<<You are a funny guy.
<<The centerpiece of his change mantra revolves around how Washington does business, and that
includes campaign finance. He wants to extend public financing to senate and house races. Take pacs and special interests out of the equation.>>
Well, I guess the problem with vague promises and coded messages is that they mean different things to different people. I can't tell you how Obama's other supporters read his message of change, but I can tell you how I responded to it, and I would bet that a lot of other folks who did respond did so pretty much in the same frame of mind as mine.
First of all, when I heard "change," the method of financing campaigns did not spring first to mind. "Change" meant first and foremost a drastic reduction in the
influence of the special interests that were directing the government: the rich, the military-industrial complex and the Zionists, not necessarily in that order. Obviously with some overlap, since the means of control was money. It seemed to me that Obama had perfected a way of getting lots of little donations from average citizens and that campaign finanance reform would restrain the very rich from unduly influencing election outcomes or legislative and/or executive action.
The major effects of such change would be felt as follows: a "special relationship" with Israel would no longer be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy; the special interests of the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries would no longer drive U.S. health-care policy; and massive reductions in the military budget would partially counterbalance the necessary expenditures required to provide restitution to the living victims or heirs of American genocide, slavery and racism, further funding for which would come from radical amendments to the existing tax structure, forcing the rich to hand back significant portions of their ill-gotten gains.
I believe that Obama has made significant strides towards equalizing the influence, through campaign contributions, of the average citizens so that candidates across the board are less beholden than previously to fat-cat special interest donors, and he accomplished that largely through innovative internet fund-raising techniques. This is a life-and-death struggle with the forces of pure evil, and if Obama - - in order to leverage himself into the White House against all the natural advantages of wealth, power, racism and criminality at the disposition of the GOP - - needs to take advantage of whatever assistance the system provides to him, he should do so, and be guided only by the principle that his campaign must maximize all opportunities to raise campaign money.
So except for clearly illegal fund-raising techniques like bank robbery, there is no fund-raising method adopted by Obama that I would criticize on any grounds other than efficiency.
<<But when his moment of truth came he did the exact opposite of not only what he pledged , but also went against the core of his campaign.>>
That's only how you want to spin it, by misinterpreting the core of the campaign.
<<Your guy is a hypocritical opportunist who has no core, no soul, no center.>>
It's possible he may turn out to be exactly that, but it hasn't been demonstrated so far, and we back him because we KNOW that McCain is everything you say Obama is, plus a lying weasel who betrayed his own marriage vows, lied to his wife, cheated on her and divorced her. And when the truth comes out, lied about his "torture" as well. Betrayed his oath of office by putting the special interests of Charles Keating above the interests of his own consitutuents and took bribes and special favours from him too.
<<Look at what they do.
<<Palin stopped the bridge to nowhere.>>
A pathetic half-truth. The WHOLE truth is, she promoted it, took the money for it, and went public against it ONLY after it had become a national scandal.
<<Your guy takes fatcat money.>>
What's Charles Keating, a benefactor of humanity? He was a fatter cat than Tony Rezko will ever be.
<<Who is the liar? That would be your guy. >>
No it wouldn't, it would be the guy who lied to, cheated on and walked out on his own wife, the mother of his own daughter. It would be the guy who claims to have been tortured, without any supporting witness, whose own jailer denies the charges. The guy who claims that Palin "fought against earmarks" when he knows God-damn well that she even hired a PR guy to get more of them for Wasilla, and later for the State of Alaska, the highest per-capita recipient in the entire nation. THAT is who the liar is.
