Obama's Money Machine

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

GOP Fears Obama's Money Machine

 

Such a massive financial advantage will allow Obama to compete in more states than McCain and force his rival to defend states that should rightfully be Republican wins.

 

Obama’s use of such tactics has already been on display in the primary.

 

Pennsylvania was a must-win for Clinton and, given its large population of working-class Democrats and women, was a long shot for Obama.

 

Still, he spent $10 million advertising in the Keystone State. Why? He forced Clinton to spend all her money and much of her time there to ensure she pocketed a 10-point win.

 

it's probably going to be worse as he taps into some of Clinton's fundraisers

[ieatcrayonz]

GOP Fears Obama's Money Machine

 

 

 

it's probably going to be worse as he taps into some of Clinton's fundraisers

Hasn't he been doing enough tapping lately?

[blzrul]

One of Obama's first acts as the defacto head of his party is to influence a change in the donation policy. Howard Dean just announced:

 

"As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution."

 

 

Obama's campaign donation strategy to date has adhered to this principle to the point where they warn you if you buy a shirt and round up the payment as a donation, it counts against your limit.

 

One would wonder how they'd keep lobbyists out except I believe they have to register so it's simple enough to weed them out or, if they slip through, they'll get their money returned to them. Of course this would be something the press and opponent would have a field day with (although the opposition's campaign is run and staffed by lobbyists) but I guess that's a chance one takes. It IS interesting that Obama seems to bet that Americans aren't as gullible or ill-informed as most politicians seem to think - and he's won that bet so far as people aren't peeved over flag pins, nutjob reverends, or ill-advised middle names (I said people, not wingnuts. Wingnuts are hopeless cases who can be called people only in the biological sense.)

 

 

When you think of the unprecedented amounts of money he raised during the primaries, mostly from individuals, it really makes you think it IS possible to shut out the bloodsuckers.

 

It's a start at least. You have to start somewhere.

[Wacka]

More BS from the socialist.

[OCinBuffalo]

One of Obama's first acts as the defacto head of his party is to influence a change in the donation policy. Howard Dean just announced:

 

"As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution."

 

 

Obama's campaign donation strategy to date has adhered to this principle to the point where they warn you if you buy a shirt and round up the payment as a donation, it counts against your limit.

 

One would wonder how they'd keep lobbyists out except I believe they have to register so it's simple enough to weed them out or, if they slip through, they'll get their money returned to them. Of course this would be something the press and opponent would have a field day with (although the opposition's campaign is run and staffed by lobbyists) but I guess that's a chance one takes. It IS interesting that Obama seems to bet that Americans aren't as gullible or ill-informed as most politicians seem to think - and he's won that bet so far as people aren't peeved over flag pins, nutjob reverends, or ill-advised middle names (I said people, not wingnuts. Wingnuts are hopeless cases who can be called people only in the biological sense.)

 

 

When you think of the unprecedented amounts of money he raised during the primaries, mostly from individuals, it really makes you think it IS possible to shut out the bloodsuckers.

 

It's a start at least. You have to start somewhere.

Right, "people" weren't effected by the wingnuts preachers/priests so much that Obama didn't lose by 30 points in WV.

 

The polling on that was/is clear. He was significantly hurt by those idiots, whether it's fair or not.

 

But please, spare us the BS. He obviously started his political life using that church and all the "people" in it to gain a base. I love the "well, there are much bigger churches in the Southside that I could have gone to" argument. Ok, if that's true Mr. Oblahblah, why didn't you? Why would you spend 20 years listening to that nonsense? Or, why would you think it was a good idea to keep going there, even when you knew that these people are clearly unhinged from reality?

 

Was it easier to get a parking spot at Rev. Wright's church? Or, let's be honest, was it because there were politically active people there that you could use to get a better start on your "community organizing" activities?(read: create a voter base)

 

But most importantly, why would you continue to expose yourself so stupidly during a Presidential race unless either: A. you don't know any better or B. you do know and you think it's ok, or C. you think you can do whatever and not get called on it. In all cases it's a significant mistake that's clear as a bell.

