Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is McCain More the Populist than Obama?
Is John McCain out-populisting Barack Obama?
On Friday morning, McCain, at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, delivered a speech on the financial crisis. He tore into Wall Street and Washington, proclaiming, "The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling." And he named names. He blasted Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae:
These quasi-public corporations led our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy.
McCain noted that years ago he had tried to reform these institutions and had run smack into Washington's same-old/same-old:
At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Moreover, McCain accused Obama of having been pals with Freddie and Fannie. Obama, McCain pointed out, has taken large amounts of campaign contributions (a total of $165,400) from donors associated with the two institutions. In addition, Obama put a former Fannie CEO, Jim Johnson, in charge of his vice presidential search committee. McCain also charged that Obama has been receiving policy advice from Franklin Raines, another former Fannie CEO. The Obama camp says Raines is no adviser to Obama and that earlier this week Raines sent an email to Carly Fiorina, a McCain adviser, informing her of this. Still, McCain declared:
Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House. My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system.
McCain went on to propose a Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust that will work with troubled companies and institutions to help them avoid collapse. He called for greater transparency and better regulation regarding financial markets. "Many in the financial services industry also either forgot or neglected their duty to act ethically and honorably," he said. "This shortcoming was aided and abetted by the creation of financial instruments that allowed lenders to escape any responsibility for the risk of their loans."
Forget for a moment all of McCain's connections to the current crisis. (He seems to do so easily enough.) Forget that his pal and adviser Phil Gramm helped create this mess. That his top advisers and campaign staffers lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And that over 80 lobbyists for top financial industry firms--including AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Washington Mutual--have worked for McCain's campaign. McCain is showing anger, vowing to knock heads together (on Wall Street and Washington), and, by the way, tying Obama to the mess. McCain is no William Jennings Bryan. But for a Republican, he's coming on like a populist gangbuster. Given his track record as a deregulator, this is faux populism. But that doesn't mean it can't work politically.
Let's look at Obama's response. The other day, his campaign released a two-minute ad in which Obama sits in a generic living room (in front of a generic couch and a generic lamp). In a calm tone, he notes,
Wall Street's been rocked as banks closed and markets tumbled...This isn't just a string of bad luck. The truth is as you have been living up to your responsibilities, Washington has not. That's why we need change...This is no ordinary time.....Much of this campaign has been consumed by petty attacks and distractions that have nothing to do with you.
Obama then proposes a $1000 tax break for the middle class ("instead of showering more on oil companies"), putting an end to the "anything goes culture on Wall Street with real regulation," fast-tracking a plan for "made-in-America" energy, instituting a "crack down on lobbyists once and for all so that their backroom dealing no longer crowds out the voices of the middle class," and bringing a responsible end to the Iraq war.
There's not much passion or outrage expressed. Obama asks viewers to visit his website for details of his economic plan. But following the link led to a page that contained nothing about lobbyists, the culture of Washington, or regulating Wall Street. The plan was a package of his core economic proposals: that middle-class tax cut, energy rebates, a fair trade initiative, green jobs, cracking down on mortgage fraud and predatory lending.
At the end of the ad, Obama says, "Bitter partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won't solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will."
Obama's approach is cerebral--a term not often well received within political circles. In the ad, he does not directly connect to and tap into the frustration or anxiety of voters. His message: let's rise above our politics and solve this thing together. There's not much talk of punishment or consequences for those who messed up. And there's no slap at McCain, George W. Bush, or the Republicans for leading the system that failed. (The McCain camp has produced a television ad assailing Obama for his tie to Jim Johnson, and another for his purported--but denied--connection to Franklin Raines.)
On the campaign trail, Obama has been more pugilistic. At a campaign rally on Thursday, he slapped McCain for his recent comment that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." And he assailed McCain for holding "the same philosophy" as George W. Bush "that says we should give more and more money to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down...that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise...that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy." Obama noted that "Phil Gramm, one of the architects of the de-regulation in Washington that led directly to this mess on Wall Street, is also the architect of John McCain's economic plan." He pointed out that McCain "took seven of the biggest lobbyists in Washington from that [old-boy] network and put them in charge" of his campaign. Obama derided McCain's call for a commission to review the financial crisis, and he called McCain out on his late-to-the-party proposal for better regulation of financial markets.
