*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Interview With Pittsburgh Post Gazette Editorial Board

'Bitter' flap regrettable, Obama says

New polls unclear on controversy's impact

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

By James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Rebecca Droke/Post-Gazette

Sen. Barack Obama meets with the Post-Gazette editorial board.Sen. Barack Obama said yesterday that the flap over his characterization of small town voters as "bitter" represented a distraction not just from his campaign message but also from Democratic efforts to overcome stereotypes that Republicans have exploited for decades.

"What I do regret is that in one quick statement that wasn't phrased properly I detracted from what I think has to be a genuine effort on the part of Democrats to speak to constituencies we haven't always reached out to," Mr. Obama said during a wide-ranging interview with the Post-Gazette editorial board.

With just over a week to go before the Pennsylvania primary, his opponent Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has attacked Mr. Obama unrelentingly over his remarks that some small town residents were "bitter,'' and therefore "cling'' to religion and guns while voting against their own economic interests.

While recent polling in Pennsylvania has been all over the map, some recent surveys suggest the attacks have had limited success. The Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday showed Mrs. Clinton leading her rival by six points, a margin identical to their last survey a week ago.

Those findings could be taken two ways. On the one hand, the recent controversy hadn't weakened Mr. Obama's Quinnipiac numbers. But by the same token, the survey could be seen as evidence that he had stalled in closing the gap that Mrs. Clinton has enjoyed throughout this race.

A new poll by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News, however, showed Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Obama by just five points, 46 percent to 41 percent, a sharp drop in the double-digit margin that the New York senator held in the previous Times/Bloomberg survey.

While repeating that the words had been poorly phrased, Mr. Obama continued to defend the substance of his remarks in his meeting with the editorial board.

"The basic proposition, what I was trying to say is something I deeply believe, which is that people feel abandoned economically, they don't feel that Washington pays any attention to them. They have heard a lot of empty promises over the last two to three decades ... they're very cynical about the possibility of change.

"They then rely on those things that they can count on. They rely on faith, just like I rely on faith when times are rocky for me. They rely on traditions, like hunting that's been passed on through generation to generation to generation.

"When people are angry and frustrated they are also subject to being divided, and politicians will exploit those instincts about so-called wedge issues," he added, contending that such tactics had been part of the Republican recipe for success in the post-Reagan era.

"Karl Rove explicitly targets those issues and made it an entire campaign strategy over two elections,'' he said, referring to President Bush's long-time political adviser.

As he spoke, the Illinois senator wore an American flag pin in his lapel, something that he has not made a habit of recently. It was an omission that Internet accusers had seized on to raise questions about his patriotism.

The candidate explained that he had received the pin just hours earlier from a disabled Vietnam-era veteran at a campaign event in Washington, Pa.

"This notion that somehow I was refusing to wear flag pins was just not accurate,'' Mr. Obama said of the blog-borne criticisms on the issue. "I wore one right after 9/11, and at some point stopped wearing it as I guess a lot of people did, and a reporter asked me about it. All I said was I haven't been wearing one. I do think that after 9/11 I saw a lot of people who were wearing flag pins but voting in ways that I thought didn't always speak to what I think our patriotism requires."

Robert Gibes, a press aide traveling with the senator, said that the gift of the flag pin hadn't been expected and had nothing to do with the timing of the small town values imbroglio.

"This wasn't some kind of statement I was making," Mr. Obama said. "A disabled veteran who has fought for his country asks you to wear one, that's something I'm happy to do." Pointing to his wrist, he added, "It's the same reason I wear this bracelet that a mother gave me after a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Her 20-year-old was killed in a roadside bombing so I haven't taken it off since.''

Mr. Obama insisted that far from having an "elitist'' attitude toward people of faith, an accusation he has faced since his remarks were first repeated, he has been an outspoken voice urging religious outreach among Democrats.

While regretting GOP successes in pressing wedge issues against his party, Mr. Obama said that Democrats themselves had sometimes made themselves vulnerable to such tactics in the past.

"Democrats spent a lot of time on issues that I think pushed away a lot of potential voters,'' he said. "We spent a lot of time on identity politics; we spent a lot of time on talking about rights but not responsibility. I think we spent a lot of time focusing on the reason for crime instead of actually trying to solve the problem. ... Part of our job in this election is to get past some of those arguments we had in the '60s.''

Extending a salute across his current battle lines, Mr. Obama said that former President Bill Clinton "actually deserves some credit for having corrected some of those excesses.''

"The other part of it was that Democrats lost touch with the economic realities of a lot of people,'' he added. "We started being financed by the same lobbyists and the same special interests as the Republicans were sometimes, and as a consequence, you started seeing policies that ... from the perspective of a lot of working Americans, didn't seem all that different.''

On other issues during his conversation with the Post-Gazette editors, Mr. Obama defended his record on Israel, said the fall of the dollar signaled long-term challenges for the economy, and said that if he were elected, the choice of schools for his young daughters would be a personal decision.

"Let's be clear, there has been a really systematic effort to suggest that I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel,'' he said. "The fact that my middle name is Hussein, I'm sure, does not help in that regard ... Again some of this dates back to the '60s between the African-American and the Jewish community as a consequence of [Louis] Farrakhan. There was flap about some of Jesse Jackson's statements during his presidential race, so I inherit all this baggage."

While repeating an earlier statement that he disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter's decision to meet with representatives of the Palestinian group Hamas during his current trip to the Middle East, Mr. Obama said, "The fact is, though, that no one's been a more stalwart ally of Israel.... My support of Israel is as strong as Sen. Clinton or [sen. John] McCain.

"Groups like AIPAC [the American Israel Political Action Committee] would confirm that.''

The day after he and Mrs. Clinton competed to assure the Alliance for American Manufacturing that they would take tougher stands on trade, Mr. Obama said, "I believe in trade, ... but if the only beneficiaries of trade are corporate bottom lines and a lot of workers are losing their jobs, there's going to be a lot of anti-trade sentiment out there.''

Mr. Obama said that the fall of the dollar and the potential erosion of its status as the world's reserve currency, would be a challenge for the next administration.

"There is something the president can do about it and that is getting our economic fundamentals right,'' he said, calling for cutting the deficit and moving toward energy independence.

"Ending the war in Iraq is part of that step toward fiscal responsibility,'' he said. "We've got to get a handle on our entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid in particular.

"Part of the problem with the dollar right now is that people are looking at the long term, and they think China is making better economic decisions on a lot of fronts.''

In response to another question, Mr. Obama said that he had his wife had not made any decision on where they would educate their grade-school-age daughters.

"Michelle and I will not make that decision based on making a public statement, but on what's best for them,'' he said. "There are some good schools in Washington D.C. Whether they're right for my daughters, we'll decide as parents, not as president and first lady.''

 

[adonis]

This dude comes down to Earth as a typical politician every day. And for a candidate that little is truly known about, that has to be concerning.

Well, considering people like yourself have been seeking to pull him down to earth, oh, since he started to get traction, I don't see how that should be a surprise. Clutching, clawing, at every, single, thing you guys can get your hands on...yeah, he's coming down to earth.But, he's still ahead of McCain in national polls, still leading hillary in democratic primary, and he has managed to stave off quite a few attacks and has shown some pluck in how he responded. He's not just a typical politician, he's one of the best. Typical politicians were casualties of the process long ago...he's still around, still kicking, still fighting against people trying to drag him down.Maybe you weren't specifically involved, but I just say people like yourself generically, because you've been an outspoken critic of his since before there was much to criticize him for, except for being "all talk, no substance" when even that wasn't true. Keep fighting the bad fight!

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Pittsburgh Post Gazette Endorses Obama

Barack Obama: Democrats deserve a nominee for change

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment.

For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race. For as dissimilar as they are, the two share much in common. It starts with their mold-breaking candidacies. Whoever wins the nomination will vie for a special place in U.S. history -- to be either the first African-American or the first female commander in chief.

•

Although their backgrounds are different, they have come to the same conclusion, one now shared by many Americans, that the Bush administration has taken the nation on a profoundly wrong course both at home and abroad. The excitement that has animated this primary season -- the surge of new voters, the change of party registrations -- is an expression of the nation's hunger for change.

