Barack Obama is not a corporate candidate

Ethics reform in Illinois. Ethics reform in DC. Transparency in budgeting and grants with usaspending.gov. Proposal to put all budgets online before they're voted on. Open meetings on CSpan. Does Not take money from PACS or lobbyists.

Reality.

Who is the populist candidate, cares for the poor?

Record. Make whatever choice you want, but base it on facts.

All corporations are evil, and Barack Obama is in the back pocket of Wal-Mart and Halliburton. :silly:

not to mention the fact that he personally organized people in poor neighborhoods to work together for their own interests. I know people say his theme of unity is about compromising with Republicans but I think it relates more to his days as a community organizer when he learned that the only way to defeat powerful corporate interests is for the people to work together in solidarity.

"The people united will never be defeated!"

In percentage of total campaign donations.

I invite Edwards supporters to take a look.

I saw a breakdown here on DU a couple weeks ago.

I'll take a look.

With the search function down due to traffic, it might take a bit.

Stem cells? Right to universal health care? Job skills training?

Wouldn't corporations benefit from stem cell research too? They certainly would benefit from universal health care - maybe not insurance companies, but manufacturing or really any companies that compete with European companies. And wouldn't any corporation prefer that its potential hires be skilled? I could go on, but I think these examples are enough to start with...

:shrug:

Maybe you should read the post over again.

And if you're going to try to say supporting stem cell research is corporatist, well, :crazy:

Obama seemingly voted for the bill -- which opponents Clinton, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd voted against -- to support energy industry players in Illinois. Following passage of the bill, his office put out a press release with the headline "Obama Says Energy Bill Helps Illinois by Doubling Ethanol Use, Investing in Clean Coal." According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama's 2004 Senate campaign received significant funding from the energy industry -- $178,200. Illinois has huge coal reserves and produces corn, which is used to create ethanol.

As I've mentioned before, Obama's campaign funding has proved problematic. In fact, his presidential campaign has received substantial funding from a variety of energy companies, chief among them Exelon (EXC), which has donated close to $190,000 for his campaign already. Other energy firms donating funds include Exxon Mobil, Chevron (CVX ), Forest Oil (FST), Sempra Energy (SRE), and Reliant Energy (RRI).

Obama's campaign didn't respond to email requests for clarification on his vote for the 2005 energy bill.

Clearly, the U.S. does require leadership to ensure that America becomes the global leader on developing an alternative energy industry. But it isn't clear that Obama is far enough removed from big oil interests.

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketfeatures/10383371_3.html

As long as there is demand for oil and ethanol is still expensive and counterproductive...

All you get to do is nibble at the edges. Overall, his energy proposals are as good as anyone's. Some people support nuclear, I don't. Others attack clean coal research, I support it. Neither view indicates anyone is bought by corporations.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/energy/

He is more conservative than Hillary, less likely to not back off in the face of Corporate/GOP opposition, covering that fact with his small step/bipartisan mantra.

If he is the nominee -I'll vote for him - and pray that he doesn't have time to "fix" Social Security.

He's the one who has passed the legislation to fight the corporations. He has never said anything about small steps or timid bipartisanship, that has been completely manufactured by other campaigns. He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to fix social security, thank god, they took the money the Clintons took from me. And I would hope we have pilot plants to test new technologies, what other way is there.

"who has passed the legislation to fight the corporations" = WHAT INDUSTRY - WHAT LEGISLATION - WHAT AREA OF CORPORATE CONTROL WAS REDUCED


"He has never said anything about small steps or timid bipartisanship"

TRUE AS NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT "TIMID" - BUT AFRAID HIS "INTRODUCTION INTERVIEWS" INCLUDED HIS "SMALL STEPS... - THAT IS JUST WHO i AM ...and PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT" comments. IT IS TRUE THAT HE DID NOT TIE "BIPARTISAN" TO HIS SMALL STEPS COMMENT - BUT FOLKS LIKE MYSELF LOOKED AT THE TWO BILLS HE REFERENCED AS HIS "NEW WAY OF POLITICS" - AND THEY WERE A SMALL 20 M BUDGEY INCREASE TIED TO A TAX BREAK FOR CORPORATIONS, AND A NOTHING AMENDMENT THAT ASKED STATE TO DO A STUDY ON REDUCING NUKES AROUND THE WORLD - BOTH CO-SPONSORED WITH A GOP SENATOR.


