Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win

[OzmO]

So as long as the results benefits democrats its ok to lie?

He said he was going to do public funding, then he changed his mind and decided not to.  Why?  Because the money was there.


BIG FVCKING DEAL.   CRY ME A DAM RIVER.   BETTER YET, BUILD A BRIDGE AND GET OVER IT.

(caps for effect, not meant to yell 

[y19mike77]

Who is blaming Obama for anything?

We are talking about campaign funding.

Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.

[Al Doggity]

This is a good thing.

In another thread, I'm arguing with someone about his tax plan. They criticize him because he changed the level at which families received tax cuts throughout his campaign. The evidence this poster posted seems to suggest he consistently raised the level to benefit more people.

You can look at this  as being an opportunist, but without even squinting, you can also see it as simply re-evaluating your position every so often and choosing the best option on the table. That's a GOOD quality in a president. "Staying the course" may sound noble, but all courses aren't created equal.

[y19mike77]

Going back on your word is going back on your word. Spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.

With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.

My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.

[Al Doggity]

Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.

Attacked? A more accurate description would be "rightfully criticized for his complete nability to do his job".

Without Bush, this thread wouldn't exist.

[OzmO]

Who is blaming Obama for anything?

We are talking about campaign funding.

Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.

So what?

Yes, the left dished out massive attacks.  

But all this whining about Obama lied, he bought the election etc...    BFD.   In the end, his campaign was better ran and better funded and the PEOPLE of America voted him in.   They voted an extreme liberal into the white house, something that would have NEVER happened is BUSH just had an so so presidency.  

All this crap about he bought the presidency is pathetic.  

As all you conservatives find things to blame, Comrade BUSH's presidency is who you should look to.  Obama would have never been nominated.  It would have been Hillary vs. McCain and John would have won.

[OzmO]

Going back on your word is going back on your word. Spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.

With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.

My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.

Politicians lie?   Politicians change direction?   Wow  I had no idea.   

So why vote at all?  Why not move to a place where there are no politicians?  Since they ALL lie.   

[y19mike77]

This is a good thing.

In another thread, I'm arguing with someone about his tax plan. They criticize him because he changed the level at which families received tax cuts throughout his campaign. The evidence this poster posted seems to suggest he consistently raised the level to benefit more people.

You can look at this  as being an opportunist, but without even squinting, you can also see it as simply re-evaluating your position every so often and choosing the best option on the table. That's a GOOD quality in a president. "Staying the course" may sound noble, but all courses aren't created equal.

Him changing the level of tax cuts is not the same as him saying "oh well nevermind no one is getting any tax cuts sorry but I lied"

[OzmO]

Going back on your word is going back on your word. Spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.

With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.

My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.

Jesus, let it go already   

So everyone that changes their mind is a liar?

[Al Doggity]

Going back on your word is going back spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.

With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.

My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.

I don't disagree that he went back on his word. Different promises carry different weight. He made the smart decision in using his own donor funds.

[OzmO]

I don't disagree that he went back on his word. Different promises carry different weight. He made the smart decision in using his own donor funds.

People would have been calling him an idiot if he didn't.

[y19mike77]

Your missing the point Oz.

If I supported McCain and he went back on his word about funding I would have been all over him.

The dif is you are so caught up in the Messiahs light you are blinded by it.

This brings me to my point of "it is ok for you side to do it but not the the others side".

[Al Doggity]

Your missing the point Oz.

If I supported McCain and he went back on his word about funding I would have been all over him.

I doubt it. If McCain had used donor funds and Obama had accepted public financing, the right wing script would be something like "Socialist Obama Lives High on Campaign Welfare."

[Hugo Chavez]

Who is blaming Obama for anything?

We are talking about campaign funding.

Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.

I should remind you that for the most part the country gave Bush a chance.  He promised to be a uniter, not a divider, remember?  The neoconservative we were told was a different kind of conservative, not the divisive kind. Then we faced in that first year action after action that attempted to look the part without being the part thinking we were stupid enough to buy it. Bush's idea of being a uniter was to give it a label the left likes with results the right likes...  Had he been closer to what he said he was, he would have been treated much kinder, despite the bullshit he pulled in FL 2000.  Bush is his own doing, he has only himself and his neocon nutthugging to blame.  His approval rating isn't so low without rightwing disapproval too.

[Neurotoxin]

Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win



Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM


http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraisng/2008/11/05/148218.html

2 SHIT candidates "on deck" for Moron Bush sealed their fate.

Country First........my ass!


