Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win

[Hugo Chavez]

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

I guess Obama said he would persue public financing but never committed to public financing and in the pursue, he had stipulations before accepting:

"The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues."

I don't think there was ever an absolute commitment to public financing...

[Dos Equis]

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.

When I lead my thread with a picture from the article, I am simply posting the picture that accompanied the article.  When I post an article, unless I include my own comments with a message (express or implied), I am not implying anything.

Who said anything about democracy being sacrificed??  We had an election.  People voted.  The guy with the most votes won.  That's democracy.  Providing opinions/explanations on how the guy actually got the most votes doesn't mean the process was undemocratic.  It wasn't.  But there are flaws in the system.      

I have a problem with the entire system.  Money talks.  Money makes you a legitimate candidate, or someone who has no chance.  Even after the election, money gets you a seat at the table, a night in the Lincoln bedroom, your phone calls answered, etc.  The only time I've seen it fail in recent memory was when Duke Bainum (a local doctor) used millions of his own money when running for mayor of Honolulu and still lost.  The winner (Hannemann) had to spend millions to fend him off.  I think it didn't work for Huffington's ex years back either.  I'm sure there are other examples of those who have outspent their opponents four or five times to one and still lost, but they have to be the minority.  

Even if you take into account someone like Perot, the only way he became a national factor is he is a billionaire.  That's what it takes.      

[Dos Equis]

I guess Obama said he would persue public financing but never committed to public financing and in the pursue, he had stipulations before accepting:

"The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues."

I don't think there was ever an absolute commitment to public financing...

My understanding is he promised to discuss it with McCain.  He never discussed it.  But what the hey.  As a couple people have already said in the thread, it was only a small fib. . . .   

[Hugo Chavez]

My understanding is he promised to discuss it with McCain.  He never discussed it.  But what the hey.  As a couple people have already said in the thread, it was only a small fib. . . .   

interesting if they never discussed it, why McCain made the quick rush to say Obama had accepted it.  It looks like he didn't get the committment from Obama and went after forcing the deal through as though it was a done deal.

[IFBBwannaB]

I guess Obama said he would persue public financing but never committed to public financing and in the pursue, he had stipulations before accepting:

"The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues."

I don't think there was ever an absolute commitment to public financing...

So FEC rules about donations doesn't count as commitment? Whats a few millions in donations from people named "okajsd sdojdslk" 

[Hugo Chavez]

So FEC rules about donations doesn't count as commitment? Whats a few millions in donations from people named "okajsd sdojdslk" 

get yourself a dictionary then read my posts.  Obama had stipulations in pursuing public funding, he never accepted public funding.  McCain jumped the gun in announcing Obama had accepted public funding, technically, he did not.  Why did McCain do that?  Most likely because he knew Obama had not committed and he wanted to force it.

[Hugo Chavez]

oh boy, called out in another thread because it took me 10 minutes to reply   you're a real hoot wannabe...

[Al Doggity]

When I lead my thread with a picture from the article, I am simply posting the picture that accompanied the article.  When I post an article, unless I include my own comments with a message (express or implied), I am not implying anything.

This is completely disingenuous. You constantly start threads based on articles and you almost never include  the articles' pictures. You aren't under any obligation to post any specific article and unless you have severe eyesight problems, you had to be completely aware of the loaded message that the accompanying  picture sent. By posting the article and stating that you agree with the premise you DO implicitly endorse the article's sentiments. 

You are also being disingenuous in stating that unless you include comments or a message nothing is implied. You've made your political sensibilities known. More often than not, the article you post needs no additional comment because it  IS your intended message.

Finally, (and once again), your premise is faulty. Even if you want to make the argument that money is the deciding factor in most elections (which is, in itself, faulty), there is a laundry list of reasons why that didn't apply to this race. Several have already been listed.  You are performing all sorts of logic gymnastics to get around the fact that there would have been too many obstacles for McCain to overcome even if Obama had accepted public funding. Of course Obama's warchest benefited him, but it's ridiculous to say that it was the the unequivocal deciding factor.Things would have turned out similarly even if Obama had accepted public financing.

[IFBBwannaB]

get yourself a dictionary then read my posts.  Obama had stipulations in pursuing public funding, he never accepted public funding.  McCain jumped the gun in announcing Obama had accepted public funding, technically, he did not.  Why did McCain do that?  Most likely because he knew Obama had not committed and he wanted to force it.

You keep missing or/and dodging the point , Obama campaign committed fraudulent actions which you all blantly ignore and you see no problem in anonymous donations of millions....truly sad.