Obama went after McCain's hypocrisy. (And an ad the campaign released ton Friday morning blasted McCain for relying on the policy advice of Gramm and Fiorina, who received a $42 million package after being fired as Hewlett-Packard CEO.) He did not, though, direct much anger at the financial players and their Washington pals who recklessly steered the US economy into a ditch. Obama must be careful not to come across as an angry black man. But he still needs to show some gut-level outrage: not only at McCain and his lobbyist friends but against all the Big Finance screw-ups who got rich on Wall Street while placing the economy in peril.
Right now, McCain is keeping up--if not ahead of--Obama in displaying fury concerning the ongoing economic meltdown. And he's also playing even when it comes to proposing policy responses to the crisis at hand. But it sure takes chutzpah--and selective amnesia--for McCain to position himself as the enraged scourge of Wall Street greed-meisters and Washington influence-peddlers. After his speech on Friday morning, a New York Daily News reporter blogged, "Our jaw dropped just now listening to McCain blame lobbyists and Obama advisers. Just consider that McCain advisers (chief among them Phil Gramm) wrote the laws that deregulated these markets and lobbied hard to keep scrutiny to a minimum."
But McCain's campaign has already signaled it doesn't give a damn about its reviews in the press. Reality doesn't matter; impressions do. And McCain is trying to create the impression he is indeed a mad-as-hell populist maverick and reformer. Obama cannot stop the McCain camp from attempting this extreme makeover. He can only control his own reaction to the crisis. But it would pose trouble for the Democrats if Obama's response leaves any opening for McCain the Populist to stomp through.

166 Comments so far
Show AllObama may be very smart. But, if his campaign had any common sense (and Korn too,and Maher et al) they would stop implying that anyone who dosent totally support him, from day one, is stupid and uneducated.
Well said RichM.
TAG ALONG TROLL.
TROLL ALERT.
One finds it curious that Obama, who is perceived by many to be a populist, has had no comment on the demise of the Wall Street powerhouse Lehman Brothers. Could it be due to the fact that Lehman Brothers contributed to the campaign of Barack Obama?
And Goldman Sachs (who everyoe is sayint "did so much better") gave him $10 million , right off the bat, in the primaries.
Guess where I got that factoid? About a year ago--in Mother JOnes..what bs.
McCain will continue to blatantly lie with a straight face, then change his mind, and back again, whenever his handlers say it is politically expedient. His sidekick Palin will repeat the lies while waving and shaking her pompoms.
There is a lot of criticism here for Obama not challenging the criminals. Remember, McCain and his cohorts ARE the criminals.
same/same
I agree with RichM and Erroll-- incidentally, Erroll, we've been unmasked and damned as "trolls" on the John Dean comments thread. Why weren't we more careful?
I take your point, hamster, but I find it disingenuous at best. I know that Obama supporters are willing to cut Obama an infinite amount of slack because he's the first person of color to get this close to the Oval Office, the Republicans are a gang of criminals and monsters, etc.
But it's just pathetic that the political process has become so vitiated and decadent that we don't expect mainstream candidates to show some NON-SCRIPTED passion and spontaneously express vigorous opinions on events that occur during campaign season.
For instance, Obama supporters are either forgiving or contain their disappointment on his refusal to defend Constitutional values when he supported the FISA legislation. Some persist in claiming that Obama is a champion of Constitutional values and civil rights. And these supporters are apparently also satisfied with Obama's resounding LACK of denunciation for the Imperial Stormtrooper police actions at BOTH conventions, if most egregiously at the Republican convention. I suppose they accept that it isn't "smart politics", or "necessary" for him to "go out of his way" to comment, since it might give the corporate media ammunition to inspire a reactionary response from those moderate swing voters he's got to capture.
