NationStates Jolt Archive

From BarackObama.com (http://www.barackobama.com/):

http://www.barackobama.com/images/accomplishments.gif

More info from the Washington Post (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/04/04/obama_raises_25m_for_president.php):

Obama Raises $25M for Presidential Campaign
Washington Post | April 04, 2007

By Ann Kornblut

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) raised at least $25 million for his presidential campaign in the first quarter of the year, putting him just shy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, who made a splash with her announcement Sunday that she had drawn a record-breaking $26 million.

Obama appears to have surpassed Clinton in several ways: He reported donations from 100,000 people, double the 50,000 people who gave to the New York senator's campaign. He raised $6.9 million through donations over the Internet, more than the $4.2 million that Clinton raised online.

And of Obama's overall receipts, $23.5 million is eligible for use in the primary contests. Clinton officials have declined to disclose how much of her cash is available for the primaries -- rather than designated for the general election and therefore blocked off unless she wins the nomination -- raising suspicions that she raised less for the primaries than Obama did.

"I'm proud to tell you that, after the first quarter of the campaign, we've exceeded all of our hopes and expectations," Obama said in an e-mail sent to supporters today. "It's been a truly historic response -- a measure of just how hungry people are to turn the page on this era of small and destructive politics and repair our American community."

Obama drew attention to the raw number of donors, pointing out that it was "tens of thousands more than the number reported by any other campaign." The e-mail included a link to a video presentation on his Web site featuring anecdotes from donors, and emphasizing the momentum he has gained since launching his candidacy in January.

After letting curiosity about the announcement build for several days, Obama disclosed his figures in a brief press release, and did not authorize his campaign fundraising officials to grant interviews. He had avoided questions from reporters leading up to the announcement, apparently in the hope of appearing low-key about fundraising -- he has promised to run a "different kind of campaign" -- and to let the numbers speak for themselves.

Campaigning in New Hampshire yesterday, Obama even expressed distaste for the money grab, a popular stance to take, especially among the state's Independents. Challenged by a voter to explain whether he would be beholden to his donors, Obama said he had "always tried to curb the influence of money in politics," starting with an ethics bill in the Illinois legislature. He added, however, that he could not compete for president without joining the fundraising game.

"The people who are doing work in Washington cannot finance my campaign," Obama said, saying he had banned gifts from federal lobbyists. "Listen, I would love not to have to raise money so I could spend all my time in town hall meetings."

Although Obama has essentially built his campaign operation from scratch over the last few months, advisers to rival candidates point out that he has hired skilled fundraising veterans, such as his national finance director Julianna Smoot, not just relying on an organic, grassroots movement to take shape around him.

Still, the data suggested that Obama's strategy of holding low-dollar events in addition to massive $1 million galas had succeeded, at least for now. He held numerous events that cost $25 or $100 per ticket, in an effort to bring in younger, first-time donors who could be tapped again for future donations because they had not yet reached the $2,300 limit for contributing to the primaries. (Donors can give another $2,300 to each candidate for use in the general election).

"This overwhelming response, in only a few short weeks, shows the hunger for a different kind of politics in this country and a belief at the grassroots level that Barack Obama can bring out the best in America to solve our problems," Obama's finance chair, Penny Pritzker, said in a statement today.Clinton, with the help of her high-wattage husband, former President Bill Clinton, raised about $10 million in large events at the end of the quarter. Neither Clinton nor Obama has specified how much cash they will have on hand, after accounting for expenses, when the full financial reports are turned into the Federal Election Commission on April 15.

Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) raised about $15 million in the first quarter, double his total from four years earlier. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) raised $6 million; Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) raised $4 million; and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) raised more than $2 million.

The suddenly tight financial race once again raised questions about Clinton's decision to spend $37 million for her re-election campaign to the Senate last year -- money that could have been transferred into her presidential account. Instead, Clinton moved only $10 million. Her huge expenditure in 2006 -- more than $8 million of it on advertising -- brought her a 67 percent victory in New York against a Republican who barely registered in the polls.

Hillary better watch her back...

Her back? She better watch her front. Those 100K donors are incredible numbers, and his average donation is half hers, which means he's got more people he can hit up again.

He'd get my vote, if I was a year older. I'll be a bit over 17 and a half at election time.