For as hard as they have run against each other, both candidates are united in running vehemently against President Bush and all his works -- another common theme that came out in their visits to the Post-Gazette editorial board on successive days this week. Sen. Clinton was the more explicit in her disdain: George W. Bush "is one of the worst, if not the worst, president we have ever had."

Not surprisingly, the policies they advocate have much in common and are generally the polar opposites of those espoused by the current administration.

On the domestic front, the prescriptions they offer on issues such as health care, the environment and education declare that government must be an agent of change to benefit the lives of ordinary Americans, not a power that shrinks from regulating or directing for fear of offending a core ideology.

In their expansive plans, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do have their own emphases and differences -- Sen. Clinton's health-care plan, for example, would cover more Americans than Sen. Obama's, but both would be a vast improvement on the status quo that leaves 47 million Americans uninsured and continues to soar in expense.

On foreign policy, both are united in their desire to bring the troops home from Iraq while improving the strategic situation in Afghanistan, the place of unfinished business where the al-Qaida spiders first spun their deadly web for 9/11 and are coming back thanks to the Iraq diversion.

On Iraq, for those inclined to remember, Sen. Clinton carries more baggage, for she voted to approve the war in the first place. For those inclined to forgive, she would seek to repair relations with allies strained by the Iraq misadventure, as Sen. Obama also would.

There is one last common ground for these candidates: They are both uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues. They care about people and they care about the workings of government. They are prepared.

Their strengths promise, in short, the one thing that the Bush administration has so shockingly lacked: competency. There will be no intellectually lazy president in the White House if either succeeded to it, no outsourced thinking to the vice president or the secretary of defense, no cheerfully shallow praise for unqualified political appointments, no enduring cause for embarrassment by the American people.

So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.

Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."

This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.

Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.

•

To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.

Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.

 

[Spiderman]

This dude comes down to Earth as a typical politician every day. And for a candidate that little is truly known about, that has to be concerning.

Well, considering people like yourself have been seeking to pull him down to earth, oh, since he started to get traction, I don't see how that should be a surprise. Clutching, clawing, at every, single, thing you guys can get your hands on...yeah, he's coming down to earth.But, he's still ahead of McCain in national polls, still leading hillary in democratic primary, and he has managed to stave off quite a few attacks and has shown some pluck in how he responded. He's not just a typical politician, he's one of the best. Typical politicians were casualties of the process long ago...he's still around, still kicking, still fighting against people trying to drag him down.Maybe you weren't specifically involved, but I just say people like yourself generically, because you've been an outspoken critic of his since before there was much to criticize him for, except for being "all talk, no substance" when even that wasn't true. Keep fighting the bad fight!

I'm just not in awe of him. He's a politician who happens to be a great speaker, but his judgment and extreme liberalism are legitimate issues. As for polling, barring something unforseen, he should win the Democratic nomination, and he's in a dead heat with McCain nationally. BTW, I hope he's learned from Jimmy Carter's debacle overseas. In Jimmy Carter's rush to bring all sides together for the peace process, he's alienated our ally. Nice. And this is the technique, Mr. "I'll talk to everybody" Barack Obama wants to use.

 

[adonis]

And this is the technique, Mr. "I'll talk to everybody" Barack Obama wants to use.

He won't talk to everyone. Terrorist organizations are excluded, as are entities which aren't heads of state, I believe.His stances actually show quite good judgment. From his outspoken opposition to the war in iraq, unlike mccain and hillary, to his comments regarding pakistan and pursuing terrorists with or without president's permission, to his talk of speaking with our enemies, to his comments about race in america, to the way he's run his campaign bringing in record numbers of voters and contributions, to his handling of the "bitter" comments where he doesn't back down and forces McCain and Hillary to come to terms with the fact that people are indeed bitter.Your man-hate for him blinds you

 

[Orange Crush]

From the Washington Post today:

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

MOST SEE DISHONESTY

By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page A06

PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

...

The new poll suggests that much of her problem is with men. Nearly two-thirds of men said Clinton is not honest and trustworthy (an increase of 19 points), compared with 53 percent of women (up 12 points). Democratic men, in particular, have shifted: About four in 10 now do not believe Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, nearly triple the percentage saying so in 2006.

The percentage calling Clinton honest has dropped steeply among whites with higher incomes and levels of education. And while majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents across demographic lines said she is honest and trustworthy, the class divisions remain: The percentage of white Democrats without college degrees calling Clinton honest hardly budged in two years, while those with college degrees have dropped off significantly on the question (from 82 percent to 53 percent).

 

[Gopher State]

Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money

OBAMA FUNDRAISER NUMBERS

38

Members of law firms that lobby in Washington

31

Partners

10

Former federal lobbyists

6

Manage lobbyists

$3.5 million

Minimum the lawyers pledged to raise

$138 million

Lobbying fees earned last year by their firms or subsidiaries

Source: Obama for America, Senate Office of Public Records, Center for Responsive Politics, USA TODAY research

By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm's lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists.

"It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising money to get access or curry favor," said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that while Obama's refusal to take money from lobbyists "isn't a perfect solution or symbol, it does reflect Obama's record of trying to change the way that Washington does business." He declined to elaborate.

Lobbyists have long played key fundraising and policymaking roles for candidates, and lobbyists are raising money for both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain.

Obama fundraisers who work for law firms that lobby and share the fees include:

•Allan Katz, a Florida lawyer who chairs the government relations practice of Akerman Senterfitt. The firm took in $3.6 million for Washington lobbying last year, according to public records compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The firm touts on its website "an enviable level of access" for clients.

•Mark Alderman, managing partner of Philadelphia's WolfBlock law firm. The firm's lobbying subsidiary earned $930,000 in Washington last year representing clients including defense contractor Lockheed Martin, records show.

•Scott Blake Harris, managing partner of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, a Washington telecommunications law firm. Harris withdrew as a lobbyist for Microsoft and Cisco in June, but his partners still lobby, he said.

"My practice isn't going to be helped by this at all," said Harris, who said he got involved with Obama after his 14-year-old son interned in the senator's office. "I went to see him because of how nice he'd been to my kid, and I was captivated by his vision."

Katz, who got to know Obama over dinner, said his lobbying business "will be fine whether he wins or whether he loses."

Alderman said he was "just blown away" after meeting Obama. "This is not a business proposition for me," he said.

OBAMA FUNDRAISERS: Lobbyist ties

These 38 fundraisers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign work for law firms that have lobbying operations in Washington, D.C. The dollar figure reflects the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for the campaign.

BUNDLER

MIN. PLEDGE LOCATION FIRM

Scott Harris $200,000 DC Harris, Wiltshire and Grannis

Allan J. Katz

$200,000 FL Akerman Senterfitt

Michael Lawson $200,000 CA Skadden, Arps

John Levi $200,000 IL Sidley Austin

Karol Mason $200,000 GA Alston & Bird

Thomas J. Perrelli $200,000 VA Jenner & Block

Thomas A. Reed $200,000 VA Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis

Christina Tchen $200,000 IL Skadden, Arps

Tony West $200,000 CA Morrison & Foerster

Mark L. Alderman $100,000 PA Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen

Timothy M. Broas $100,000 MD Winston & Strawn

Peter Bynoe $100,000 IL DLA Piper

Gregory B. Craig $100,000 DC Williams & Connolly

Norman Eisen $100,000 DC Zuckerman Spaeder

Nicole Lamb-Hale $100,000 MI Foley & Lardner

Andrew Schapiro $100,000 NY Mayer Brown

Charles C. Adams Jr. $50,000 Switzerland Hogan & Hartson

David Burd $50,000 DC Arnold & Porter

Tom Cole $50,000 IL Sidley Austin

Michael H. Dardzinski $50,000 China Reed Smith

Howard W. Gutman $50,000 MD Williams & Connolly

Jeff Horwitz $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose

David C. Jacobson $50,000 IL Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal

Hrishi Karthikeyan $50,000 DC Covington & Burling

Ronald Kirk $50,000 TX Vinson & Elkins

William T. Lake $50,000 DC WilmerHale

Edward Lazarus $50,000 CA Akin Gump

Jack Levin $50,000 IL Kirkland & Ellis

Kenneth G. Lore $50,000 DC Bingham McCutchen

Charles B. Ortner $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose

Susan Pravda $50,000 MA Foley & Lardner

Paul N. Roth $50,000 NY Schulte Roth & Zabel

John Schmidt $50,000 IL Mayer Brown

Robert M. Sussman* $50,000 DC Latham & Watkins

Kathryn Thomson $50,000 VA Sidley Austin

Barry B. White $50,000 MA Foley Hoag

Steven M. Zager $50,000 TX Akin Gump

Robert S. Litt n/a MD Arnold & Porter

* Robert M. Sussman retired as a partner on December 31, 2007.