Likewise, Obama is not about to stand on the stump and directly rail against a kleptocracy whose representatives have directly provided him with financial and political backing, and which has thrived in collusion with a BIPARTISAN political elite.
In my view, arguing that Obama's campaign speeches and criticisms of his opponent are sufficient challenges to "the criminals" is weak at best. One must conclude either that he actually IS an ally of the kleptocrats, or that he's so cautious, fearful, and intimidated by the thought of departing from scripted events and expressing heartfelt criticism that he's determined to stick to non-confrontational, eloquent but banal, i.e. mealy-mouthed, responses.
Your arguments against Obama are eloquent and mostly correct. I'm not personally infinitely forgiving on his faults, particularly his saber-rattling pronouncements about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places that we should not be. My point is that while American culture and both major political parties are gleeful participants in this militarism and unregulated economic free-for-all, I believe the Democrats and Obama can actually be persuaded to steer the country more in the right direction, even if it's an unwieldy process like steering an overloaded ship. McCain and the Republicans, on the other hand, will not even consider a course correction and will simply steer straight into the iceberg.
Self delusion is the most difficult aspect of our inability to perceive reality on a level that approaches truth.
Open your eyes just a little bit wider. You can do it... TRY!
Please tel me what he has done or said that makes yu think he can be persuaded, AFTER he has our votes and is running the country? Please,I'm not being confrontatinal. I would just like to know where people get this perceoption.
The last few weeks he has been implicitely blase'. This bailout was a good chance forhim to speak out as a populist.(Hell, things are so bad, he probably could've faked it and won me over!!) I have to conclude that he cares, not at all. If he did, or intended to do differently , why would he keep losing with progressives at the polls, and not saying so?
It just doesnt make sense
While, of course, there is some racism in the uS--the stats jsut dont bear out that thta is the major factor. He did alot better than MCain in the priamries, with hte Dems. What has happened?
KDelphi-
To attempt to answer your question- as to what makes me think Obama can be persuaded.
Here is a typical excerpt from the Obama campaign's website, inviting people's ideas:
"The best, most comprehensive plan for change in our country will include your ideas and your feedback. America needs a president with a mandate from the people, and everyone deserves a voice in shaping our next president's agenda.
Take a moment to share your ideas. Over the coming months the best ideas will be featured and incorporated into the campaign's policy proposals. Be as broad or specific as you want."
Here's a typical statement from Obama on foreign policy:
"The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support."
Call me naive if you want, but I don't think he's lying. I'm fully aware of some of Obama's positions that are not progressive,(health care, Afghanistan, etc) and his misguided votes (FISA, funding Iraq war) and failure to speak out on some progressive issues. But he's light years better than McCain/Palin. I think he's the best Democratic candidate since Carter.
I'm not against third party candidates, but I really think it comes down to Obama vs. McCain. And there is a difference. For what it's worth, I'd like to see Instant Runoff Voting. And I'm not committed to voting for Obama. If Obama has a healthy lead in the polls in my state I'll probably vote Green.
One must conclude either that he actually IS an ally of the kleptocrats, or that he's so cautious, fearful, and intimidated by the thought of departing from scripted events and expressing heartfelt criticism that he's determined to stick to non-confrontational, eloquent but banal, i.e. mealy-mouthed, responses.
-nicely put
SECONDARY TROLL ALERT.
I didn't want to overuse the 'trolls marching' lyrics.
"I agree with RichM and Erroll-- incidentally, Erroll, we've been unmasked and damned as "trolls" on the John Dean comments thread. Why weren't we more careful?"
A careful troll? Sounds like an oxymoron.
TROLL ALERT.