NT

 

[Dos Equis]

Have to give Obama credit for being a great speaker and running a very good campaign, but money was the primary reason he won this election.  The economy tanking helped a great deal.  The lack of a great Republican helped a lot.  McCain's disjointed campaign helped.  So did Bush's unpopularity, which was tied to the economy during the latter part of the campaign. 

Yes it was smart to get every campaign dollar he could, but sweeping his broken promise aside as insignificant speaks volumes about how little we expect of our leaders.   

[Hugo Chavez]

Have to give Obama credit for being a great speaker and running a very good campaign, but money was the primary reason he won this election.  The economy tanking helped a great deal.  The lack of a great Republican helped a lot.  McCain's disjointed campaign helped.  So did Bush's unpopularity, which was tied to the economy during the latter part of the campaign. 

Yes it was smart to get every campaign dollar he could, but sweeping his broken promise aside as insignificant speaks volumes about how little we expect of our leaders.   

well duh, If he can't get his message out, it doesn't much matter how good the rest of it is.

[Dos Equis]

well duh, If he can't get his message out, it doesn't much matter how good the rest of it is.

Is there an echo in here?   

[Hugo Chavez]

Is there an echo in here?   

yea, but aren't we pointing out actually that not breaking the promise equals losing?  I don't know why he said it to begin with, I don't remember now, was this a promise solicited from the republicans?

[Al Doggity]

Have to give Obama credit for being a great speaker and running a very good campaign, but money was the primary reason he won this election.  The economy tanking helped a great deal.  The lack of a great Republican helped a lot.  McCain's disjointed campaign helped.  So did Bush's unpopularity, which was tied to the economy during the latter part of the campaign. 

Yes it was smart to get every campaign dollar he could, but sweeping his broken promise aside as insignificant speaks volumes about how little we expect of our leaders.   

You are really downplaying those other factors. Those other factors are what ALLOWED him to raise that much money. McCain probably couldn't have raised similar funds which is why he stuck with public financing.

When you say money is the primary reason Obama won, it implies that the playing field would have been even otherwise. 'Taint so. The money followed the momentum, not the other way around.

[Hugo Chavez]

You are really downplaying those other factors. Those other factors are what ALLOWED him to raise that much money. McCain probably couldn't have raised similar funds which is why he stuck with public financing.

When you say money is the primary reason Obama won, it implies that the playing field would have been even otherwise. 'Taint so. The money followed the momentum, not the other way around.

excellent point.

[Dos Equis]

yea, but aren't we pointing out actually that not breaking the promise equals losing?  I don't know why he said it to begin with, I don't remember now, was this a promise solicited from the republicans?

I don't know whether the promise was solicited, but what difference does that make?  A promise is a promise.  

[Dos Equis]

You are really downplaying those other factors. Those other factors are what ALLOWED him to raise that much money. McCain probably couldn't have raised similar funds which is why he stuck with public financing.

When you say money is the primary reason Obama won, it implies that the playing field would have been even otherwise. 'Taint so. The money followed the momentum, not the other way around.

I'm not downplaying those other factors.  They were all significant, with the most significant being the money.  Some of those factors undoubtedly improved his fundraising success, but not the economy tanking, which happened late in the game or McCain's nomination and disjointed campaign, which also came after Obama had raised tons of money. 

People didn't just donate to Obama because they didn't like Bush.  His speaking ability, Hollywood, and Oprah played a large role.  Running a very good campaign (as I already mentioned) played a large role. 

In any event, however you want to characterize it, put the cart before the horse, or whatever, these campaigns are still primarily about the Benjamins.   
 

[240 is Back]

last night... fox news...

Guest defending palin pointed out that the decline of mccain started in sept with lehman.

FOX news anchor pointed out it was actually 4 days earlier that the decline started, when palin did couric and looked bad.

FOX is beating the shit out of palin lately.  Whatever she did to hurt them, they're making sure she cna't do it again.

[Al Doggity]

Actually, the Obama campaign had some of it's most profitable periods after the economy tanked, so it's feasible that that may have helped. Also, McCain's disjointed campaign did help with fundraising. Everytime McCain went negative, donations skyrocketed.

Furthermore, when you lead your thread with a pic of the White House covered in a "Bought" label, you ARE downplaying  the other factors that factored into the results of this election. You're also attempting to imply that democracy was sacrificed when nothing could be further form the truth. Most of the donations Obama received were in dmall amounts from private contributors. Once again, signifying that the money followed the momentum.