Source: Obama for America, Center for Responsive Politics, Public Citizen

 

[adonis]

ABC: Americans Find Obama Vastly More ElectableBy Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary, PollsPolls, polls and more polls. And on the eve of the debate tonight, it’ll be interesting to see how it effects this overwhelming pro-Obama trend.From ABC:---On the eve of their debate before the Pennsylvania primary next week, Democrats by a 2-1 margin, 62-31 percent, now see Obama as better able to win in November — a dramatic turn from February, when Clinton held a scant 5-point edge on this measure, and more so from last fall, when she crushed her opponents on electability. --- The poll finds other pronounced problems for Clinton. Among all Americans, 58 percent now say she’s not honest and not trustworthy, 16 points higher than in a precampaign poll two years ago. Obama beats her head-to-head on this attribute by a 23-point margin. ---The number of Americans who see Clinton unfavorably overall has risen to a record high in ABC/Post polling, 54 percent — up 14 points since January. Obama’s unfavorable score has reached a new high as well, up 9 points, but to a lower 39 percent.The poll also finds that BitterGate has done nothing to his numbers, strengthening his claim that while his wording may have been unfortunate, the content was dead on and will resonate in the general election.

 

[adonis]

Obama Surges on Electability,

Challenges Clinton on Leadership

Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November

ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER

April 16, 2008 —

Barack Obama has knocked down one of the three tent poles of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president, surging ahead of her as the candidate Democrats see as most likely to win in November. He's challenging her on leadership as well, leaving only experience as a clear Clinton advantage in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

On the eve of their debate before the Pennsylvania primary next week, Democrats by a 2-1 margin, 62-31 percent, now see Obama as better able to win in November -- a dramatic turn from February, when Clinton held a scant 5-point edge on this measure, and more so from last fall, when she crushed her opponents on electability.

Click here for PDF with charts and full questionnaire.

The poll finds other pronounced problems for Clinton. Among all Americans, 58 percent now say she's not honest and not trustworthy, 16 points higher than in a precampaign poll two years ago. Obama beats her head-to-head on this attribute by a 23-point margin.

The number of Americans who see Clinton unfavorably overall has risen to a record high in ABC/Post polling, 54 percent -- up 14 points since January. Obama's unfavorable score has reached a new high as well, up 9 points, but to a lower 39 percent.

A favorability rating is the most basic measure of any public figure's popularity; it's trouble when unfavorable views outscore favorable ones. That's now the case for Clinton, alone among the current candidates.

There are other strong signs of the toll of the long Democratic campaign. The number of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who describe the tone of the contest as "mostly negative" has risen by 14 points since February, from 27 percent then to 41 percent now. Those who say so mainly blame Clinton over Obama, by nearly a 4-1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent. (An additional 25 percent blame both equally.)

In a similar result, half of Democrats say their candidates are "arguing about things that really aren't that important" rather than discussing real issues.

The candidates are at or near dead heats in trust to handle a range of issues, including the economy, the war in Iraq, international trade and terrorism. Clinton's lack of a significant advantage on these, despite her wide edge on experience, is another challenge.

Obama, meanwhile, has largely succeeded in moving past the controversial comments made by the former minister of his church, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; 59 percent of all adults, and 72 percent of leaned Democrats, approve of the way Obama has distanced himself from Wright. (Nearly half of Democrats, however, are concerned the Republicans will use the Wright imbroglio effectively against Obama if he is nominated.)

Nor does the controversy over Obama's remark calling some voters "bitter" seem to have hurt; his favorability rating, though down from January, lost no ground across the nights this poll was done (Thursday through Sunday) as the issue gained volume.

Equally problematic for Clinton in all this is the bottom line: Democrats by 51-41 percent say they'd like to see Obama win the nomination, his biggest advantage to date.

FIGHT ON Yet most Democrats are also willing to see Clinton fight on; 55 percent say she should stay in the race even if she loses Pennsylvania. One reason is that about as many, 53 percent, say it's more important to them that their candidate wins, even if that means a longer race.

Another factor is that most Democrats reject the notion that the long campaign will damage their chances in November. While 32 percent share this view, more, 67 percent, believe that ultimately the length of the race either won't make much difference in the general election (50 percent) or will end up helping the Democrats' cause (17 percent).

But there is an indication that the increasingly contentious race is taking a toll: In this poll, 35 percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats, down from 40 percent last month and the lowest percentage since the primary season began.

DELEGATES There's a brighter result for Clinton in preferences on how Democratic "superdelegates" should choose a candidate. Only 13 percent of Democrats say superdelegates should support whoever's won the most regular delegates in primaries and caucuses -- a count in which Obama's ahead, and seemingly likely to stay so.

Instead a plurality, 46 percent, say superdelegates should support the candidate who's won the most popular votes, a tally in which Clinton still has hopes. And 37 percent say superdelegates should go with their own sense of which candidate they think is best.

(Democrats who favor relying on the popular vote broadly prefer that it be based on the national vote, not the vote within each superdelegate's home state. Either way, whether to count uncontested Florida and Michigan remains a vexing point.)

DEM DAMAGE? Significant numbers of Democrats currently say they'd defect to Republican John McCain if their candidate loses the nomination; in this poll, 21 percent of Obama's supporters, and 23 percent of Clinton's say they'd jump to McCain. But that's a result worthy of caution; it's hardly an opportune time -- in the midst of the Democrats' continuing food fight, with their dander up -- to put much stock in the result.

Still, it's clear that the Democrats' eventual nominee will have some persuading to do within the party as well as without. A potentially greater threat than crossover voting is that disaffected Democrats might simply sit out the general election.

Another gauge underscores the point: Just 61 percent of Obama supporters say they'd definitely or probably vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination; 38 percent say they definitely or probably would not. It's very similar among Clinton supporters: Sixty-one percent say they'd be inclined to vote for Obama, 35 percent definitely or probably not.

Among core Democrats -- excluding Democratic-leaning independents -- about a third on each side say they're disinclined to kiss and make up.

That would be a highly unusual -- perhaps unprecedented -- level of party defections. From 1992-2004 just 10 or 11 percent of Democrats have voted Republican. In 1988 Mike Dukakis yielded 17 percent of Democrats; in 1980 and 1984, Ronald Reagan attracted a quarter of Democrats.

Any significant defections of disenchanted Democrats to McCain would be a concern to the Democratic nominee. It's a balance worth watching -- but one that will be more meaningfully measured after the Democrats pick their candidate and lick their wounds.

There's also the possibility of GOP crossover: Fourteen percent of Republicans say they'd vote for Obama if he's the nominee; fewer, 7 percent, say they'd cross over for Clinton.

As noted, there are other concerns for Democrats -- the level of Democratic partisanship, and also whether Republican allegiance will recover. On average across 2007 just 25 percent of Americans identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest percentage since 1984. So far this year it's ticked up to 28 percent on average; in this poll, 29 percent.

NOVEMBER As things stand, this poll suggests a close general election contest. Obama has a scant 5-point advantage over McCain, 49-44 percent, compared with a 52-40 percent race last month. McCain and Clinton stand at 48-45 percent; it was a Clinton advantage, 50-44 percent, last month.

One factor is the shift in partisan affiliation. Another, in the McCain-Clinton matchup, is independents, one of the key swing voter groups. Last month, Clinton had a 7-point edge among independents; now it's a 10-point McCain advantage. (Obama continues to lead McCain among independents, by 8 points.)