Little Brother [September 20th, 2008 5:20 pm] the issue of whether you are trolls or not is immaterial. The election has come down to Obama or McCain and I read many of you here at CD who claim to be progressives criticizing Obama more than you do McCain. Are you hoping that McCain wins and drives the final nail in America's coffin and secretly hope that then a desperate populace will endorse YOUR particular progressive agenda? (Trust me, since I have witnessed it, if you've ever gotten a few Nader supporters, Green Party supporters, 'vegan progressive independents,' 'New Socialists' and 'near-anarchists' in the same room, you'll find they disagree with each other vociferously about many issues, just as much as you take Obama to task. This is one of the reasons the progressive message has not proliferated more broadly -- no one can agree on exactly what it is. You spend two hours trying to patiently explain why spending thousands of dollars to print up flyers with the single symbol '?' and nothing else is not the best way to get a progressive candidate elected.)
Little Brother [September 20th, 2008 5:20 pm]:"For instance, Obama supporters are either forgiving or contain their disappointment on his refusal to defend Constitutional values when he supported the FISA legislation. Some persist in claiming that Obama is a champion of Constitutional values and civil rights. And these supporters are apparently also satisfied with Obama's resounding LACK of denunciation for the Imperial Stormtrooper police actions at BOTH conventions, if most egregiously at the Republican convention. I suppose they accept that it isn't "smart politics", or "necessary" for him to "go out of his way" to comment, since it might give the corporate media ammunition to inspire a reactionary response from those moderate swing voters he's got to capture."
Any politician will sometimes do things you don't agree with, like the FISA vote. If you find the perfect progressive politician who has a chance of winning this year, tell me and I'll vote for them. Lacking that, it's either Obama or McCain. BTW, Obama has said that he would have his AG hold accountable anyone who violated the law or the Constitution in the past, but I suppose you missed that. He did teach Constitutional law, so I know he understands what it says; I wouldn't bet that McCain does.
Little Brother [September 20th, 2008 5:20 pm]:"Likewise, Obama is not about to stand on the stump and directly rail against a kleptocracy whose representatives have directly provided him with financial and political backing, and which has thrived in collusion with a BIPARTISAN political elite."
Monday: Obama makes an outraged speech worthy of Eugene V. Debs, railing against Wall Street and the kleptocracy and promising he will put them all in jail and strip them of their money.
Tuesday and Every Day Until the Election: The corporately-owned mass media, their bosses part of those who would be facing jail under this scenario, and the Republicans have a field day eviscerating Obama 24/7 for his turn to what they'd call far-left wing nuttiness -- recall what they did to the mild-mannered Howard Dean? -- and Obama ends up with as much a percentage of the vote as Ralph Nader got in 2004. While that may make you happy, some of us have children and grandchildren and we don't want to leave them a destitute, broken country, just so there is a chance that a progressive paradise could someday take hold. Besides, there's an even better chance that we'd go the way of Germany in the 1920s and end up a full-blown fascist state.
This is the political reality you live in, whether you acknowledge it or not. The people had the chance to vote for John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, or even Ron Paul -- all of whom have said things similar to what you want Obama to say. They weren't nominated and, as a side issue, why can't Nader and the Greens get together and agree on either Nader or McKinney, or a Nader/McKinney or McKinney/Nader ticket, if they're serious about winning? Refer back to my first paragraph -- the progressive movement is in disarray -- even the Nader and McKinney people can't agree with each other.
I want to change the country for the better, too, but we may have to take it slowly; part of that slow reclamation is electing Obama. McCain is nothing more than a regressive ticket to more war and more poverty for most of us.
Let's just say it: Obama is an uncle Tom. He always has been. He is mired in the muck of the personal achievement ethos that has the same qualities of worship that goes for sports and rock stars.
I say same/same. The last thing in the world anyone needs right now is more tax cuts. Its a gimmick. But, as long as the uS keeps buying it, they'll keep selling.
In Ohio, our food banks are empty (well, practiacally have been for months) but, the storm knocked out electric for weeks. Now, al the donated food rotted. Give hte money to them
Or use it to buy a single payer insurance plan.
Or use it to give the soldiers the 3.9% raise aht the gOP just voted down.
Give it to LIHEAP for this winters' elec. and gas bils. Give it to CARE. Give it to anyone but Wall St.
TROLL ALERT.
You people just can't help yourselves. You pretend progressives use terminology real progressives don't use. And then you follow it with a republican talking point.
Busted.