[Hugo Chavez]

You keep missing or/and dodging the point , Obama campaign committed fraudulent actions which you all blantly ignore and you see no problem in anonymous donations of millions....truly sad.

what laws did Obama break?

FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer.

Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin all received a higher percentage of their overall funds from donors giving less than 200.00...  Are you busting their balls too?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008

So again, what laws did Obama break?  you got nothing.
Enjoy... 

[IFBBwannaB]

what laws did Obama break?

FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer.

Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin all received a higher percentage of their overall funds from donors giving less than 200.00...  Are you busting their balls too?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008

So again, what laws did Obama break?  you got nothing.
Enjoy... 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The donations included thousands of dollars in excess donations, made in increments of $25, from someone named Good Will in Austin, Tex., who listed his employer as “Loving” and his occupation as “You.” It also cited another donor named Doodad Pro, from “Nunda, N.Y.,” with the same employer and occupation.

Both donors were flagged by the commission in warning letters sent to the Obama campaign by August. The campaign was supposed to have responded within 30 days. But its campaign finance filing in September showed it had failed to refund more than $10,000 in donations from each, although Obama officials say all of the money has now been returned. A campaign has 60 days from when it receives an excess contribution to address it.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, however, actually raised the issue during the Democratic primary. The Obama campaign only recently began requiring donors from overseas to provide a valid United States passport number. Previously, it only required them to check a box confirming they were citizens.


http://bartonbulletin.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/fec-investigates-illegal-contributions-to-obama/

[CQ]

I wonder when the crying is gonna stop.  It's getting embarrassing.

Yes it is.

Obama raised more, had more donate, had more at rallies, won by a large margin and the GOP flopped out in downticket races as well.

Whining will not help that fact, it's done.

[Hugo Chavez]

hahahaha.... nothing like admitting it was rightwingers making the bogus donations... I wonder how many bloggers and idiots on the right gave in total under bogus names   BWHAHahahahahahahaha

Thanks

A Newsmax informant said he had made a series of $5 donations in less than an hour, each time using “a different name and address, all of which were obviously fictitious and some even including foreign addresses,” the RNC complaint states.

To funny, I see some Rush listener buying a gift card to bust Obama and yelling, I knew it!!! wait, I just gave money to Obama....

lolololol...

Wannabe, oh well, consider it payback for Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004

[IFBBwannaB]

Yes it is.

Obama raised more, had more donate, had more at rallies, won by a large margin and the GOP flopped out in downticket races as well.

Whining will not help that fact, it's done.

This issue was raised pre election and it doesn't matter if he didn't win, I would still want some federal investigation into this. This is a serious subject and it seems all you Obama supporter are willing to be dumb,blind,def and anal raped before you will acknowledge  he did something wrong.

If someone gives a public figure/ judge/cop/city engineer/etc money in a manner that is against the law it's bribe, pretty simple.
You give money, you receive a favor on the expense of the public/office/government branch you represent.
 

[IFBBwannaB]

hahahaha.... nothing like admitting it was rightwingers making the bogus donations... I wonder how many bloggers and idiots on the right gave in total under bogus names   BWHAHahahahahahahaha

Thanks

To funny, I see some Rush listener buying a gift card to bust Obama and yelling, I knew it!!! wait, I just gave money to Obama....

lolololol...

Wannabe, oh well, consider it payback for Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004

Yeah....millions of donations prior to that story being released and before anyone knew about it were all by Republicans testing the system 

[Hugo Chavez]

Yeah....millions of donations prior to that story being released and before anyone knew about it were all by Republicans testing the system 

no, the others were probably by republicans that didn't want to let people know they donated to Obama

Obamacans!!!! hahahaha

[IFBBwannaB]

no, the others were probably by republicans that didn't want to let people know they donated to Obama

Obamacans!!!! hahahaha

Wow you really like to stay focused on corruption 

The facts still remain and your Messiah , your ONE, is our hustler 

[CQ]

Wow you really like to stay focused on corruption 

The facts still remain and your Messiah , your ONE, is our hustler 

Jeez, you are having an Obama infused meltdown all over the board. The man is not even in office, I am worried about you imploding on Jan 20th. I reccomend some chamomile tea to calm you

[IFBBwannaB]

Jeez, you are having an Obama infused meltdown all over the board. The man is not even in office, I am worried about you imploding on Jan 20th. I reccomend some chamomile tea to calm you

Another on point post, "meltdown" sure buddy...