"He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to fix social security"

ACTUALLY I SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE WAGE CAP - BUT FOLLOWED BY A REDUCTION IN THE PAYROLL TAX AS THERE IS NOTHING TO FIX IN THE FINANCING OF SOCIAL SECURITY - - BUT I HAVE NO REAL PROBLEM WITH JUST A CAP REMOVAL

"they took the money the Clintons took from me"

SAY WHAT - THERE IS NO MONEY THAT THE CLINTONS TOOK FROM YOU RE SOCIAL SECURITY - REAGAN MADE BENEFITS TAXABLE ABOVE A GIVEN LEVEL OF TOTAL INCOME AND CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT WHEN THAT LEVEL WAS SLIGHTLY REDUCED - IS THAT THE CLINTON TAX ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS THAT YOU BLAME ON CLINTON - IF SO OBAMA PLANS NO CHANGE.

"ld hope we have pilot plants to test new technologies, what other way is there."

RESEARCH DOES NOT REQUIRE PILOT PLANTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FULL PRODUCTION PLANTS.

He removed the ability of politicians to keep contributions in Illinois. Ethics reform in DC ended corporate sponsored junkets.

The Clinton budget surplus was based on FICA taxes that came from working people and since Bill Clinton didn't tell the truth of it, the people happily let Bush give them away to the rich.

If nonproliferation is nothing to you, or if you're dismissing it because it was done with a Republicans, then you've got problems I can't fix.

And yes, if you're going to truly know how a plant is operating, it does require full production.

what you are referring to - but there are no new corporate restrictions.

The FICA excess taxes were the 1983 Dem/Reagan grand agreement via the Sainted Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s good government/get the deficit down, make boomers pre-pay for extra retirements in their cohort of the population concept.

It had nothing to do with Clinton.

Beyond that the money was not stolen unless we let it be stolen. The gov bonds now in the trust are the same gov bonds owned by the rest of the world - only we can allow the gov to default on those bonds. But as the SS system cashes those bonds in for cash to pay benefits beginning in 2017 and ending in 2042 when they run out under the over-conservative projection number 2 (noting that under projection number 3 they never run out and Projection number 3 has, like the other projections, always been a projection that has always been conservative relative to actual results ) the Federal Gov Taxes on the rich will have to go up - in effect making them repay the Bush tax cuts. Alternatively the gov could sell more debt to China - but one way or another, the money in the Trust fund is not stolen.

The nonproliferation goal was already in the law and in government policy - Obama's contribution is the demand for a study (which appears to have never been done outside of the annual study that was and is done - hard to see why to give any points for that amendment - but it seems to have been useful to Obama in his push for the Presidency if he can get folks like yourself to see it as a major accomplishment).

I agree the last step in research of a new clean coal technology is to scale it up and see how it works - but Obama talks of starting by building the Last Step - the full scale test - before the research is even half-way done. Funny - but that is also the Coal Producers Association position.

Once again - I will vote for Obama if he is nominated - and pray his only change to Social Security is trying to remove the wage cap. But I will not pretend he is a saint - or indeed even a "new way".

He didn't explain that the surplus was due to boomers being in their peak earning years and paying peak FICA taxes. He took credit for what was really a short span of time where millions of boomers were paying into the system. I do blame him for that.

Lugar-Obama is more than a study.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-lugar-obama_bil/

And it isn't just the coal producers calling for demonstration plants, it's also places like MIT. http://www.news.com/MIT-To-keep-coal%2C-carbon-needs-to-go-underground/2100-11392_3-6167147.html

Bottom line, Obama is the better candidate if you want progressive policies.

I'm not a big fan of ethanol but I don't see a big problem with someone supporting ethanol and clean coal research. In fact, Edwards' energy plan had more money going to the coal industry for research than Obama's.

So what exactly is the problem? Can you name a specific thing about Obama's clean energy platform that is so corporate? He has an excellent environmental voting record and a very aggressive energy plan.

What you linked to reads like more of the same baloney I've been seeing for the past year that uses hints and innuendo to paint Obama as a conservative without naming anything concrete that's wrong with him.

He talks about big change often. Either way, its only realistic to admit that no President is going to get everything they ask for. What chance do you think there is of a 60 seat progressive majority in the Senate? A President who can pick off a few Republicans is who will get things done.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008


http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do


Sometimes you have to wonder why so-called "corporate" candidates are not raking in the corporate money. Maybe no one told the corporations? :think:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

just for completeness sake and all


The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

Thanks for this :)

:rofl: :rofl:

That'll have me smiling all day.

:rofl:

I need to look at the facts, to pick another candidate.

And I have five whole days to do it in!

:)

it's been said over and over and over and over again! Doesn't that make it true?

also he's doing well, so OBVIOUSLY he's the corporate candidate.