All the candidates have vulnerabilities. McCain's major speech on the economy this week was likely aimed at his comparative weakness in this area; among voters who say the economy is their top concern he trails Obama (by 53-39 percent) and Clinton (by 51-42 percent) alike. And the economy is the top issue by far, cited by 41 percent; the war in Iraq follows, cited by 18 percent as their chief concern.

In another measure, Americans by 55-34 percent say a Democratic president would do a better job than a Republican handling the economy; and by 52-35 percent also believe a Democrat would do a better job dealing with the situation in Iraq.

McCain's age -- he'd be the first president to take office at 72 -- is also a continued negative; 26 percent say it makes them "less enthusiastic" about supporting his candidacy, including 13 percent of Republicans and 24 percent of independents. That is, however, down slightly from its high, 31 percent in January.

Nearly half of Americans, 48 percent, also think McCain's temperament would hurt his ability to serve effectively as president. But 51 percent say Obama's level of experience would hurt him, and 49 percent say Clinton would be damaged by her political style. Each is a broad enough concern for the candidates to take notice.

FAVORABILITY Clinton and Obama are not alone in their higher unfavorability ratings. McCain's unfavorable score, similarly, has gained 10 points since January, to 40 percent; and Bill Clinton's has advanced about as much, to 51 percent, its worst since he left office.

Both Clintons stand out in the level of antipathy they attract. Thirty-nine percent of Americans have a "strongly" unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton (up 10 points since January); fewer, 22 percent, have a "strongly" favorable view (down 10 points). Thirty-four percent are strongly negative on Bill Clinton.

ATTRIBUTES Hillary Clinton, naturally, does much better on favorability in her own party (29 percent unfavorable among leaned Democrats versus Obama's 21 percent). But she's got trouble versus Obama on several specific personal attributes, which matter especially in primaries, with candidates relatively close on the issues.

Obama now leads Clinton, as noted, by 62-31 percent as having the better chance of winning in November; he also owns the "change" mantra, leading by 56-35 percent as the one who'd "do more to bring needed change to Washington." And he leads by 53-30 percent as more honesty and trustworthy; even among women, a more pro-Clinton group, Obama leads on trustworthiness by a 16-point margin (it's 35 points among men).

It's a close Obama +5 on the candidate who "better understands the problems of people like you," with men and women dividing, and an equally close Clinton +5 on being the stronger leader -- an attribute on which Clinton was +24 in February, and +41 back in September against Obama and John Edwards combined.

Clinton, then, is down to a broad advantage on only one attribute tested in this poll -- having the better experience, on which she leads Obama by 67-24 percent. The question is whether it's enough.

METHODOLOGY This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 10-13, 2008, among a random national sample of 1,197 adults, including an oversample of African-Americans for a total of 213 and an oversample of Catholics for a total of 292 (both weighted to their correct share of the national population). The results have a 3-point error margin for the full sample, 4 points for the 643 leaned Democrats. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

 

[Hammered Finz]

Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money OBAMA FUNDRAISER NUMBERS 38Members of law firms that lobby in Washington31Partners10Former federal lobbyists6Manage lobbyists$3.5 millionMinimum the lawyers pledged to raise$138 millionLobbying fees earned last year by their firms or subsidiariesSource: Obama for America, Senate Office of Public Records, Center for Responsive Politics, USA TODAY research By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm's lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists."It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising money to get access or curry favor," said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that while Obama's refusal to take money from lobbyists "isn't a perfect solution or symbol, it does reflect Obama's record of trying to change the way that Washington does business." He declined to elaborate.Lobbyists have long played key fundraising and policymaking roles for candidates, and lobbyists are raising money for both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain. Obama fundraisers who work for law firms that lobby and share the fees include:•Allan Katz, a Florida lawyer who chairs the government relations practice of Akerman Senterfitt. The firm took in $3.6 million for Washington lobbying last year, according to public records compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The firm touts on its website "an enviable level of access" for clients. •Mark Alderman, managing partner of Philadelphia's WolfBlock law firm. The firm's lobbying subsidiary earned $930,000 in Washington last year representing clients including defense contractor Lockheed Martin, records show.•Scott Blake Harris, managing partner of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, a Washington telecommunications law firm. Harris withdrew as a lobbyist for Microsoft and Cisco in June, but his partners still lobby, he said."My practice isn't going to be helped by this at all," said Harris, who said he got involved with Obama after his 14-year-old son interned in the senator's office. "I went to see him because of how nice he'd been to my kid, and I was captivated by his vision."Katz, who got to know Obama over dinner, said his lobbying business "will be fine whether he wins or whether he loses."Alderman said he was "just blown away" after meeting Obama. "This is not a business proposition for me," he said.OBAMA FUNDRAISERS: Lobbyist tiesThese 38 fundraisers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign work for law firms that have lobbying operations in Washington, D.C. The dollar figure reflects the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for the campaign. BUNDLER MIN. PLEDGE LOCATION FIRM Scott Harris $200,000 DC Harris, Wiltshire and Grannis Allan J. Katz $200,000 FL Akerman Senterfitt Michael Lawson $200,000 CA Skadden, Arps John Levi $200,000 IL Sidley Austin Karol Mason $200,000 GA Alston & Bird Thomas J. Perrelli $200,000 VA Jenner & Block Thomas A. Reed $200,000 VA Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis Christina Tchen $200,000 IL Skadden, Arps Tony West $200,000 CA Morrison & Foerster Mark L. Alderman $100,000 PA Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen Timothy M. Broas $100,000 MD Winston & Strawn Peter Bynoe $100,000 IL DLA Piper Gregory B. Craig $100,000 DC Williams & Connolly Norman Eisen $100,000 DC Zuckerman Spaeder Nicole Lamb-Hale $100,000 MI Foley & Lardner Andrew Schapiro $100,000 NY Mayer Brown Charles C. Adams Jr. $50,000 Switzerland Hogan & Hartson David Burd $50,000 DC Arnold & Porter Tom Cole $50,000 IL Sidley Austin Michael H. Dardzinski $50,000 China Reed Smith Howard W. Gutman $50,000 MD Williams & Connolly Jeff Horwitz $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose David C. Jacobson $50,000 IL Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal Hrishi Karthikeyan $50,000 DC Covington & Burling Ronald Kirk $50,000 TX Vinson & Elkins William T. Lake $50,000 DC WilmerHale Edward Lazarus $50,000 CA Akin Gump Jack Levin $50,000 IL Kirkland & Ellis Kenneth G. Lore $50,000 DC Bingham McCutchen Charles B. Ortner $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose Susan Pravda $50,000 MA Foley & Lardner Paul N. Roth $50,000 NY Schulte Roth & Zabel John Schmidt $50,000 IL Mayer Brown Robert M. Sussman* $50,000 DC Latham & Watkins Kathryn Thomson $50,000 VA Sidley Austin Barry B. White $50,000 MA Foley Hoag Steven M. Zager $50,000 TX Akin Gump Robert S. Litt n/a MD Arnold & Porter * Robert M. Sussman retired as a partner on December 31, 2007. Source: Obama for America, Center for Responsive Politics, Public Citizen

So did Obama lie?

 

[adonis]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was?

You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.

Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

From the Washington Post today:

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

See, here is the problem....Who in their right mind ever actually trusted them to begin with?!?!?!?

 

[phthalatemagic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfsiNyjo-6w

He has the ability to handle himself (and the pressure) in a fashion that the other two can only dream about.

Damn, that guy really makes me want to vote for him a lot. He's just so friggin' smooth and charasmatic.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...If there was a story about how police in San Francisco found Obama's 2007 BMW with a dead male hooker in the trunk, with the words, I, Barack Obama, killed this man, carved into his chest, your first reaction would be, "this is just more of the same... Someone with his background would obviously drive a different car."

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

I'm familiar with several of those law firms. They have 1000s of attorneys. What a joke.

 

[adonis]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...If there was a story about how police in San Francisco found Obama's 2007 BMW with a dead male hooker in the trunk, with the words, I, Barack Obama, killed this man, carved into his chest, your first reaction would be, "this is just more of the same... Someone with his background would obviously drive a different car."