Hello, expert on progressivism. Would you like to elaborate on progressive terminology and that which is verboten? Would you explain to me what a "true progressive" is? Would you please let me know when and how "true progressives" will "hold Obama's feet to the fire?" Will you link to a copy of the party line? Was Bill Clinton a progressive?
Progressiveparty [September 20th, 2008 4:29 pm], as someone who has talked to Obama and knows his family, I can say with absolute certainty that you're talking out of your pants seat. He is a politician, and a good one, trying to get votes from black, brown and white people so that he can get elected to accomplish the change he's talking about. If he were a true Uncle Tom, he would have gone into a high-priced law firm after college, earned a pile of money, and made his fame as a black Republican, as Clarence Thomas did. But keep being so offensive, PP, you're helping to make my case.
Marching orders have been distributed. Just as it was Gore's assignment in 2000, and just as it was Kerry's assignment in 2004, it is Obama's assignment to mount a pretend campaign to be won by the Republican theft and war machine. Oh, the masters could live with Gore or Kerry or Obama, because any and all of them still take and execute their marching orders, but the arrangement is tacitly understood by all.
-- EKATON --
I agree.
The dems make as much moola wether they win or lose. Makes no difference to them. And either way, the policies and outcomes regarding any legislation are, by and large, the same. Clearly they aren't serious about winning.
Show your displeasure by voting for Nader.
Ding! Or by voting for Green Party Cynthia McKinney.
Lets not worry our heads anymore ... milquetoast Obama is toast literally.
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race;_ylt=AtuEF4Bjvu7gdFLPHQ6F1Aus0NUE
The black man who doesnt want to appear as an Angry Black Male is being replaced by an Angry White Man who is far more palatable. Everybody exhale now. Papa always knew best.
There are certain animals who, presented with an unlimited amount of food, will simply eat themselves to death. That's McCain and the greedy Repimplicans. The difference between them and, say, a dog (or a Germ-o-crat) is that, like Vlad the Impaler, the Repimplican will rise after physical death, grandly rename himself Count Dracula, go elsewhere and do the same thing all over again until someone finally drives a stake through his heart. Germ-o-crats have no such ability. They simply die and are buried. Obama is about to have first-hand experience with this phenomenon.
McCain will win in a landslide. Racist America will simply not vote for a black man.
-- EKATON --
McCain is the pot calling the kettle black (but not in a racist way).
This however, "Obama must be careful not to come across as an angry black man."
Seriously, WTF?
Maverick? Now if l remember correctly he was a fast talking, gun slingin', gamblin', con-man with a thirst for cheap booze n' easy young women ( of a certain persuasion) who will risk all they have for a quick buck; hmmm sound like any body we know?
McCain is WORSE than Bush!
We must be rid of this corruption!
For Starters: Questions for/about McCain
WHAT ABOUT THOSE MIA/POWS???
WHAT ABOUT KEATING FIVE????
What does Obama say he will demand in return for such a bailout, an investigation, congressional hearings, and jail time for the criminal elite? How about these businesses handing over their books for full examination and all the assets they hold as collateral? Or are we to make such enormous 'loans' completely behind closed doors. We must remember who will be asked to pay the bill.
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Nader handed us Bush in 2000..... What a guy!
He is personally responsible for the Bush legacy. I remember hearing the same old "Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same" back in 2000. Well, somehow I don't think we'd be on the verge of total meltdown that we are in now if Gore had been in office.
DON"T throw your vote away on Nader! Consider the consequences of the old maverick koot or his creationist/end-times side-kick Palin with their finger on THE button. It CAN get A LOT worse!
Obama may not be the best, but at least he appears to be rational.
The only thing Nader is capable of once again is to help enable the Republicans.
We need Instant-Runoff-Voting for any third party to stand any kind of a chance other than being a spoiler.
Don't get me wrong, I would vote for Nader if we had an instant-runoff-voting system.
.
If Democrats cannot beat the Republicans without the votes of the folks who vote Independent, then that is the Democrats fault, not the fault of the people who chose not to vote for them.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
This is true and you are right. You have to admit that one of the two will win however. A third party in the current system doesn't stand a chance. That's why the system needs to change.