Hillary isn't getting my Half Life from me, ever!

I don't think a two-faced bitch like Hillary can win, no matter how much money she can spend on mud slinging (races inevitably end up this way) and propaganda ads.

I don't think a two-faced bitch like Hillary can win, no matter how much money she can spend on mud slinging and propaganda ads.

If she can get through the primary, she can win, given the current makeup of the Republican race and the current political climate. Some might make it closer than others, but she can beat any of them, especially of Iraq keeps going down and the economy takes a hit from the mortgage bubble popping.

It's getting through the primary that will be her major hurdle, and I don't see her doing that. This time in 2003, Lieberman was the money and the poll leader, and the best he did in the primaries was "a virtual three-way tie for third."

If she can get through the primary, she can win, given the current makeup of the Republican race and the current political climate. Some might make it closer than others, but she can beat any of them, especially of Iraq keeps going down and the economy takes a hit from the mortgage bubble popping.

It's getting through the primary that will be her major hurdle, and I don't see her doing that. This time in 2003, Lieberman was the money and the poll leader, and the best he did in the primaries was "a virtual three-way tie for third."
I suppose I was basing my statement around the assumption that Americans would look up her past...silly me.

Oh, and plus Obama makes smoking look cool again. Seriously though, if charisma and shit wins elections these days, Obama's got this in the bag.

I suppose I was basing my statement around the assumption that Americans would look up her past...silly me.

Her history is no more sordid than that of anyone on the Republican side.

I'm so glad that Obama is such an expert at pandering. :)

Obama is my candidate (although, I'm rather restricted in the ability to donate to him, since I don't have a credit card or a checking account). I'm glad to see that the net is abuzz with exitement about him, rather than abuzz with unfair, and very establishment spin by Kos, for once.

Her history is no more sordid than that of anyone on the Republican side.
I know, but if people knew about her past (not personal life) they would not vote for her.

She likes to flip around on her views (whatever is popular) and she looked at hundreds of sensitive FBI background files while her husband was president.

I'm so glad that Obama is such an expert at pandering. :)
And who, pray tell, would he be pandering to? People who want a more honest government? People who want leaders who are accountable to their mistakes? People who'd like a leader that understands and respects the Constitution?

And who, pray tell, would he be pandering to? People who want a more honest government? People who want leaders who are accountable to their mistakes? People who'd like a leader that understands and respects the Constitution?

To people with money who want a say in Government.

Like all politicians.

To people with money who want a say in Government.

Like all politicians.
He doesn't take donations from lobbyists, he made that very clear.

Like Hillary he gets teh Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase money. (And Mayer, Brown).

Poor Dennis Kucinich doesn't get any. :(

Lac, can you show proof that Obama for America took money from Goldman Sacks? He says he's taking no money from PACs or Lobbyists.

To people with money who want a say in Government.

Like all politicians.

Given the stringent nature of campaign finance, the wealthy do not have the power they once did.

Lac, can you show proof that Obama for America took money from Goldman Sacks? He says he's taking no money from PACs or Lobbyists.

He's a politician. No one should trust any politician farther than you can throw them.

He doesn't take donations from lobbyists, he made that very clear.

He's a man of the people. List of Banks and their Lawyers (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00009638&cycle=2006).

He's a politician. No one should trust any politician farther than you can throw them.

That's why I'm stumping for Dennis. He's small.

He's a politician. No one should trust any politician farther than you can throw them.

Ah. So you have no evidence? That's what I thought.

He's a politician. No one should trust any politician farther than you can throw them.
So say something without any proof?

Ah. So you have no evidence? That's what I thought.

Sorry, I just don't consider Obama any different than the other scumbags that have run in the past 50 years.

He's a man of the people. List of Banks and their Lawyers (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00009638&cycle=2006).

Senate campaign information. He's commited to running a different campaign this time.

To people with money who want a say in Government.

Like all politicians.

Nice use of ellipsis in your sig. ;)

Nice use of ellipsis in your sig. ;)

Sorry, Nazz, it was too good to pass up. I'm sure you understand...:D

Sorry, I just don't consider Obama any different than the other scumbags that have run in the past 50 years.

If you're so insistent that every politician is a corrupt scumbag, why don't you try running for office yourself and show them how to do it properly? Or are you just an Emo who enjoys bickering about how everything in the world is so vile without offering solutions or doing something about it on your own?

