Comments on: Billionaire Bundlers Supporting Obama…Conflicts Of Interest?

By: Darrell Prows

Darrell Prows — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:58:32 +0000

Cold: I believe that Edwards would do the job you describe, but I hope and pray that he is far from the only Dem who undre\\erstands the correct way forward starting in Jan, 09.

No more “justice is off of the table” bullshit.

By: coldH2Owi

coldH2Owi — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:16:48 +0000

Ms. Leavey:
I don’t know if he does want the AG job, but I believe Mr. Edwards is the only prominent Democrat who has the brains & the balls to put the Bu$hCo administration where it belongs, behind bars. Well, not all of them, but the major players. We’ve become a nation of torturers &, frankly, all we are worried about is whether or not somebody takes money or where the money comes from or who has the most foreign policy experience. I’m not saying these are not important concerns, but they pale in comparison to the dead & dying & the walking dead. I thought we’d never live through this again. I am a part of a sad & violent & murderous failure. Looking back, it’s amazing how naive I was about this country, this g** d*** country.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:32:38 +0000

Obama has had bundlers on board since day one. Some of his bundlers were prominent Kerry bundlers and some were bundlers for Bill Clinton. Likewise Hillary Clinton has bundlers that supported Kerry and Bill Clinton.

Anyone who wasn’t aware that Obama was using bundlers wasn’t paying attention, there has been stories in the news before this.

Like Pan Metron I think Obama is a bit of a hypocrite on this. That’s been my main objection of him from day one, he talks one game but walks another.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:25:53 +0000

coldH2Owi

Does John Edwards want to be AG? I doubt you will either candidate make that offer because:

1) Niether is talking VP candidates at this point and they won’t until it appears the nomination is locked up.

2) Traditionally cabinet members are not chosen (or even hinted at) until after the general election.

By: Darrell Prows

Darrell Prows — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:10:37 +0000

Where the money goes, so goes a great deal of influence. Of course this proposition operates proportionally as well.

Meaning that unless and until we get the first candidate that does it all on small donations only, there are folks buying access. And they ain’t you and me.

Realistically, this is another point that is a push between the two.

By: coldH2Owi

coldH2Owi — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:08:22 +0000

Actually Mr. Johnson, my man is John Edwards, & the first of the two remaining candidates that promises to appoint him Attorney General, that person will get my vote. I, too, don’t like the money buying power, but look at your candidate, she & her husband make 109 MILLION dollars since Bu$hCo has been in office. How small town is that for crying out loud.

By: Kendall A. Johnson

Kendall A. Johnson — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:57 +0000

ColdH2O,

Money buys power!!!! Those with money buy influence at the expense of others. The worlds resources are finite. Your man of change is full of sh*t!!!!!!!!!1 He has no plan to help the country or experience with which to do it. He runs on this platform of empty change asking everyone to trust him because he is so pure. Nonsense!!!!!!!!!! He is a dirty polition hungry for power!!!!!!!!!!!

By: coldH2Owi

coldH2Owi — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:03:06 +0000

I used to say “Never trust anyone over 30.” Three decades later I’ve changed my mind. Does that make me a hypocrite? For crying out loud, money is money. Have any of these wealthy Obama supporters been convicted of improper donating? The point is that no one, not one solitary person can cover every single item in a life in a consistent manner. Why do we ask for it? The result: shallow, frightened candidates afraid to do or say anything. Look at the spineless Democrats in Congress. How many of us expected that they would have at least jailed one of the torturers by now? Well, I did. Nope, it’s off the freaking table. (NOTE: Good on Speaker Pelosi on changing the rules & stopping the Columbia free support for murdering Union leaders deal.) See, that was easy & made many of us happy. Keep doing it, make us proud.

By: PanMetron

PanMetron — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:31:57 +0000

The big difference between Obama and Clinton here is hypocrisy.

Clinton has never pretended to be politically holier-than-thou. She has pointed out, accurately if unpopularly, that lobbying is a constitutionally protected right of access to government (and Obama as a constitutional law professor should have had the guts to do the same). She raises money from business as well as individuals, and doesn’t pretend otherwise.

Now fundraising is different than lobbying, and if you want to take the high road and refuse big-money influence that’s awesome. But that isn’t what Obama has done. He’s pretended so when it suits him to make a political point but in substance has gotten just as much money from big business as Hillary, more in many categories – as John Edwards pointed out. That makes you a hypocrite at best and a lying manipulator at worst.

How ironic that Obama has spent so much energy attacking Hillary on character when he’s the one who’s saying anything to get elected and pretending to be something different than he is – just another politician. At least with Hillary we know just what we’re getting – Obama buyers, beware.

By: Kendall Johnson

Kendall Johnson — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:18:37 +0000

Well, it has been clear for a while that it was more than the commen folks funding Obama, contrary to his unity lie. Unity for the wealthy I guess. This guy is a fraud who is funded by rich white corporate men who don't give a rats a** about the little people, black, white or any others!!!!!! And then they want to call the working class stupid because they are sticking with Clinton.
Go figure!!!!!!!!!!