Since either Obama or McCain WILL be the next president (unless there's a coup), who would you prefer? Or a better question is, who do you think is least likely to totally screw up?
I want to vote for a progressive third party, but haven't and never will until our system is fixed. We need Instant-Runoff-Voting.
Third parties are spoilers in this system. Ross Perot gave us Clinton. Nader gave us Bush.
I want to vote for a progressive third party, but haven't and never will until our system is fixed. [...] Third parties are spoilers in this system.
___________________________________
It's the duopoly itself-- the conjoined twins colluding to keep a death-grip on Amerikan polity-- that is the "spoiler".
Feeling obliged to feed & support the twin with the "nicer" face and personality, i.e. enabling the duopoly, itself guarantees that no third party, much less a progressive third party, will EVER arise.
Put another way, the rigid and uncompromising domination of the Republican and Democratic parties constitutes a single vested interest which has absolutely no motivation or intention to "fix" the system. On the contrary, as long as they remain enabled and empowered, they will remain fiercely dedicated to annihilating any outside forces to mount a threat to the system. The pseudo-competition between the parties, the perpetual wrestling match between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, is the only competition the duopoly permits and tolerates.
It's as "fixed" as any other kind of pro wrestling. Sorry about that.
Nannie [September 20th, 2008 7:30 pm], as I've posted before, Ralph Nader is not on the ballot in enough states to amass the necessary amount of electoral votes to win this year. Popular vote counts for nothing in our presidential elections -- just ask Al Gore. Therefore, telling people to vote for Nader to fight the two-party system is a waste of their vote, since it will have no effect on the election nor either party. The only impact Ralph can have this year is to pare down the Obama vote and put McCain in office.
Also why can't you get together with the McKinney people to present something like a united progressive front? How is Ralph going to do in Washington dealing with a hostile Congress, should a miracle happen and he's elected, if he can't even get along with the Green Party?
Obama should be nailing McCain on numerous issues. He should be rallying the angry citizens, galvanizing the populace, getting in front of the ball. If there was ever a time it's now. But no, he's acting like someone who hasn't made up his mind that he even wants the job. He's playing it way too cool, taking a defensive position while McCain lashes out then watches as his polling numbers rise. Considering the way things are falling apart, and the bleak future, maybe Obama really doesn't want the job, he's starting to act that way. It's time for someone to get in there and seriously kick ass, but, he's a democrat, so it ain't gonna happen. Look for an imploding Obama campaign and McPalin in power soon. Won't that be fun?
At the moment, both are faux populists. At a given moment, the rhetoric may be populist, but the candidates' policies run the entire political spectrum from neoconservative to enabler.
Bingo!
On the 19th, PBS's NewsHour reported that, while McCain blamed Obama for helping start the current mess by accepting contributions from Freddie May/Freddie Mac, he failed to mention that these two institutions donated about $165,000 to HIM, about 10 times what they gave to Obama. He has also failed to acknowledge that his economic advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm, allowed Wall Street lobbyist/lawyers to write the legislation that enabled Enron (no regulation of on-line sales) and the current mess (greater leeway for lenders to be "creative" in their product development.)
I would guess that a check of the other financial services Obama donors' records would show that they, too, contributed to McCain ... and probably in much larger amounts.
McCain and Palin tell new lies every day. Every evening, the fact-checkers point them out. The next day, they tell both the old and new lies. (Full employment for fact-checkers.)
When you examine who funded Obama's senate run in Illinois, you understand why Obama will not speak up, or have anything substantive to say about the economic crisis brought about by his own friends.
http://tinyurl.com/3to78a
(Again, these are the contributions for Obama's senate run)
Obama's major contributions were from the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate industries totaling over a million dollars ($1,061,279)!
Then came the lawyers, nearly eight hundred thousand dollars ($793,501)! With labor unions barely able to compete with these heavy hitters at $165,225
And like many congressional canidates (house and senate) the "pro-Israel" groups gave him a nice gift of $55,800.