:rolleyes:

Senate campaign information. He's commited to running a different campaign this time.

You realize he raised some of the money on that list last year, don't you? After he won his senate seat and was thinking of running for president?

I'll pay attention to this gimmick when he gives the banks their money back. Until then he's just another casey serin.

If you're so insistent that every politician is a corrupt scumbag, why don't you try running for office yourself and show them how to do it properly? Or are you just an Emo who enjoys bickering about how everything in the world is so vile without offering solutions or doing something about it on your own?

:rolleyes:
People who have a real desire to make the world a better place could never win. You have to be religious, and you have to appeal to everyones pocketbook.

If you're so insistent that every politician is a corrupt scumbag, why don't you try running for office yourself and show them how to do it properly? Or are you just an Emo who enjoys bickering about how everything in the world is so vile without offering solutions or doing something about it on your own?

:rolleyes:

Not everything in the world is vile. Just professional politicians.

Senate campaign information. He's commited to running a different campaign this time.
Not to mention that all those donations combined amount to ~$1.4 million, only 5% of the $25 million he's raised by now. A significant part of his money comes in small doses from individual donors.

You realize he raised some of the money on that list last year, don't you? After he won his senate seat and was thinking of running for president?

I'll pay attention to this gimmick when he gives the banks their money back. Until then he's just another casey serin.

He couldn't fund-raise for President when he had no campaign fund. He has not tranfered any funds from his Senate campaign to his Presidential campaign (unlike Hillary).

You realize he raised some of the money on that list last year, don't you? After he won his senate seat and was thinking of running for president?

I'll pay attention to this gimmick when he gives the banks their money back. Until then he's just another casey serin.

I don't think so. This $25 million is just first quarter fundraising, and isn't related to the money left over from his Senate campaign. He has that money, no question, and can transfer it just as Hillary can, but this is a different $25 million, I'm pretty sure.

Isn't it sad that candidates have to raise so much money just to gain the support of the citizens of the U.S.? Is this about money or choosing an appropriate political leader for our country?

I don't think so. This $25 million is just first quarter fundraising, and isn't related to the money left over from his Senate campaign. He has that money, no question, and can transfer it just as Hillary can, but this is a different $25 million, I'm pretty sure.

It's reported on the cycle I guess, so at this point what happened in the last two quarters of 2006 can't be figured out.

Regardless, it all a bit hairsplitting. And I'm not saying that lots of individuals didn't take part in his low cost fundraising effort (he finally got the Jerry Brown gimmick to work obviously). The point remains that he does have the usual suspects - the finance/insurance industry and their lawyers - muddy prints all over him.

I don't see why he should be particularly congratulated for his high level approach now, especially when their are other candidates that have never really taken their money. He's really just another wall street senator.

Corvetta;12512369']Isn't it sad that candidates have to raise so much money just to gain the support of the citizens of the U.S.? Is this about money or choosing an appropriate political leader for our country?

It's about money.

Why do they need so much money? How does it help their chances?

They wont even earn that much in the four years they are president..

Why do they need so much money? How does it help their chances?

They wont even earn that much in the four years they are president..

As one group has it, Early Money is Like Yeast. It grows.

Not to mention that all those donations combined amount to ~$1.4 million, only 5% of the $25 million he's raised by now. A significant part of his money comes in small doses from individual donors.
To clarify:

Obama received donations from more than 100,000 donors, far surpassing any other candidate, including Clinton (50,000), McCain (45,000), Edwards (40,000) or Romney (32,000)

$6.9 million of Obama's donations came from more than 50,000 donors via the Internet, far surpassing any of his rivals

90 percent of Obama's donations were small donations of $100 or less

From http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3007098&page=1

yay!

Obama's raised $25 million? Good for him - he'll need it when Fox News and the rest of the conservative echo chamber start using his name against him in earnest.

He's a politician. No one should trust any politician farther than you can throw them.

QFMFT.

And who, pray tell, would he be pandering to? People who want a more honest government? People who want leaders who are accountable to their mistakes? People who'd like a leader that understands and respects the Constitution?

People who like his cookie-cutter, non-offensive platform and are easily led by charm over substance.

He doesn't take donations from lobbyists, he made that very clear.

...