 

Once again, we see a lame attempt to treat us like we are dumber than we really are by the left. But I will give you credit for making a decent attempt at trying to counter that argument by getting ahead of it with lapel pin stories. Learn from Nixon: the double talk BS cover up/PR activity only makes it worse.

 

Stop pretending like this is no big deal, and you will take it away from the Hannitys of the world. Keep trying to play it off and you keep feeding him a new story every time you try to deny it/downplay it. Deal with him like a troll. That is, if you can get your emotions and phony ass, holier than thou liberal sensibilities in check for long enough to actually make that work.

 

You want someplace to start? Try there.

[pBills]

Right, "people" weren't effected by the wingnuts preachers/priests so much that Obama didn't lose by 30 points in WV.

 

The polling on that was/is clear. He was significantly hurt by those idiots, whether it's fair or not.

 

But please, spare us the BS. He obviously started his political life using that church and all the "people" in it to gain a base. I love the "well, there are much bigger churches in the Southside that I could have gone to" argument. Ok, if that's true Mr. Oblahblah, why didn't you? Why would you spend 20 years listening to that nonsense? Or, why would you think it was a good idea to keep going there, even when you knew that these people are clearly unhinged from reality?

 

Was it easier to get a parking spot at Rev. Wright's church? Or, let's be honest, was it because there were politically active people there that you could use to get a better start on your "community organizing" activities?(read: create a voter base)

 

But most importantly, why would you continue to expose yourself so stupidly during a Presidential race unless either: A. you don't know any better or B. you do know and you think it's ok, or C. you think you can do whatever and not get called on it. In all cases it's a significant mistake that's clear as a bell.

 

Once again, we see a lame attempt to treat us like we are dumber than we really are by the left. But I will give you credit for making a decent attempt at trying to counter that argument by getting ahead of it with lapel pin stories. Learn from Nixon: the double talk BS cover up/PR activity only makes it worse.

 

Stop pretending like this is no big deal, and you will take it away from the Hannitys of the world. Keep trying to play it off and you keep feeding him a new story every time you try to deny it/downplay it. Deal with him like a troll. That is, if you can get your emotions and phony ass, holier than thou liberal sensibilities in check for long enough to actually make that work.

 

You want someplace to start? Try there.

 

 

Wow, you really hate democrats and Obama huh.

[Chilly]

One of Obama's first acts as the defacto head of his party is to influence a change in the donation policy. Howard Dean just announced:

 

"As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution."

 

 

Obama's campaign donation strategy to date has adhered to this principle to the point where they warn you if you buy a shirt and round up the payment as a donation, it counts against your limit.

 

One would wonder how they'd keep lobbyists out except I believe they have to register so it's simple enough to weed them out or, if they slip through, they'll get their money returned to them. Of course this would be something the press and opponent would have a field day with (although the opposition's campaign is run and staffed by lobbyists) but I guess that's a chance one takes. It IS interesting that Obama seems to bet that Americans aren't as gullible or ill-informed as most politicians seem to think - and he's won that bet so far as people aren't peeved over flag pins, nutjob reverends, or ill-advised middle names (I said people, not wingnuts. Wingnuts are hopeless cases who can be called people only in the biological sense.)

 

 

When you think of the unprecedented amounts of money he raised during the primaries, mostly from individuals, it really makes you think it IS possible to shut out the bloodsuckers.

 

It's a start at least. You have to start somewhere.

 

The DNC is betting that their significant lead in congressional races will allow them to try to boost the popularity of their presidential candidate, and to take up his message more, with such a strategy.

 

In addition, the DNC already has a huge head start over the RNC this year - at this point, they can afford to take less money as they have that significant gap - and create lots of good will to convince people that they really are changing.

 

If in 8 years this policy will still be in effect, then I'll be impressed.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wow, you really hate democrats and Obama huh.