Let's now take a closer look at just a few of Obama's major contributors
Henry Crow and Company comes in second at $65,500:
The firm had a significant stake in General Dynamics, a top national defense contractor, until General Dynamics sold many of its business units after Henry Crown's death in 1990; it now holds an 8% stake. The Crown family, worth an estimated $3.6 billion, ranks #132 on "Forbes" list of world billionaires.
Soros Fund Management comes in third at $60,000
Soros Fund Management's perennially successful funds, including its flagship Quantum Endowment Fund, historically have had investment strategies based on macroeconomic trends, such as monitoring a nation's economic health to bet against its currency. (In 1992 Soros gained $1 billion worth of notoriety after investing against the British Pound.)
Next is Tejas Securities with $46,000 - But Tejas also gave George W. Bush $25,000 in 2000 (have they had a sudden change of heart?!!!)
And then there is this law firm of Kirkland and Ellis ($37,050) that proudly states on their website
The National Law Journal's survey entitled "Who Represents Corporate America" has ranked Kirkland & Ellis among the top five most frequently used firms by Fortune 250 corporations.
And the law firm of Mayer, Brown et al. ($30,500) who claim to be amongst the 10 largest law firms in the world - and who count amongst their Partners, this person Steven R. Selsberg, who proudly says on his website:
Represented Philip Morris and Lorillard in individual smoking & health cases in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Arkansas
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
TROLL ALERT
Yeah, I wasn't sure about musawwir, but I see he's trolling.
If you want an undistorted view of Obama's donors go to www.opensecrets.org
They show very clearly the donors and amounts for all the Presidential candidates.
musawwir and Error-ll both distort/misrepresent Obama donor numbers. They don't seem much interested in anyone else.
Nice try, musawwir [September 20th, 2008 7:53 pm] -- wow, the liberal George Soros and labor unions are the enemy now?
This list of donors, even if accurate, is misleading. You haven't pointed to any legislation that Obama has passed that is quid pro quo for any group you mentioned. Get a hint: In America, corporations and wealthy individuals often contribute to both Dems and Reps to guarantee access -- it does not necessarily mean the candidate is in the back pocket of the contributor.
On your Muslims for Nader website, you support Nader/Camejo (update: it's Nader/Gonzalez this year); are you aware that in 2004 Nader illegally accepted help from two pro-Bush groups in Oregon, as well as donations from Bush Republicans?
Read on:
Group: Bush allies illegally helping Nader in Oregon
Complaint filed with Federal Election Commission
CNN
Thursday, July 1, 2004 Posted: 1:47 PM EDT (1747 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts by two conservative groups to help President Bush by getting independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the key battleground state of Oregon has prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission by a liberal watchdog group.
"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said phone banks encouraging Bush supporters to attend a Nader nominating convention last Saturday amounted to an illegal in-kind contribution to the Nader campaign by the Oregon Family Council and Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy."
From SourceWatch.org:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nader_for_President_2004
"In early July 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that of the more than $1 million raised - mostly in small donations - by Nader for his campaign, $23,000 of $275,000 in contributions larger than $1,000 had originated from known Republican contributors."
Factcheck.org states:
http://www.factcheck.org/radio_ad_attacks_nader_over_gop_support.html
"'[O]ne of President Bush's friends and top donors, billionaire Dick Egan, gave money to Ralph Nader.' And Federal Election Commission records confirm that Richard J. Egan, a former ambassador to Ireland appointed by Bush, gave $2,000 to Nader's campaign on March 8." [...]
"[T]he San Francisco Chronicle reported July 10 [2004] that Nader had received a total of $23,000 from Republicans who had also donated to the Bush-Cheney campaign or other Republican causes." [...]
"Nader himself has welcomed Republican support. The Hartford Courant quoted him July 4: 'If they want to help us speak freely inside the electoral arena, that's fine.'"
So, Nader welcomed Republican support, and did not turn down help from pro-Bush groups nor Bush Republican money. By your standard, we can then assume that Nader was in Bush's back pocket in 2004.