*Rubs eyes"

...


Really? Wow. I have so much respect for him. I thought it would be physically impossible for a politician to fund a decent Election campaign without Mega-bucks from MegaCorp and Oil Co.

Her back? She better watch her front. Those 100K donors are incredible numbers, and his average donation is half hers, which means he's got more people he can hit up again.

Do you have a preferred Democratic candidate yet?

Maybe our prayers to Democratic Jesus will be answered and hillary-the-hag won't be nominated.

People who like his cookie-cutter, non-offensive platform and are easily led by charm over substance.
As opposed to "Omg you SUCK! I like killing in stupid wars! Lolz!"?

Do you have a preferred Democratic candidate yet?

Not yet. Way too early.

I thought it would be physically impossible for a politician to fund a decent Election campaign without Mega-bucks from MegaCorp and Oil Co.
Like I said, 90% of his donations came from individual donors who gave under $100. The media might make it seem like he's sucking up to Hollywood for the big bucks, but when you get down to it he literally is being supported by the people.

Not yet. Way too early.

Meh, I'm backing Obama - Hillary is a stupid bitch, and I still haven't forgotten how she went off on video games. Edwards is good, but Obama is better - maybe if Edwards sucks up his pride he can VP to Obama and make a dream ticket for the democrats.

Like I said, 90% of his donations came from individual donors who gave under $100. The media might make it seem like he's sucking up to Hollywood for the big bucks, but when you get down to it he literally is being supported by the people.

That's part of why I like him.

Ignoring for a moment the slavish and unsettling polarisation of US politics, I am consistently amazed at the level of hero worship evident in supporters of Democrat and Republican Presidential hopefuls.

With the coming of every election of a new POTUS, each side seems to hold their preferred candidate up as a shining paragon of virtue, justice and the American way. “If only”, they vehemently tell us, “Candidate X was elected, all the [insert domestic or foreign political concern] would go away”.

In some sections of the US media and interweb communities, including a few threads here on NS:G, Obama is being treated as if he was the Second Coming. As if the election between Democrat and Republican was a battle between Good and Evil.

Bizarre.

Remember kids: they’re still all slimy rat-fuckers.

Ignoring for a moment the slavish and unsettling polarisation of US politics, I am consistently amazed at the level of hero worship evident in supporters of Democrat and Republican Presidential hopefuls.

With the coming of every election of a new POTUS, each side seems to hold their preferred candidate up as a shining paragon of virtue, justice and the American way. “If only”, they vehemently tell us, “Candidate X was elected, all the [insert domestic or foreign political concern] would go away”.

In some sections of the US media and interweb communities, including a few threads here on NS:G, Obama is being treated as if he was the Second Coming. As if the election between Democrat and Republican was a battle between Good and Evil.

Bizarre.

Remember kids: they’re still all slimy rat-fuckers.
This is what I love about Obama. Critics can try to pigeonhole him as just another sleazy politico, and yet are consistently unable to find anything he's done that would justify that.

I support Obama because he's ethical and honest. He admits to mistakes he's made, and works to correct them. He refuses support from the big-money special interest groups. He advocates bipartisanship rather than conflict. He was unequivocally against the war in Iraq since before it started. He is a Constitutional scholar. He worked for his community and for charity. Overall, he's a good person.

Care to point to anything, anything at all, that Obama has done that would justify calling him a "slimy rat-fucker"?

Ignoring for a moment the slavish and unsettling polarisation of US politics, I am consistently amazed at the level of hero worship evident in supporters of Democrat and Republican Presidential hopefuls.

With the coming of every election of a new POTUS, each side seems to hold their preferred candidate up as a shining paragon of virtue, justice and the American way. “If only”, they vehemently tell us, “Candidate X was elected, all the [insert domestic or foreign political concern] would go away”.

In some sections of the US media and interweb communities, including a few threads here on NS:G, Obama is being treated as if he was the Second Coming. As if the election between Democrat and Republican was a battle between Good and Evil.

Bizarre.

Remember kids: they’re still all slimy rat-fuckers.

Normally I have no hope for any candidate, left or right, in terms of moral highground, but (and I realize how stupid this sounds) Obama seems different.

If he gets elected and we later find out he's been raping 10 year olds in the back of a dirty van, then I'll concede that, yes, there are no good politicians.

