tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30340112.post7729358714535143653..comments2023-10-04T05:42:58.799-05:00Comments on Half Empty: Why I Did Not Vote For Hillary ClintonHalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06691384412216558403noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30340112.post-71680505217445759892008-03-10T07:53:00.000-05:002008-03-10T07:53:00.000-05:00Once you get to the congressional level all you ha...Once you get to the congressional level all you have in either party is a bunch of corporate sellouts, sorry folks, the voter doesn't count.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30340112.post-52546986471029445962008-03-05T08:24:00.000-06:002008-03-05T08:24:00.000-06:00Hillary may be a stealth neocon. That's why I pre...Hillary may be a stealth neocon. That's why I prefer Obama.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30340112.post-53777768062674487942008-03-04T12:18:00.000-06:002008-03-04T12:18:00.000-06:00hal, I differ with you on the best choice, but: th...hal, I differ with you on the best choice, but: the absolute bottomline is to remember that, in the end, no matter who we dems end up nominating, we have to vote our party in the fall!<BR/><BR/>dana milbank pens an instructive piece in the washington post today that is a <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter" REL="nofollow">sober reminder</A> that today's golden boy often is tomorrow's whipping boy. obama's response echoes that of most politicians and tears a hole in the fabric of his invulnerability. <BR/><BR/>so - our current rhetoric, for all its persuasive intent, needs to acknowledge undying support for the democratic nominee come november, <B>whomever that may be</B>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30340112.post-76819259889718269522008-03-04T08:25:00.000-06:002008-03-04T08:25:00.000-06:00He doesn't take PAC contributions directly (which ...He doesn't take PAC contributions directly (which are usually no more than about 1% of a candidate's donations anyway, because of the low limit imposed on PACs), but he does take "bundled contributions", which is how PACs really exert their influence, since these bundles can be from 10K - 1 million. Here is an article about it from early last year. No one knows what his take is since then.<BR/><BR/>http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/07/obama_uses_loophole_in_pac_ple.php<BR/><BR/>So basically, all of the candidates take "PAC money", but he is the only one being disingenuous about it, and misleading the voters about the origins of his money.<BR/><BR/>Also, the WA Post has this story about his lobbying promise.<BR/><BR/>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/obama_edwards_and_the_lobbying.html<BR/><BR/>Basically, he is not taking the money from the lobbyist, but still taking money from the company and industry. So basically, instead of taking the money from the lobbyist, he is taking that same money from the CEO or Managing Partner. There is really no difference in the influence.<BR/><BR/>Also, if these are the biggest reasons you are supporting Senator Obama, you should look at the Open Secrets list of the biggest contributors:<BR/><BR/>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30340112.post-9350512185557752792008-03-03T22:19:00.000-06:002008-03-03T22:19:00.000-06:00Good one, Hal! Over at TSB we use just a little bi...Good one, Hal! Over at TSB we use just a little bit of criticism...Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17595472870344553463noreply@blogger.com