BTW, the SourceWatch piece also mentions this:
"The day after the June 26 convention, CSE [Citizens for a Sound Economy] issued a media release to explain its support for Nader. "Oregon CSE members are working to get Ralph Nader on the November ballot! While this sounds completely backwards-- Ralph Nader opposes nearly every issue CSE fights for-- but there's sound logic behind Oregon CSE's actions. CSE does not advocate the election or defeat of political candidates, but Oregon CSE members feel that having Nader on the ballot helps illuminate the strong similarities between the uber-liberal Nader and John Kerry, CSE stated.
"The phone script, in the name of Russ Walker the director of Citizens for a Sound Economy in Oregon explained to supporters that "we have to drive a wedge through the Liberal Left's base of support' by ensuring Nader obtained the requisite 1000 signatures."
Gee, you don't imagine the desperate Republican Party this year would try to drive a wedge through the 'liberal left' base by mercilessly attacking Obama and urging us to vote for a third party do you, musawwir?
.
http://www.pr.com/article/1100
Ralph Nader Goes to Washington... Again - The PR.com Interview
By Allison Kugel, Senior Editor - May 14, 2008
PR.com: Have you ever pursued private financial backing for your candidacy?
Ralph Nader:
We just accept money from individuals, as long as it’s legal. We don’t take money from PACs (Political Action Committees). We don’t take money from commercial interests, which have a quid pro quo, like the oil companies, auto companies and insurance banks. We don’t do that. If people want to contribute, no matter who they are, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Green, whatever… you want to contribute? Welcome. There’s no quid pro quo (a Latin term meaning “something for something”). They see where we stand and they see our issues on the table. You want to contribute? We’re grateful.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
.
Nannie [September 22nd, 2008 7:40 pm], nevertheless, Nader accepted money from Bush Republicans like Dick Egan in 2004. Did he not know that Egan was a Bush ally, or did he not care? Either way, it doesn't make Ralph look good.
He also accepted the assistance of those two Oregon groups that openly supported Bush. You have written in the past about how you never have to apologize for Nader -- you don't think this requires some kind of apology? If Ralph wants to claim both major parties are equally rotten, that's fine, but then he can't in good conscience accept help or money from one of those rotten parties, and allow himself to be used by them politically as a spoiler, and still claim his skirts are clean.
Ralph Nader did some great things in the past as a consumer activist; his political career has been a failure.
And you still haven't answered my question: How can you tell people to vote for Ralph because he can win, when he's not on the ballot in enough states to garner a sufficient number of electoral votes to win?
Also, where are his slates of electors in the states where he is on the ballot? So far as I know, he has none.
Here's some free, and I hope constructive, advice for your campaign: Why not concentrate all of your efforts and money on one state, say Vermont, and try to win that state and its electoral votes? Then the Big Media would have a hard time dismissing Nader on Election Day, as the map would show that one state went for Nader. They would have to cover him then and he would have more force as a candidate.
From what I have been reading here for the past two weeks I can now safely assume that Sen.Obama is not very popular on this progressive site. I sincerely believe that many here would rather see Sen. McCain win rather than Sen. Obama in November and for some reason I believe your wish is going to come true. On these pages there are far more criticism directed toward Sen. Obama than there are toward Sen. McCain. It is your choice, I don't get to vote. The people you think are so progressive do not have a chance in hell of of becoming the next president of the United States.(that is where the power of the nation is now concentrated) John McCain will be your next president. From what I read you feel they are all the same (except the progressive candidates who know they can't win and can afford to promise anything)so there would be no difference if the republicans are returned to power with the political capital to continue on with the rapid erosion of your country.
"Obama may be very smart. But, if his campaign had any common sense (and Korn too,and Maher et al)"
And you think McCain's compaign makes common sense? This slimey little liar is going to be your next president.
"And you think McCain's compaign makes common sense? This slimey little liar is going to be your next president."
Or, you are going to see the slimey little liar and war monger called Obams as the next President.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/