This is what I love about Obama. Critics can try to pigeonhole him as just another sleazy politico, and yet are consistently unable to find anything he's done that would justify that.

I support Obama because he's ethical and honest. He admits to mistakes he's made, and works to correct them. He refuses support from the big-money special interest groups. He advocates bipartisanship rather than conflict. He was unequivocally against the war in Iraq since before it started. He is a Constitutional scholar. He worked for his community and for charity. Overall, he's a good person.

Care to point to anything, anything at all, that Obama has done that would justify calling him a "slimy rat-fucker"?

Exactly. If he is "The same", you'd think that he'd act the same.

Exactly. If he is "The same", you'd think that he'd act the same.

Meh, politicians can hide their secrets pretty well, but regardless I feel Obama is different even if I do suspect all politicians to be bastards.

Like I said, 90% of his donations came from individual donors who gave under $100. The media might make it seem like he's sucking up to Hollywood for the big bucks, but when you get down to it he literally is being supported by the people.

If 90% of his donations came from people who gave less than $100, and assuming the figure of 100,000 supporters on his website is correct, that means at least $17 million of the $26 million came from the top 10% of contributors.

Given that the maximum an individual can give to a candidate is capped at $2300 it rather implies that his claim of no PAC money is rather hollow, no?

And I never accused him of sucking up to Hollywood for big bucks. It quite obvious from his previous top contributors they don't give a shit about him, or he them.

I wish people would stop pretending he's something he's not. He's really no different to Clinton.

If 90% of his donations came from people who gave less than $100, and assuming the figure of 100,000 supporters on his website is correct, that means at least $17 million of the $26 million came from the top 10% of contributors.
That doesn't make sense. If the under-$100 crowd gave 90% of the money, then the high-rollers would make up only 10%. 10% of $25 million is $2.5 million, not $17 million.

Care to point to anything, anything at all, that Obama has done that would justify calling him a “slimy rat-fucker”?
He is a professional politician, a symptom of the unaccountable, unrepresentative, corrupt, illiberal, abhorrent nightmare that is ‘liberal democracy’. His very being, and that of his counterparts around the world, is an insult to the word ‘politics’.

Normally I have no hope for any candidate, left or right, in terms of moral highground, but (and I realize how stupid this sounds) Obama seems different.
How so? What, exactly, will he do that will be better than previous Presidents?


I’m coming from a standpoint totally opposed to so-called representative democracy, so finding some common ground for argument’s sake may be tricky... :p

Obama For The 2008 Dem Nomination!!!

I wish people would stop pretending he's something he's not. He's really no different to Clinton.

Never mind that Clinton got more money from half as many donors. I suppose that in Kucinich land, they're all not proper purists bending over to a small liberal elite.

Ugh.

He is a professional politician, a symptom of the unaccountable, unrepresentative, corrupt, illiberal, abhorrent nightmare that is ‘liberal democracy’. His very being, and that of his counterparts around the world, is an insult to the word ‘politics’.

Ah... A silly ideologue.


I’m coming from a standpoint totally opposed to so-called representative democracy, so finding some common ground for argument’s sake may be tricky... :p

So you prefer opression by an unopposed ruling class?

Ah... A silly ideologue.
No, someone who doesn’t regard ‘ideals’ as a dirty concept.

So you prefer opression by an unopposed ruling class?
Ah yes... I forgot there was only two options in politics–representative democracy and oligarchy. :rolleyes:

FYI, I support decentralised, semi-autonomous collective government that is truly representative, wholly accountable and made up of the active members of the community it serves. Not some sham of representative government accountable to the people once every four or five years, and made up of the cream of society.

That doesn't make sense. If the under-$100 crowd gave 90% of the money, then the high-rollers would make up only 10%. 10% of $25 million is $2.5 million, not $17 million.

If the under $100 crowd gave 90% of the money, he would need at least 200,000 supporters.

But the under $100 crowd is a pool of around 90,000, meaning that they can at most have given $9,000,000.

It makes perfect sense.

This is what I love about Obama. Critics can try to pigeonhole him as just another sleazy politico, and yet are consistently unable to find anything he's done that would justify that.