First, there's no way to be sure the guy was a hooker. Secondly, Obama said his car was stolen and then it shows up with a dead guy in it? Probably happened after it was stolen. Obama's the victim here. And of course whoever stole the car from Obama would make it look like Obama did it, because that's just what the police would want to hear...playing to racial stereotypes to get away with murder. Really guys, this isn't all that serious?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...If there was a story about how police in San Francisco found Obama's 2007 BMW with a dead male hooker in the trunk, with the words, I, Barack Obama, killed this man, carved into his chest, your first reaction would be, "this is just more of the same... Someone with his background would obviously drive a different car."

First, there's no way to be sure the guy was a hooker. Secondly, Obama said his car was stolen and then it shows up with a dead guy in it? Probably happened after it was stolen. Obama's the victim here. And of course whoever stole the car from Obama would make it look like Obama did it, because that's just what the police would want to hear...playing to racial stereotypes to get away with murder. Really guys, this isn't all that serious?

 

[phthalatemagic]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

That's awesome.

 

[Josie Maran]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...If there was a story about how police in San Francisco found Obama's 2007 BMW with a dead male hooker in the trunk, with the words, I, Barack Obama, killed this man, carved into his chest, your first reaction would be, "this is just more of the same... Someone with his background would obviously drive a different car."

First, there's no way to be sure the guy was a hooker. Secondly, Obama said his car was stolen and then it shows up with a dead guy in it? Probably happened after it was stolen. Obama's the victim here. And of course whoever stole the car from Obama would make it look like Obama did it, because that's just what the police would want to hear...playing to racial stereotypes to get away with murder. Really guys, this isn't all that serious?

You...you're good.

 

[Sweet J]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...

I'm torn here. My former firm has many "registered lobbyists." I was a senior associate in our "government affairs" section, and although I didn't do "lobbying," per se, I think my activities occassionally had to be reported on various (and too complicated for me) lobby reports. I donated to Obama, but I am pretty far removed from any sort of "lobbyist." Similarly, BB is a partner at a large sophisticated Houston law firm, which I am sure has its own lobbyists. His donations don't mean that "lobbyists have ties to obama. Otis' firms also have lobbyists. Etc. etc. That being said, I'm not quite sure what the dealio is with the "bundlers." Is the report saying that any of the "bundlers" are lobbyists?

 

[bigbottom]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...

I'm torn here. My former firm has many "registered lobbyists." I was a senior associate in our "government affairs" section, and although I didn't do "lobbying," per se, I think my activities occassionally had to be reported on various (and too complicated for me) lobby reports. I donated to Obama, but I am pretty far removed from any sort of "lobbyist." Similarly, BB is a partner at a large sophisticated Houston law firm, which I am sure has its own lobbyists. His donations don't mean that "lobbyists have ties to obama. Otis' firms also have lobbyists. Etc. etc. That being said, I'm not quite sure what the dealio is with the "bundlers." Is the report saying that any of the "bundlers" are lobbyists?

Right. I've personally donated to Obama's campaign. I am a partner at a firm that has Washington lobbyists. That doesn't make me a lobbyist.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was? You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...

I'm torn here. My former firm has many "registered lobbyists." I was a senior associate in our "government affairs" section, and although I didn't do "lobbying," per se, I think my activities occassionally had to be reported on various (and too complicated for me) lobby reports. I donated to Obama, but I am pretty far removed from any sort of "lobbyist." Similarly, BB is a partner at a large sophisticated Houston law firm, which I am sure has its own lobbyists. His donations don't mean that "lobbyists have ties to obama. Otis' firms also have lobbyists. Etc. etc. That being said, I'm not quite sure what the dealio is with the "bundlers." Is the report saying that any of the "bundlers" are lobbyists?

Right. I've personally donated to Obama's campaign. I am a partner at a firm that has Washington lobbyists. That doesn't make me a lobbyist.

You guys are absolutely right, and I really don't care for the anti-lobbyist tactic used and adored by many. Everyone hates lobbyists until they need one of become one. Few people realize that what a lobbyist in a big firm in Washington does is no different then what the regular person who goes to their town council meeting to complain about something does.I'm just having fun with adonis' quick protect Obama at all costs posts. He's like the political Secret Service ready to take any bullet.

 

[Josie Maran]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was?

You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.

Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...

I'm torn here. My former firm has many "registered lobbyists." I was a senior associate in our "government affairs" section, and although I didn't do "lobbying," per se, I think my activities occassionally had to be reported on various (and too complicated for me) lobby reports. I donated to Obama, but I am pretty far removed from any sort of "lobbyist." Similarly, BB is a partner at a large sophisticated Houston law firm, which I am sure has its own lobbyists. His donations don't mean that "lobbyists have ties to obama. Otis' firms also have lobbyists. Etc. etc. That being said, I'm not quite sure what the dealio is with the "bundlers." Is the report saying that any of the "bundlers" are lobbyists?

Right. I've personally donated to Obama's campaign. I am a partner at a firm that has Washington lobbyists. That doesn't make me a lobbyist.

You guys are absolutely right, and I really don't care for the anti-lobbyist tactic used and adored by many. Everyone hates lobbyists until they need one of become one. Few people realize that what a lobbyist in a big firm in Washington does is no different then what the regular person who goes to their town council meeting to complain about something does.I'm just having fun with adonis' quick protect Obama at all costs posts. He's like the political Secret Service ready to take any bullet.

I'm picturing him sitting at his pc in a blue suit with the curley-q earpiece in and speaking dictation into his sleeve.

 

[adonis]

So Obama has people who support him who were either former lobbyists, who aren't registered currently, or who are in a business where someone else at the same business is a lobbyist? Seriously? Is this what the point of that article was?

You can't have over a million donors to your campaign and not have donors coming from all across america. But none of these people from the article are lobbyists, that I can tell at least...they just have former ties, or links to other people who are, but it's quite a stretch to tie the actual lobbyists to Obama.

Obama claims not to take money from lobbyists, and all those listed are not lobbyists. I fail to see the problem.

Seriously. Just be honest...

I'm torn here. My former firm has many "registered lobbyists." I was a senior associate in our "government affairs" section, and although I didn't do "lobbying," per se, I think my activities occassionally had to be reported on various (and too complicated for me) lobby reports. I donated to Obama, but I am pretty far removed from any sort of "lobbyist." Similarly, BB is a partner at a large sophisticated Houston law firm, which I am sure has its own lobbyists. His donations don't mean that "lobbyists have ties to obama. Otis' firms also have lobbyists. Etc. etc. That being said, I'm not quite sure what the dealio is with the "bundlers." Is the report saying that any of the "bundlers" are lobbyists?

Right. I've personally donated to Obama's campaign. I am a partner at a firm that has Washington lobbyists. That doesn't make me a lobbyist.

You guys are absolutely right, and I really don't care for the anti-lobbyist tactic used and adored by many. Everyone hates lobbyists until they need one of become one. Few people realize that what a lobbyist in a big firm in Washington does is no different then what the regular person who goes to their town council meeting to complain about something does.I'm just having fun with adonis' quick protect Obama at all costs posts. He's like the political Secret Service ready to take any bullet.

I'm picturing him sitting at his pc in a blue suit with the curley-q earpiece in and speaking dictation into his sleeve.

Black pin-stripe suit, but the rest sounds about right. I'd stay and chat more, but it looks like we've registered a bogey in topic three niner two four seven eight. There's a 103 in progress. If I don't make it back with posting privileges, you guys are in charge.

*Roger that base, I'm on my way*

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

any other pittsburgh supporters in here? If so:

This Sunday, April 20, 2008, Western Pennsylvania Generation Obama is having a Get Out the Vote Rally and Party for Senator Obama from 7pm until 10 pm at Altar Bar, 1620 Penn Ave in the Strip District. Drink Specials for the event include $2.50 miller lite bottles and $3.00 "famous" mojito's!!!!!Special, surprise guests and local elected officials will be in attendance.Generation Obama is utilizing Altar Bar's state-of-the-art audio visual systemto turn Altar Bar into Generation Obama Rally Headquarters for a night!Please come out and support Senator Obama. This is your last chance to sign up to help on Election Day as the Pennsylvania Primary Election is this coming Tuesday, April 22nd.We need a strong turnout to show Pittsburgh and the rest of the country that we are ready for a change in the White House!!!