No, I like reasonable Democrats and I like reasonable Republicans. I hate people who put their, or their party's little pissant agenda before the good of the country. I hate phony intellectuals = people who try to defend their views by claiming to be smarter than everyone else, and seek power over the rest of us because "they know better". I also hate phony religious zealots = people that claim they live in a higher state of grace than everyone else. I hate the phony media who has obviously been flat out rooting for Obama most of the election.

 

But most of all, I hate BullShitt/PR, and people that think they can get away with lying to us. I'd like to see Obama cut the crap with the soaring rhetoric and get down to business in terms of HOW he actually plans to do any of the things he says. This way I can judge for myself whether his plans make any sense. Right now he is benefiting from soaring platitude after soaring platitude and getting a complete pass from the media, who are supposed to be doing their jobs and asking him the tough questions.

 

So, yeah, I'm pissed, but not because Obama is a Democrat. I am pissed because we heard the same lines of BS before the 2006 election. It sounded like it was all phony crap then, especially the pretend moral superiority BS, and looks like I was right. The current Democratic party has yet to put forward one reachable, reasonable goal, never mind accomplished any of them, and have done nothing but B word. Their entire thing has been about getting power for their special interest groups instead of solving problems, and the lack of results speak for themselves.

 

I don't like what the Democrats have been doing since 2000, because as of now it all boils down to sniping. And sniping gets us nowhere. I think it stands to reason that nobody, not even Conservatives, like what the Republicans have been doing, especially spending, since 2000 either.

[DC Tom]

One of Obama's first acts as the defacto head of his party is to influence a change in the donation policy. Howard Dean just announced:

 

"As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution."

 

 

Obama's campaign donation strategy to date has adhered to this principle to the point where they warn you if you buy a shirt and round up the payment as a donation, it counts against your limit.

 

One would wonder how they'd keep lobbyists out except I believe they have to register so it's simple enough to weed them out or, if they slip through, they'll get their money returned to them. Of course this would be something the press and opponent would have a field day with (although the opposition's campaign is run and staffed by lobbyists) but I guess that's a chance one takes. It IS interesting that Obama seems to bet that Americans aren't as gullible or ill-informed as most politicians seem to think - and he's won that bet so far as people aren't peeved over flag pins, nutjob reverends, or ill-advised middle names (I said people, not wingnuts. Wingnuts are hopeless cases who can be called people only in the biological sense.)

 

 

When you think of the unprecedented amounts of money he raised during the primaries, mostly from individuals, it really makes you think it IS possible to shut out the bloodsuckers.

 

It's a start at least. You have to start somewhere.

 

I'm going to make two predictions, one of which will be true:

1) The above is all smoke, and never gets implemented, but no one notices because they're just so damn proud to be part of the "Party Of The People", or

2) The above does get implemented, and within ten years we hear about all sorts of ethics violations where Democrats were accepting donations from lobbysists despite this (because the rules never apply to politicians, they seem to think).

 

Because it's idealistic bull sh--. So either it's COMPLETE bull sh--, or it's only partially bull sh-- as an honest and well-meaning attempt at change that will ultimately be abused.

[Chilly]

I'm going to make two predictions, one of which will be true:

1) The above is all smoke, and never gets implemented, but no one notices because they're just so damn proud to be part of the "Party Of The People", or

2) The above does get implemented, and within ten years we hear about all sorts of ethics violations where Democrats were accepting donations from lobbysists despite this (because the rules never apply to politicians, they seem to think).

 

Because it's idealistic bull sh--. So either it's COMPLETE bull sh--, or it's only partially bull sh-- as an honest and well-meaning attempt at change that will ultimately be abused.

 

Its complete bull sh-- - it will only last them as long as it is politically advantageous for them to do so.

[blzrul]

No, I like reasonable Democrats and I like reasonable Republicans. I hate people who put their, or their party's little pissant agenda before the good of the country. I hate phony intellectuals = people who try to defend their views by claiming to be smarter than everyone else, and seek power over the rest of us because "they know better". I also hate phony religious zealots = people that claim they live in a higher state of grace than everyone else. I hate the phony media who has obviously been flat out rooting for Obama most of the election.

