In my local paper on Tuesday was a story about how 20+ states are holding primaries on super Tuesday Feb 5. What made this story different is the fact it reported that the super bowl is the Sunday before Feb 3 and because the race in both parties is up in the air candidates will be running ads during the super bowl and paying mid 6 figures for each 30 second spot. Lobbyist get out your check book

You are either naive or willfully ignorant if you think that Obama is not “tied to numerous businesses” as well, or that he is not “perfectly willing to lie and compromise to be elected.”  Just because someone does not accept money from PACs and lobbyists does not mean they are not “tied” to various businesses and industries.  And his poor performance at the SC debate - in which he engaged in more rationalizing, dissembling, obfuscation and spin than even Hillary did - shows that he is no less willing to say whatever he needs to to get elected.

As for Hillary having “little intention to actually come through on many of her promises,” that could probably be said about every politician who ever ran for office.  That aside, I don’t see what makes you so sure about that statement.

Peace.

That is not what I said.  If you read my post, you will note that I DO realize that quid pro quos exist.  What I clearly said was that (i) taking money does not necessarily FORCE any candidate to honor the quid pro quo, and/or (ii) that quid pro quos are not necessarily “across the board,” but may be applied in some cases but not in others.  And the latter occurs quite frequently whether we are talking about Congressional representatives or presidents.

Peace.

You’re good, Maani…very good…

“If you want a painting to be noticed, hang it in the wrong place..”

You must be joking?  You honestly believe that candidates take thousands and thousands of dollars from corporate america and those dollars are not attached to some real, or mild expectation on the part of the donor? hmmmmmm

While I agree this article is hopelessly weak, there are two points that need making.

First, Obama is correct (to a large degree) that there is a difference between taking money from a lobbyist for, say, the pharma companies, and taking donations from individuals - even wealthy individuals (e.g., CEOs) - in the pharma industry. If the CEO of, say, Pfizer, gives Obama a $10,000 donation (assuming, for the moment, that amount is legal), this is still counted as having come from the “pharmaceutical industry,” despite being a non-lobby, non-industry donation.  So it is not as cut and dried as it all seems.

Second, and more importantly, there is something that none of the candidates have said, which surprises me, since it is not only true, but would help change at least the PERCEPTION people have.

When Edwards asked, re lobby and large industry donations, “Don’t you think those donations come with an expectation of return?” (or whatever his exact words were), either Clinton or Obama should have said, “True, there may seem to be a quid pro quo.  However, this does not mean that any of us will HONOR that quid pro quo.”

In other words, while there is certainly the perception, if not the expected reality, of quid pro quos for large campaign donations by a particular industry, that does not mean that the candidate will - or even might - de facto honor that quid pro quo.

As well, the quid pro quo need not be applied across the board.  Hillary might take hundreds of thousands from insurance companies, but still work against their interests in some areas (say, health care) while working for them in others (say, limiting payouts by insurance companies in tobacco lawsuits). Obama might take hundreds of thousands from the pharma industry, but still work against their interests in one area (overall health plan) while working for them in another (larger tax write-offs for R&D;).  Etc.

Again, it is not as cut and dried as (i) candidate A took a million dollars from industry A, so (ii) candidate A is entirely beholden to industry A and will work in all regards for industry A’s interests while ignoring the interests of American citizens.

ALL of us here (and I’m including myself) tend to see this kind of thing in black and white, with no shades of gray.  We tend toward extremism in our perceptions and beliefs.  Yet while I am not suggesting that there is NO quid pro quo vis-a-vis campaign cash, I believe that we often let our emotions - and our understandable frustration with (even hatred for) the “system” - get in the way of reason and rationality.

Peace.

According to research by the Center for Responsive Politics, Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama are by far the top three recipients of telecom industry cash in the 2008 cycle, including tens of thousands of dollars each from AT&T;and Verizon.  opensecrets.org doesn’t even mention this. i got this from CREDOMOBILE, my cell carrier. they also have a petition,addressed to these 3 senators, demanding they oppose retroactive immunity for these criminal corporations. credomobile, formerly “working for change”,is an activist corporation donating a portion of their profits to progressive organizations. look at their website, sign their petitions.

What is the matter with Truthdig?  I am stunned.  I imagine that the readers who went to the site to check the actual numbers concerning donors to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, et al were stunned.  Truthdig, yours was truly a very misleading article.  I may give up reading this blog.  Readers, look at the site underlined in the article.  Truthdig’s commentary stating there was not a lot of difference in the top three democrats fund raising (medical was called out in particular) was especially off the mark.
So.  Truthdig, have you joined the ranks of Washington Post?

From Gore Vidal:

“A member of the House of Representatives for five terms since 1997, although many of his legislative measures have been too useful and original for our brain-dead media to comprehend. I note his well-wrought articles proposing the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, testing the patriotic nerves of his fellow Democrats, but then the fact of his useful existence often causes distress to those who genuinely hate that democracy he is so eager to extend. “Don’t waste your vote,” they whine in unison—as if our votes are not quadrennially wasted on those marvelous occasions when they are actually counted and recorded.”

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/vidal

Fire them immediately, they are crap!!!

^for this worthless article.  obviously from the title, I expected too much: Spread sheets, a list of donors, who, what, when, why, where and how.  This really doesn’t tell me anything worth a crap!  Truthshit!  Glittering generalities….are you nuts?

Candidates in both parties have raised about a half-billion in less than a year to:
    1) lie to the electorate
    2) be absent from their day jobs
    3) fatten media coffers
    4) keep the middle class in its place,
      or lower

When the Bush Money Store somes through with my $800, I’m going to do my part and send each candidate $80 from the Dr. Knowitall Foundation with hopes that they’ll remember me after they’re elected. Whadda a country!!