 

[phthalatemagic]

I'm just having fun with adonis' quick protect Obama at all costs posts.

I find the "support your candidate, no matter what s/he says/does" pretty admirable

 

[adonis]

Philly Daily News endorsed Barack Obama today:

VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMATHE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future.More specifically, the nation must decide how to face the future racing toward us in the form of slumping home sales, unstable financial markets and increased joblessness - and staring at us from the Green Zone in Iraq and the beds at veterans hospitals.Should Democrats choose someone who will employ hard-won - even bitter - experiences gained in a past Democratic administration, or reach beyond political truisms toward a new (and untried) model of governing?Neither choice is obvious. Perhaps that's why the race has gone on for so long.But the long slog through 44 primaries and caucuses has confirmed for us that Sen. Barack Obama's vision of change - and the way he plans to pursue it - is what we need right now. Badly.This is a campaign that really began six years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only was the U.S. attacked and seriously wounded, it did not bounce back the way "the land of the free and home of the brave" should have. In fact, it still suffers from post-traumatic stress.That day and its aftermath cried out for a revolution of values: a clear-eyed shared vision, a cooperative effort, a unified purpose. It cried out for a recognition that conventional warfare and conventional responses to domestic challenges in an era of globalization were not enough.That cry was not answered.Instead, the Bush administration embarked on an unconscionable plan to exploit the fear we all felt that day for political gain. It lied us into a disastrous war in Iraq, a staggering, record deficit at home, a weakening of the constitutional structure on which the country rests, and poisonous lines of division among Americans. It led us to a place where 81 percent of Americans say we're on the wrong track.Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.Sure, Clinton has more "experience" of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband's administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.It would motivate them to hold their representatives accountable for making it happen. That is, after all, the only way to get us out of Iraq, to address global warming, to make us energy-independent. It's the only way to resist the forces arrayed against providing universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and returning our schools to world-class status. It's the only way to give our children the means to compete with children in other parts of the world who are healthier, better-educated and have more opportunities than many of our own.An Obama administration would be freer of the the corrupting influence of big-money donors and corporate interests. Obama has raised $240 million overall, with half coming in contributions of less than $200. People who contribute to political campaigns can feel they "own" a candidate and so Obama would owe allegiance to the wide swath of America that has financed his campaign.Based on his experience in running a quarter-billion-dollar enterprise with thousands upon thousands of volunteers, we could expect an Obama administration to be well-managed and cost-effective, with the president choosing forward-thinking advisers committed to his program, demanding that they work as a team and pay attention to details.He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that's for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.Obama's unprecedented appeal to younger voters is significant not only because it expands the electorate, which is vital. It's also a validation of his promise as a president to be free of the baby-boomer/Vietnam/segregation-era hangups.Younger people are more egalitarian, more accepting of diversity, and more comfortable with rapid change. They also are less confined by old resentments or regrets.AND AN OBAMA administration would lower the tone of the rhetoric that separates us.As New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the skill and eloquence to help us raise our eyes and our aspirations beyond individual, personal concerns, beyond religion or region or race or gender, beyond our well-founded fears to a shared destiny.Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.

 

[Running with scissors]

Has anyone seen the preview for Bosnia and Back Again?

I laughed, I cried, I went to get popcorn and a soda and then cried a little bit more. It was cathartic really.

 

[adonis]

April 17, 2008And A DC Super D Flips For ObamaPer The Washington Post ...Council member and newly elected superdelegate Harry Thomas Jr., initially a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is announcing in minutes that he will cast his vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver for Sen. Barack Obama.Thomas received more than 100 phone calls and e-mails from constituents who feared that he would use his power as a superdelegate to vote for Clinton despite the city's overwhelming support of Obama in the Potomac Primary."After meeting with the candidates and listening to my constituents, I have to honor the 83 percent who support Barack Obama," he said in an interview, referring to the results of the Democratic primary..That makes four Super Ds in 48 hours to declare for Obama.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Has anyone seen the preview for Bosnia and Back Again?

I laughed, I cried, I went to get popcorn and a soda and then cried a little bit more. It was cathartic really.

Her answer about this last night was one of her worst moments yet, IMO. She was continuing to defend it as if it was a reasonable gaffe. Well, it's not a gaffe. It's a lie. End of story.

 

[adonis]

It's time for the super delegates to start putting their support behind Obama, en masse.

Clinton's rhetoric, and the desperate nature of the race, will only make this all the more bitter and damaging for the democratic party. Last night, hillary showed that she'll say whatever, and do whatever to damage Obama enough to win her the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, has taken the high road nearly the entire time with clinton, barely ever bringing up any, ANY of the numerous topics from her past that could be used against her.

Heck, he brought up the cookie baking comment last night and used it not to damage her, but to show how they were similar and how stuff like that shouldn't be used against them.

It's clear, very very clear after last nights debate, that Clinton is totally willing to sink Obama's chances here to win for herself, and it's up to the leaders of the party to step in, now, and throw their support behind obama who has run a clean, professional, positive campaign that is better than anyone else has run this year, and likely in quite some time.

It's time to put an end to this race, not because Hillary isn't a good candidate, but because allowing her to continue to damage Obama, drive wedges between herself and him, she's damaging the party, and her pleas to the superdelegates will be unfruitful. With her longshot odds, her actions cannot be condoned. It's time to silence her altogether, by standing behind Obama and bringing the democratic party together.

 

[adonis]

Another PA paper endorses Obama today:

Published April 17, 2008 12:11 pm -OUR OPINION: We endorse Barack ObamaNew Castle NewsWe don’t envy the next president of the United States.Whoever is elected in November must contend with the aftermath of eight years of George W. Bush. While presidencies are ultimately judged by history, we have little doubt this one will be viewed as an absolute disaster.Because of Bush, the next president must address a war in Iraq that has evolved into a choice between endless military occupation or withdrawal and resultant chaos.Meanwhile, another war — this one in Afghanistan — was allowed to go unfinished. The consequence there is a resurgent Taliban, expanded violence and record opium production to fuel the international heroin trade.These wars, by the way, are being fought off budget, meaning they are funded with borrowed money. This is in addition to the ballooning official deficits the Bush administration and a compliant Congress have created.With an economic slowdown, those deficits will now grow worse. Thus, the new president must deal with the double whammy of economic uncertainty at home and instablity abroad that Bush will leave behind as he trots off to Crawford, Texas.Plus, there are a host of side issues, ranging from Social Security reform to climate change that this administration dabbled in, but offered no real leadership. The list is indeed daunting.On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Democrats must decide between two surviving presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the party selects a challenger to presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. Key to the Democratic choice is determining which candidate is better prepared and able to meet the challenges of a post-Bush world.Philosophically, Clinton and Obama have far more similarities than differences. So it is a tough call to make.Clinton gets the edge in terms of experience, having served as a first lady and a U.S. senator for more than one term. And after a president who was short on experience and long on disappointment, that’s no small matter.But it would be a mistake to compare Obama with Bush. It is not by happenstance that Obama has become the phenomenon of this presidential campaign.He is charismatic, articulate and smart. Obama displays an insight into issues that impresses us. And his campaign is geared toward reaching out to new voters and beyond the traditional Democratic base.Obama represents a unifying force that America badly needs. By contrast, we view Clinton as much more of a divisive figure, similar to Bush in that regard.During this presidential campaign, there have been plenty of diversions, with off-hand comments by candidates and their supporters blown out of proportion. Focus on the real issues facing the nation is lost in the shuffle. Voters must avoid being distracted by such matters.While it may not be an easy choice — and some uncertainty remains in terms of who he would select as advisers — our endorsement goes to Barack Obama in Tuesday’s Democratic primary. We believe he offers hope for a nation that desperately needs it.

 

[Gopher State]

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is saddled with a potentially toxic image problem: that he has an elitist attitude.