I simply don't like seeing people cry about corruption and then accept it with open arms....but it's ok, you have all admitted you see nothing wrong with him breaking FEC rules, you basically made all your posts from now on irrelevant due to your blunt actions.

[Hugo Chavez]

Another on point post, "meltdown" sure buddy...

I simply don't like seeing people cry about corruption and then accept it with open arms....but it's ok, you have all admitted you see nothing wrong with him breaking FEC rules, you basically made all your posts from now on irrelevant due to your blunt actions.

are you going to cry?  have a brew, calm down... we just had a president that lied to America and congress to take us into an illegal war, went on to torture against the Geneva conventions and spy on Americans, used signing statements like a king, refused to ever testify to anything under oath, I could go on and on and you're crying over a few small donations put in by republicans under nom de plumes....  yea, you're meltingdown.

[IFBBwannaB]

are you going to cry?  have a brew, calm down... we just had a president that lied to America and congress to take us into an illegal war, went on to torture against the Geneva conventions and spy on Americans, used signing statements like a king, refused to ever testify to anything under oath, I could go on and on and you're crying over a few small donations put in by republicans under nom de plumes....  yea, you're meltingdown.

Well, you keep dodging.Also I didn't say I support all of his actions, not to mention the senate and congress are there for a reason,how about looking at them a little too, I think that with the current state of president/senate/congress the sky is the limits in regards to crazy unchecked actions.

I'm a VERY strong supporter of the checks and balances system and I hate corruption, you not agreeing with Bush actions that may be legitimate or not still doesn't make Obama's actions right.

I have yet to see a lawyer say that his client should get free just because other people are breaking the law too, that argument is for the kindergarten and not for a presidential election process.

[CQ]

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.

Palin also helped alot too - after she was announced and went on the tear on Obama donations went through the roof. She was negativity personified.

[Hugo Chavez]

Well, you keep dodging.Also I didn't say I support all of his actions, not to mention the senate and congress are there for a reason,how about looking at them a little too, I think that with the current state of president/senate/congress the sky is the limits in regards to crazy unchecked actions.

I'm a VERY strong supporter of the checks and balances system and I hate corruption, you not agreeing with Bush actions that may be legitimate or not still doesn't make Obama's actions right.

I have yet to see a lawyer say that his client should get free just because other people are breaking the law too, that argument is for the kindergarten and not for a presidential election process.

I didn't dodge anything, you keep crying over nothing.  If I'm being a hypocrite on this one, then so be it.  After Hitler Mini Me, I'll live with a little hypocrisy   I'll save my criticism of Obama for serious shit, policies and actions I don't like.  UNLIKE those who blindly backed Bush no matter what he did... BB

[Decker]

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.   

money helps.  But ideas win.  Obama has better ideas than McCain.

Remember when Bush lied about being a compassionate conservative, uniter not a divider, no child left behind, humble foreign policy...adults back in charge...regular non=elitest guy...

Those ideas, along with record spending, a corrupt SCT decision and election fraud, put Bush in the white house.

[Dos Equis]

This is completely disingenuous. You constantly start threads based on articles and you almost never include  the articles' pictures. You aren't under any obligation to post any specific article and unless you have severe eyesight problems, you had to be completely aware of the loaded message that the accompanying  picture sent. By posting the article and stating that you agree with the premise you DO implicitly endorse the article's sentiments. 

You are also being disingenuous in stating that unless you include comments or a message nothing is implied. You've made your political sensibilities known. More often than not, the article you post needs no additional comment because it  IS your intended message.

Finally, (and once again), your premise is faulty. Even if you want to make the argument that money is the deciding factor in most elections (which is, in itself, faulty), there is a laundry list of reasons why that didn't apply to this race. Several have already been listed.  You are performing all sorts of logic gymnastics to get around the fact that there would have been too many obstacles for McCain to overcome even if Obama had accepted public funding. Of course Obama's warchest benefited him, but it's ridiculous to say that it was the the unequivocal deciding factor.Things would have turned out similarly even if Obama had accepted public financing.

Whatever.  You're just too much of a sensitive partisan to get past the picture.  I've posted pictures numerous times.  Take whatever implication you like from the fact I don't provide an opinion, but any reasonable person would not create an opinion out of thin air. 

If you don't think money was the deciding factor in this election, then we simply have a different opinion.  In my view, the obscene amount of money raised and spent on this election weighed more heavily than anything else.  For goodness sake, the man bought a 30 minute infomercial on every major network in primetime on the eve of the election, with CNN simply refusing to run the ad.  He was able to flood local markets all throughout the campaign.  There were other factors, but money was clearly the most important.