 

But most of all, I hate BullShitt/PR, and people that think they can get away with lying to us. I'd like to see Obama cut the crap with the soaring rhetoric and get down to business in terms of HOW he actually plans to do any of the things he says. This way I can judge for myself whether his plans make any sense. Right now he is benefiting from soaring platitude after soaring platitude and getting a complete pass from the media, who are supposed to be doing their jobs and asking him the tough questions.

 

So, yeah, I'm pissed, but not because Obama is a Democrat. I am pissed because we heard the same lines of BS before the 2006 election. It sounded like it was all phony crap then, especially the pretend moral superiority BS, and looks like I was right. The current Democratic party has yet to put forward one reachable, reasonable goal, never mind accomplished any of them, and have done nothing but B word. Their entire thing has been about getting power for their special interest groups instead of solving problems, and the lack of results speak for themselves.

 

I don't like what the Democrats have been doing since 2000, because as of now it all boils down to sniping. And sniping gets us nowhere. I think it stands to reason that nobody, not even Conservatives, like what the Republicans have been doing, especially spending, since 2000 either.

So tell me Mr. Perfection, what have YOU done to alleviate all this? It clearly is eating your gut out, given the vitriol you are dispensing. So I expect your frustration comes from trying, and failing, to change the system. Right?

 

Oh yeah, you're going to tell the world in three pages how to fix the healthcare crises.

 

That's great. Maybe it will be a breakthrough. But if no-one executes it you might as well turn in slighty-used, or even well-soiled, toilet paper. And like it or not, our elected officials will play a role in the change.

 

I was prepared and looking forward to reading your paper. I am even more so now, and will give your thoughts the same kind of open-minded consideration as you give to others. I will also be as gracious as you in expressing my disagreement.

 

By the way, Obama was probably doomed to lose W. VA anyway. So he lost by 5% more than he would have. Big freaking deal. I think that has more to do with the color of his skin than it does with Reverend Nutjob. They're used to wacky ministers in that part of the country. I was actually making the point that most American's AREN'T that shallow and stupid. You apparently disagree heartily and I am sure you are QUITE the authority....when it comes to those qualities anyway.

[OCinBuffalo]

So tell me Mr. Perfection, what have YOU done to alleviate all this? It clearly is eating your gut out, given the vitriol you are dispensing. So I expect your frustration comes from trying, and failing, to change the system. Right?

Absolutely, except the failure part. What? Do you honestly believe I would be this pissed off over a perception? Ma'am, I deal with this BS every day, and have been for a long time. I have had problems in my job specifically with the DOD(not as much), DOE, SEC, HHS, CMS, and the VA. They have never been on the right side of the issue, except on one project(and thank God they got that one right = nukes), and they are always creating more problems than fixing them. This normally happens as a direct result of some politician trying to make a name for themselves while not understanding the issue, thinking the whole thing comes down to slogans, and forcing good government people into the stupid. Or it stems from government employees trying to secure their future existence, however useless it may be.

 

Or worst of all, it comes from the reckless behavior or pols/staffers/employees who simply don't want to understand the issue, but don't want to be perceived as doing nothing, so they will jump at whatever port in the storm comes along. Sadly, my own uncle tends to fall into this last category when it comes to health care, and yes I have no problem verbally wailing on him for it.

 

But the thing that pisses me off the most in what I do right now is that good time/money is being spent on bad: trying to sway DC/regulators one way or the other, or gotcha games, or PACs, and this activity is the direct result of either government sponsorship or political party influence trading.

 

And no, I haven't missed a scope in my life, even when I have taken over projects that were 6 months behind. So I haven't failed, yet. So far, it's looking like I won't this time around either. Unfortunately there's a first time for everything.

Oh yeah, you're going to tell the world in three pages how to fix the healthcare crises.

Well, I've never been one for 20 page white papers and I don't like it when people insist on telling me things I already know so I don't see why I should do that. So yeah, 3 pages right to the point that talk about things we have found that no one else has sounds about right to me.