1 of 3 It has made him a target of attacks from Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.

It's ironic that one presidential candidate could hang that label on another, said Dr. Drew Westen, professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and author of "The Political Brain."

"If you think you should be president, by definition you are an elitist, only because you believe that of the 300 million people in America, you are the best person to run it," he said. "There can't be a more elitist statement than that."

Obama's opponents made the elitist charge after the senator from Illinois said some small-town Pennsylvanians are understandably "bitter" over the government's failure to reverse their economic decline and, in their frustration, "cling to guns and religion." He made the statement at a recent fundraiser in San Francisco, California. Watch how Obama is fighting the elitist label »

Obama defended his remarks but said he could have worded them better.

Clinton said his comments were "elitist, out of touch and frankly, patronizing."

McCain agreed that the remarks were "elitist."

Branding a rival elitist is not new in politics. Republicans for years have successfully labeled Democratic presidential candidates as the liberal elite. Portraying their rivals as latte-sipping, sushi-eating insiders, Republicans have connected with some voters by arguing that they understand the values important to the everyday person.

"It's a little like when politicians charge politicians with being politicians. It has the same feel to it: that if it sticks, it's because a candidate hasn't handled it well," Westen said.

Republicans painted George W. Bush's Democratic opponents Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 as elitists who were detached from average Americans, and the strategy worked.

How damaging the blow is, Westen said, depends on the target's response.

"The mistake that Kerry and Gore both made was to let that brand stick to them," he said.

"The only question is whether Obama fights it back and offers a different brand for himself than the brand that is starting to be given to him."

By definition, all the candidates exhibit the aura of elitism, because it's difficult to get a presidential campaign started without some degree of personal wealth.

It's ironic, Westen said, that of the three standing, the only one who isn't demonstrably wealthy is Obama.

Since leaving the White House, the Clintons have earned more than $109 million from book sales, speaking engagements, the presidential pension and her Senate salary, among other sources.

McCain, whose father and grandfather were Navy admirals, married into wealth. His second wife, Cindy, has a stake in her father's multimillion-dollar beer distributor company. The Associated Press estimated her worth at more than $100 million.

Whatever their current financial status, the candidates all like to convey the impression that they are not much different than the people they are trying to persuade to vote for them.

Obama, 46, who graduated from Columbia University and received a law degree from Harvard, often mentions growing up in a single-parent home. He says he and his wife just paid off their school loans in the past five or six years.

"I wasn't born into a lot of money. I didn't have a trust fund. I wasn't born into fame and fortune. I was raised by a single mother with the help of my grandparents," he said. "My mother had to use food stamps at one point."

Clinton, who has been reaching out to blue-collar voters with stories of how she learned to shoot a gun in Pennsylvania and photo ops hoisting a shot and a beer, often talks about her middle-class upbringing.

Clinton, 60, went to Wellesley College before attending law school at Yale. After graduation, she advocated for women and children's rights and became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.

She later became a partner in a law firm and was twice listed as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country.

The senator from New York frequently touts her 35 years of public service, including eight as first lady.

McCain spent a week traveling around on a "get-to-know-me" tour. He talked about how he was a rambunctious child with a chip on his shoulder.

McCain, 71, went to the United States Naval Academy and frequently jokes about finishing at the bottom of his class.

After graduation, he spent 22 years as a naval pilot. He was shot down on a bombing mission and spent five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. He retired from the Navy in 1981 and, living in Arizona, became a member of the House the next year. He was elected to the Senate in 1986 and is serving his fourth term.

Dr. James Twitchell, an author, University of Florida English professor and commentator on American culture, said the whole elitism back-and-forth is "self-serving nonsense," pointing specifically to the similarities in the Democratic contenders' stories.

"Both senators are members of one of the more elite clubs [the Senate], attended the elite schools [Harvard, Yale] and are out for one of the most elite jobs," he said.

As the candidates get closer to the White House, they get farther away from "normal life."

They fight to show they still share the average American's values, visiting bowling alleys, diners and schools along the way.

"I do think it speaks to one of the conflicts that Americans have about their leaders, which is we want them to be like us, and we want them to be above us at the same time," Westen said.

"The issue comes down to two things. One is, do you let your opponent brand you as elite, in which case you are in a lot of trouble in American politics? And the second is, do you convey clearly to people that you understand them and the world they live in and the problems they face?" he said.

 

[adonis]

Just donated to his campaign again, and I encourage other supporters to do the same as his campaign gears up to compete in next weeks primary. Even a small donation helps.

Click her to donate (not rickroll )

 

[Spiderman]

Obama didn't fair very well. McCain is in better shape each and every day. Go Hillary!!! The longer she stays, the more severe this punching match is.

What about Obama stammering to himself when it was pointed out that cutting the Capital Gains tax has led to increased Federal Revenue in the past and raising it has led to less, only to have Obama explain his desire to raise Capital Gains as "economically fair"? Basically wealth redistribution in a Socialist/Marxist way.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Obama didn't fair very well.

Fare.He was fine.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Obama didn't fair very well.

Fare.He was fine.

Yeah he did just fine with the economic/taxation questions last night.

 

[adonis]

What about Obama stammering to himself when it was pointed out that cutting the Capital Gains tax has led to increased Federal Revenue in the past and raising it has led to less, only to have Obama explain his desire to raise Capital Gains as "economically fair"? Basically wealth redistribution in a Socialist/Marxist way.

Oh get over the whole socialist tripe.Surely you don't support taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich do you? If you don't, then effectively you're arguing that taxation should be "economically fair". Maybe you differ on what rates to tax different tax brackets in, but just because Obama likely favors higher taxes for a certain group doesn't make him a socialist or a marxist.

 

[malice]

Obama didn't fair very well. McCain is in better shape each and every day. Go Hillary!!! The longer she stays, the more severe this punching match is.What about Obama stammering to himself when it was pointed out that cutting the Capital Gains tax has led to increased Federal Revenue in the past and raising it has led to less, only to have Obama explain his desire to raise Capital Gains as "economically fair"? Basically wealth redistribution in a Socialist/Marxist way.

We want Hillary to go too...so really, we're on the same side.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Obama didn't fair very well.

Fare.He was fine.

Not really.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

What about Obama stammering to himself when it was pointed out that cutting the Capital Gains tax has led to increased Federal Revenue in the past and raising it has led to less, only to have Obama explain his desire to raise Capital Gains as "economically fair"? Basically wealth redistribution in a Socialist/Marxist way.

Oh get over the whole socialist tripe.Surely you don't support taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich do you? If you don't, then effectively you're arguing that taxation should be "economically fair". Maybe you differ on what rates to tax different tax brackets in, but just because Obama likely favors higher taxes for a certain group doesn't make him a socialist or a marxist.

That was the main point of Spiders response and he was dead on.

 

[flufhed]

One reason Clinton is struggling in Indiana and North Carolina is that a mainstay of her coalition in earlier contests -- women -- have been defecting. In Indiana, the poll found women split their vote, 35% for each candidate. In North Carolina, they favored Obama, 43% to 36%.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why places like NC and VA are so different than everywhere else. My mom and dad live in the RDU area and my mom says that she and all her friends are voting for Obama. Keep in mind these are a bunch of 60ish women who presumably are Hillary's target audience. Heck, they even went to see Bill about two weeks ago (I never would have thought he's be talking to 300 people at the (Cary senior center, but he did) and it still didn't sway them.

The enlightened confederancy oVVns the racist northeast and west.

 

[flufhed]

Because bankruptcy is all about fairness.

Actually, it kind of is.Not that I agree in the context he put it, but, as a former bankruptcy attorney, the bankruptcy code is (at least it WAS) fairness driven. Fairness to debtors and creditors.Hope this helps.

 

[Chachi]

Anyone think Obama got totally owned last night? He got drilled time and time again, came off somewhat whiney and came off rattled. Some of his answers really sucked to be honest. With that said F John McCain.

 

[adonis]

Anyone think Obama got totally owned last night? He got drilled time and time again, came off somewhat whiney and came off rattled. Some of his answers really sucked to be honest. With that said F John McCain.

