didn't mean that, but so what? The words are open to that interpretation, and to speak so awfully is a pretty big gaffe for a Presidential candidate, about 10 demerit points on a 50 point suitably scale. I expect that in the next few days there will be considerable switching among these superdelegates.

Remember what happened to John Kerry two years ago? After raising millions for congressional Democratic candidates and appearing all over the country he made a statement to some students about staying in school or else ending up in Iraq. This was determined to be unacceptable because it implied that all military recruits were dropouts, unskilled and uneducated, that the military was an employer of last resort. Compared to Hillary Clinton's statements today, ... there is no comparison. Yet it was enough to end his hopes of running again for President this year, partly because media Republicans and spinners, and even some carefully controlled groups in uniform, made some cleverly staged fuss in the blogosphere and Fox and elsewhere. But the real tipping point came when nervous, panicky Democratic candidates Kerry had helped turned angrily on him, such as John Tester, how a Montana Senator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
In that link above, Andrew Sullivan said it best:

She's been waiting for Obama to implode. Instead, she just has.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Agreed. Hillary just committed political suicide.

---

quote:

---

Democrat Barack Obama has said he will not take public financing, allowing him to raise unlimited private funds in his campaign for the US presidency.

His decision means he will forgo more than $80m (£40.5m) that would have been available for him to fight Republican John McCain for the White House.

Candidates who accept public money cannot raise funds from private donors.

Mr Obama set records raising money for his campaign for the Democratic nomination during the primary contests.

The decision reverses his earlier promise to use the federal public financing system if his Republican rival also did so.

---

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

McCain is actually violating the fundraising laws, while Obama is not.

quote:

---

I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing.

---

quote:

---

McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

---

josh marshall

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The above comment repeats a John McCain talking point, but it is fraudulent on its face.

McCain is actually violating the fundraising laws, while Obama is not.

---

The "above comment"? It's a BBC news article which is merely reporting - accurately - that Barack Obama reversed himself on a promise to use public financing.

It doesn't accuse Obama of violating any law, so your "not guilty" plea on his behalf is gratuitous.

As for McCain, if he is breaking some law, no doubt your friend Obama has enough money collected from "millions" of poor donors to launch a prosecution. But it seems that "presumption of innocence" has only limited application in your partisan lexicon.

You don't. You pretend to support nobody, but of course everyone knows the reality.

Instead, you criticize the progressive candidate while having nothing to say about McCain, except that you want him to have "the presumption of innocence".

Sorry, but I retain the right to call Bush a war criminal, and McCain a law-breaker, when I see that the evidence warrants it.

As you know, the Charter of Rights does not provide for a presumption of innocence generally.
It provides for such a right for "Any person charged with an offence."

quote:

---

The decision reverses his earlier promise to use the federal public financing system if his Republican rival also did so.

---

So, please inform yourself before wrongly citing constitutional principles against other babblers.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
McCain has long since announced his intention to opt back out of public financing. So how is Obama "reversing" a promise? The promise was contingent on something that doesn't appear to be happening.

---

Ummmm, keep reading the same piece:

quote:

---

Mr McCain has said he is likely to take the public money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The difference between you and me is that I state openly which party or candidate I support.

You don't. You pretend to support nobody, but of course everyone knows the reality.

---

Everybody but me, I guess. Whom do I support? Please, please tell me. Huckabee?

quote:

---

As you know, the Charter of Rights does not provide for a presumption of innocence generally. It provides for such a right for "Any person charged with an offence."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
What's your source for saying he has "long since announced his intention" not to use public money?

---

I figured a DNC lawsuit* to force an investigation into McCain's withdrawal from public financing was a pretty good indication that he had done so. Now there seems to be some confusion about it. (Unless the primaries are considered to be separate from the general for purposes of opting in or out, which just occurred to me**.)

*I'd give you the quote but it's the AP and they're being silly about copyright at the moment. I'd go ahead if I was blogging this but I won't expose babble.

On edit:

** Yes, it appears the campaign season is divided into two pieces for purposes of the public financing system. A candidate can opt out for the primaries and then opt back in after the party convention. Never mind.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]