I support Obama because he's ethical and honest. He admits to mistakes he's made, and works to correct them. He refuses support from the big-money special interest groups. He advocates bipartisanship rather than conflict. He was unequivocally against the war in Iraq since before it started. He is a Constitutional scholar. He worked for his community and for charity. Overall, he's a good person.

Care to point to anything, anything at all, that Obama has done that would justify calling him a "slimy rat-fucker"?
He is a professional politician, a symptom of the unaccountable, unrepresentative, corrupt, illiberal, abhorrent nightmare that is ‘liberal democracy’. His very being, and that of his counterparts around the world, is an insult to the word ‘politics’.
Right. So you can't come up with anything against him beyond a vague hatred for small-d democratic politicians in general. Just as I thought.

Never mind that Clinton got more money from half as many donors. I suppose that in Kucinich land, they're all not proper purists bending over to a small liberal elite.

Ugh.

Clinton raised the same amount as Obama more or less. Anway, by his own admission 50,000 of his donor only contributed 6.9 million.

So he basically got $20 million vs Clinton's $26 from about the same sized donor pool. I don't see a striking difference to be honest.

I guess this can all be settled by April 15 when he has to release his actual funding report.

Right. So you can’t come up with anything against him beyond a vague hatred for small-d democratic politicians in general. Just as I thought.
As I referenced in my original post, I believe the professional politician is an outmoded, inherently corrupt institution, or to put it simply, slimy rat-fuckers. As Obama is one of this breed of oxygen-thieves, he too is a slimy rat-fucker.

My ‘vague hatred’ is far more than that; I truly believe that ‘representative democracy’, and those that perpetuate it, are a blight on human politics, having massive detrimental effect on every human beings life.

And, pray tell, why is Obama any different?

If the under $100 crowd gave 90% of the money, he would need at least 200,000 supporters.

But the under $100 crowd is a pool of around 90,000, meaning that they can at most have given $9,000,000.

It makes perfect sense.
Much of Obama's fundraising model is based on registered members collecting funds from friends, family, neighbors, etc. It's possible that the 100,000 figure refers to them, while the 90% figure refers to total reported donations.

As I referenced in my original post, I believe the professional politician is an outmoded, inherently corrupt institution, or to put it simply, slimy rat-fuckers. As Obama is one of this breed of oxygen-thieves, he too is a slimy rat-fucker.

My ‘vague hatred’ is far more than that; I truly believe that ‘representative democracy’, and those that perpetuate it, are a blight on human politics, having massive detrimental effect on every human beings life.

And, pray tell, why is Obama any different?
I already stated why I think Obama's different, listing several specific reasons. You, on the other hand, have offered nothing but grossly over-simplified generalizations, and have said nothing about Obama himself. Well, nothing but groundless, unjustified insults.

No, someone who doesn’t regard ‘ideals’ as a dirty concept.

Ideals aren't dirty. Unrealistic ones aren't even, they're just stupid.


Ah yes... I forgot there was only two options in politics–representative democracy and oligarchy. :rolleyes:

Yup.

FYI, I support decentralised, semi-autonomous collective government that is truly representative, wholly accountable and made up of the active members of the community it serves. Not some sham of representative government accountable to the people once every four or five years, and made up of the cream of society.

Ah. You want the failed government under the Articles of Confederation, do you?

I already stated why I think Obama’s different, listing several specific reasons. You, on the other hand, have offered nothing but grossly over-simplified generalizations, and have said nothing about Obama himself. Well, nothing but groundless, unjustified insults.
I see nothing you have put forward that demonstrates he is anything more than a variation on a particularly unpleasant theme. As to unjustified insults, does Mr. Obama support wholesale change of the Western liberal democratic system? Or is he merely, as I suspect, an image change for America; a (possible) President who will use slightly less force overseas, and give a nod towards environmentalism?

Ah. You want the failed government under the Articles of Confederation, do you?
Why would I want to follow an eighteenth century constitutional document of the US? I’m not a US citizen, and, surprisingly enough, not all government needs to originate from some US document.

Why would I want to follow an eighteenth century constitutional document of the US? I’m not a US citizen, and, surprisingly enough, not all government needs to originate from some US document.

I meant to imply that the model you suggested had been tried, and that it had failed miserably.

I meant to imply that the model you suggested had been tried, and that it had failed miserably.
I still think the Founding Fathers and I would have a few choice words to say to one another. Though I think I would get along very well with Tom Paine for the most part.