I think he did poorly at a debate that was geared very heavily towards giving him tough questions. Still, in the fact of tough questions, he could've done better. Hillary shined, Obama took quite a few hits, but none of them were on meaningful issues, most were just ridiculous things brought up for sensationalist value, and his reply that the campaigns are getting bogged down on unimportant issues was dead on. Even as Hillary won the debate, she showed herself as someone who was willing to do whatever it takes, sinking Obama, bashing him, tearing him down, in order to get the nomination. So while it earns her points in a debate, it doesn't do much for her with superdelegates or with the voters, I think.

 

[Chachi]

Anyone think Obama got totally owned last night? He got drilled time and time again, came off somewhat whiney and came off rattled. Some of his answers really sucked to be honest. With that said F John McCain.

I think he did poorly at a debate that was geared very heavily towards giving him tough questions. Still, in the fact of tough questions, he could've done better. Hillary shined, Obama took quite a few hits, but none of them were on meaningful issues, most were just ridiculous things brought up for sensationalist value, and his reply that the campaigns are getting bogged down on unimportant issues was dead on. Even as Hillary won the debate, she showed herself as someone who was willing to do whatever it takes, sinking Obama, bashing him, tearing him down, in order to get the nomination. So while it earns her points in a debate, it doesn't do much for her with superdelegates or with the voters, I think.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said. The sad part about it is that it's just a mini-preview of the crap the Republicans are going to bring up, Barack needs to get his swagger back before getting drilled in the general by the sensationalist crap the right is gonna throw at him.

 

[ericttspikes]

Anyone think Obama got totally owned last night? He got drilled time and time again, came off somewhat whiney and came off rattled. Some of his answers really sucked to be honest. With that said F John McCain.

I think he did poorly at a debate that was geared very heavily towards giving him tough questions. Still, in the fact of tough questions, he could've done better. Hillary shined, Obama took quite a few hits, but none of them were on meaningful issues, most were just ridiculous things brought up for sensationalist value, and his reply that the campaigns are getting bogged down on unimportant issues was dead on. Even as Hillary won the debate, she showed herself as someone who was willing to do whatever it takes, sinking Obama, bashing him, tearing him down, in order to get the nomination. So while it earns her points in a debate, it doesn't do much for her with superdelegates or with the voters, I think.

I guess I saw a different debate. Obama walked away correctly framing this about the past vs. the future. If I drank a shot everytime Hillary said "the 90's" I would still be in bed. The Ayers stuff was bush league, and his response about "should I disassociate myself with Tom Coburn because I don't believe in things he stands for" was right on, as was the comment about why should he be held accountable for something done by someone else when he was 8. Also throwing in the Clinton pardon of 2 CONVICTED Weather Underground members stung. The lady asking about him wearing a flag pin sadly validated his small town talk. Let's see, crumbling economy, $4 gas, Iraq occupation, unemployment and this lady wants to know about a lapel pin?Hillary wallowed in the mud and it didn't look good to me. She looked and acted desperate. Not sure where she "hit a home run". She went on and on about the Bosnia thing, digging deeper and deeper as she went. It was painful. I also thought her policy was weak. The security umbrella concept is naive and she didn't have an answer for the tax question, only railed on Obama's cap proposal to end up saying she had no idea of her own, but would have a committee figure it out. Fuzzy math there.Her closing remark that was supposed to be directed to super delegates was a standard stump speech while Obama highlighted the success of his campaign at building a coalition of energized voters, many of which are new to the political process. The absolute train wreck of a campaign that Hillary has run speaks volumes of her competence to run this country. He should continue to highlight that fact.

 

[Spiderman]

What about Obama stammering to himself when it was pointed out that cutting the Capital Gains tax has led to increased Federal Revenue in the past and raising it has led to less, only to have Obama explain his desire to raise Capital Gains as "economically fair"? Basically wealth redistribution in a Socialist/Marxist way.

Oh get over the whole socialist tripe.Surely you don't support taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich do you? If you don't, then effectively you're arguing that taxation should be "economically fair". Maybe you differ on what rates to tax different tax brackets in, but just because Obama likely favors higher taxes for a certain group doesn't make him a socialist or a marxist.

I think everyone should fit into two tax brackets. 15% and 25%. Period. A flat tax instead of a fair tax. Obama raising taxes when historically that results in less revenue, just because it gives the appearance of wealth redistribution to his constituents, is Marxism. He didn't have a response when confronted with the fact that raising Capital Gains has historically led to lower revenue streams on how that makes sense. That is the difference.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Anyone think Obama got totally owned last night? He got drilled time and time again, came off somewhat whiney and came off rattled. Some of his answers really sucked to be honest. With that said F John McCain.

I think he did poorly at a debate that was geared very heavily towards giving him tough questions. Still, in the fact of tough questions, he could've done better. Hillary shined, Obama took quite a few hits, but none of them were on meaningful issues, most were just ridiculous things brought up for sensationalist value, and his reply that the campaigns are getting bogged down on unimportant issues was dead on. Even as Hillary won the debate, she showed herself as someone who was willing to do whatever it takes, sinking Obama, bashing him, tearing him down, in order to get the nomination. So while it earns her points in a debate, it doesn't do much for her with superdelegates or with the voters, I think.

I guess I saw a different debate. Obama walked away correctly framing this about the past vs. the future. If I drank a shot everytime Hillary said "the 90's" I would still be in bed. The Ayers stuff was bush league, and his response about "should I disassociate myself with Tom Coburn because I don't believe in things he stands for" was right on, as was the comment about why should he be held accountable for something done by someone else when he was 8. Also throwing in the Clinton pardon of 2 CONVICTED Weather Underground members stung. The lady asking about him wearing a flag pin sadly validated his small town talk. Let's see, crumbling economy, $4 gas, Iraq occupation, unemployment and this lady wants to know about a lapel pin?Hillary wallowed in the mud and it didn't look good to me. She looked and acted desperate. Not sure where she "hit a home run". She went on and on about the Bosnia thing, digging deeper and deeper as she went. It was painful. I also thought her policy was weak. The security umbrella concept is naive and she didn't have an answer for the tax question, only railed on Obama's cap proposal to end up saying she had no idea of her own, but would have a committee figure it out. Fuzzy math there.Her closing remark that was supposed to be directed to super delegates was a standard stump speech while Obama highlighted the success of his campaign at building a coalition of energized voters, many of which are new to the political process. The absolute train wreck of a campaign that Hillary has run speaks volumes of her competence to run this country. He should continue to highlight that fact.

I agree with this guy.Dead on.

 

[adonis]

What about Obama stammering to himself when it was pointed out that cutting the Capital Gains tax has led to increased Federal Revenue in the past and raising it has led to less, only to have Obama explain his desire to raise Capital Gains as "economically fair"? Basically wealth redistribution in a Socialist/Marxist way.

Oh get over the whole socialist tripe.Surely you don't support taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich do you? If you don't, then effectively you're arguing that taxation should be "economically fair". Maybe you differ on what rates to tax different tax brackets in, but just because Obama likely favors higher taxes for a certain group doesn't make him a socialist or a marxist.

I think everyone should fit into two tax brackets. 15% and 25%. Period. A flat tax instead of a fair tax. Obama raising taxes when historically that results in less revenue, just because it gives the appearance of wealth redistribution to his constituents, is Marxism. He didn't have a response when confronted with the fact that raising Capital Gains has historically led to lower revenue streams on how that makes sense. That is the difference.

So you believe that one person making $1 less than another person should be taxed 10% more than the other person? Really? You consider that a fair taxing system?Your persistence in calling tax increases on the rich "marxist" or "Socialist" is ridiculous.There's something called fair taxation. Trying to work out a system where the poor people don't pay a bigger percentage of their income than rich people is not socialism.Your point about the Capital Gains tax is kinda ridiculous. He can't go into details during the debate, and he seems to be the only one being honest about the situation the next president will face, and the challenges with SS, and that the only way to really do anything about it is to raise taxes. Clinton dodges, and McCain wants to keep cutting taxes. Neither clinton's nor mccain's plans will strengthen social security, or reduce our deficit.