 

Besides, I'd rather show than tell. With all this attention, perhaps I will have to post our press releases? Perhaps I should give you an open invite to come see for yourself?

That's great. Maybe it will be a breakthrough

. But if no-one executes it you might as well turn in slighty-used, or even well-soiled, toilet paper. And like it or not, our elected officials will play a role in the change.

Ma'am, that's the difference between me and you? or other people? There's no way in hell that I would start with a white paper before I built something and got results with it. Hell that's why most of the .coms failed. And, you don't know me but why in the world would you think that I would let my plan, or anything I do, be somehow effected by politicians? Believe me, we have taken this into account, and our current strategy/pricing/deployment works just fine, no matter what they do, because we can stop on a dime and change direction/be at market in matter of days no matter how large the change. It's been designed from the ground up to do so. I built brand new technology to make it so. The only real question is how much of an annoyance will they be?

 

And please understand that I sure as hell am not the kind of person who leaves execution to other people. You are darn right that none of it will matter unless someone executes, so we do, every day, all the time.

I was prepared and looking forward to reading your paper. I am even more so now, and will give your thoughts the same kind of open-minded consideration as you give to others. I will also be as gracious as you in expressing my disagreement.

I am the first to admit that I have a hard time keeping an open mind when I know I am listening to an uninformed opinion. I truly do not understand what compels people, especially lawyers, to believe that they know about everything, no matter what. How can they presume to know the inner workings of a particular industry, or individual heath insurance company, or hospital, or nursing home, or private clinic for that matter, without having taken the time to study said organizations in detail? So yeah, I get a little snippy when I hear someone who obviously has no clue speak in terms of absolutes, or repeat 15 seconds of what they heard Hillary say on CNN, about this subject. Somehow I don't see my disdain for these phonies changing any time soon.

 

It's my job to get deep within the views of as many informed people as I can, but then I gotta move on and get something out the door that gets results so I don't have time for BS.

 

What I think is funny is that your words here are a perfect example of what I am talking about: you don't have the first f'ing clue whether you will disagree with me or not, but yet you already "know" you will. I got news for you: having read your posts the last 6 months you are definitely going to be surprised. In fact, I would say that your ideology-first sensibility will make you happy with 50-100% of what I have. How's that for a projection? Hey, you started it!

By the way, Obama was probably doomed to lose W. VA anyway. So he lost by 5% more than he would have. Big freaking deal. I think that has more to do with the color of his skin than it does with Reverend Nutjob. They're used to wacky ministers in that part of the country. I was actually making the point that most American's AREN'T that shallow and stupid. You apparently disagree heartily and I am sure you are QUITE the authority....when it comes to those qualities anyway.

Did you ever hear the story about the Frog and the Snake? The quick version: snake asks frog to get him across the river, frog says no you will eat me, snake says no I won't so frog agrees, snake eats frog while crossing a river causing both to drown, on the way down Frog says: "why?" Snake says: "I am a snake". Who is the idiot in the story? The Frog. Why? Because a snake is a snake.

 

Hannity and Rev. Wright are the snakes and dumbass Obama(or his people, to be fair, this could have been "advice") is the frog. First because he should have known better than to get associated in the first place, second because he should have got out once he heard this crap from Wright, third because how in God's name didn't he think that since this was a Presidential election, the snakes weren't going to be the snakes? The only thing that makes sense is he didn't want to to turn his back on the people that made him, and that's why this story won't "go away", because Americans are sick of other Americans who start every sentence with "America wouldn't suck if...".

 

My point isn't about whether it's fair, snakes are f'ing snakes for pete's sake. My point is this is clearly a huge mistake. Pretending like isn't means you are a simple, gullible, POS, and we can't afford that when it's time to be play in the big leagues with China, Iran, Russia, etc.

 

Now I am fully willing to give him/his folks another chance because this is America after all. But any more of this "babe in the woods" crap and I'm done. He almost lost me on the 1v1 talks thing but he has gotten away from that now.<--BTW, yeah, I haven't decided who to vote for yet.