I already stated why I think Obama's different, listing several specific reasons.

You really do expect too much. The man is a politician, for crying out loud. Yes, politicians may make lots of grand promises, sometimes even with a straight face and absolute conviction, but once safely elected, they shit all over the people who elected them.

You really do expect too much. The man is a politician, for crying out loud. Yes, politicians may make lots of grand promises, sometimes even with a straight face and absolute conviction, but once safely elected, they shit all over the people who elected them.
Obama is still the safest vote. McCain has lost it. Hillary is all pro censor-everything-fun. Rudy is the same and is getting pwned in the mud-slinging wars so he's out. That leaves Romney and Obama. Which makes it really a race of Obama's ideals vs Obama's race.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/59/Cthulhu-elections.gif

Obama is still the safest vote. McCain has lost it. Hillary is all pro censor-everything-fun. Rudy is the same and is getting pwned in the mud-slinging wars so he’s out. That leaves Romney and Obama. Which makes it really a race of Obama’s ideals vs Obama’s race.
“Obama 2008: The Best of the Worst.”

Lawlzy!

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/59/Cthulhu-elections.gif

w00t!

So far the only people whining that Obama's more of the same old crap are a bunch of Emos who have neither the ability nor the inclination to propose a better alternative and/or put it into action.

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a917/a917_bm.gif

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a902/a902_bm.gif

So far the only people whining that Obama's more of the same old crap are a bunch of Emos who have neither the ability nor the inclination to propose a better alternative and/or put it into action.

Don't get me wrong, I would certainly vote for Obama if I could, and would LIKE to believe that he is different. Very much so. I just remember that he is in fact, a politician.

“Obama 2008: The Best of the Worst.”

Lawlzy!

Isn't that what most elections come down to? Choosing the least bad option?

So far the only people whining that Obama's more of the same old crap are a bunch of Emos who have neither the ability nor the inclination to propose a better alternative and/or put it into action.

Why bother? "Better alternatives" would never win.

Why bother? "Better alternatives" would never win.

Bitch and whine about the problem, then bitch and whine that solutions would never work.

In other words, Emos.

Isn't that what most elections come down to? Choosing the least bad option?
Exactly.
When has that ever NOT been the norm?

Bitch and whine about the problem, then bitch and whine that solutions would never work.

Of course they wouldn't work, when the system is rigged so that, with very rare exceptions, only Republicans and Democrats are allowed to win.

Exactly.
When has that ever NOT been the norm?

But sometimes, on very rare occasions, the least bad option is also a somewhat good option. The best elections are those where there's a clear choice--those are rare as well.

But sometimes, on very rare occasions, the least bad option is also a somewhat good option. The best elections are those where there's a clear choice--those are rare as well.

Yes, we all fondly recall Jefferson beating Adams.

Yes, we all fondly recall Jefferson beating Adams.

I was thinking more like Bush-Dukakis or Bush-Clinton-Perot. There were real choices in those races. And then you also get real choices in local races at times. True, in House races they may be more along the lines of incumbent-crazy local in search of attention, but they're real choices all the same. :D

Yes, we all fondly recall Jefferson beating Adams.

Yeah... Definitely. A hypocrite, who also happened to cause a major depression, and set us up for a major war in which we got our asses handed to us, and was a nepotist.

Definitely a good choice. Ugh.

I was thinking more like Bush-Dukakis or Bush-Clinton-Perot. There were real choices in those races. And then you also get real choices in local races at times. True, in House races they may be more along the lines of incumbent-crazy local in search of attention, but they're real choices all the same. :D

I remember reading something along the lines of choosing between candidates is like choosing between Tide with extra bleaching power and Downy with ultra softness. They are both laundry detergents, and they are both made by proctor and gamble, but that is not to say there is no choice. There is still a very real choice: one has extra bleaching power and the other has ultra softness.

I keep telling you, I can't pinpoint why I believe Obama's different, he just seems better than what we've had to deal with for a while, and is certainly the best choice among the current candidates.

From BarackObama.com (http://www.barackobama.com/):

http://www.barackobama.com/images/accomplishments.gif

More info from the Washington Post (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/04/04/obama_raises_25m_for_president.php):

Hillary better watch her back...

That guy's on fire!