Comments: Open Thread

Quagmire. We as a nation are far past the point of winning the Iraqi peoples hearts in order to win the war. When diplomacy around the world by our nation is dictated with a first strike policy then its kind of hard to really talk to people with a different look at life than the average American. That might just be why candidates like Joe Biden look so attractive to the regular Joe in America.

Posted by Papamoka at January 2, 2008 03:31 AM

After nine months of fundraising, the candidates for president in 2008 have already raised about $420 million. This presidential money chase seems to be on track to collect an unprecedented $1 billion total. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete--a record sum. To find out where all this money is coming from, explore the options to the left of this article. Year-end reports are due to the Federal Election Commission by Jan. 31.


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

Posted by Judith at January 2, 2008 04:07 AM

LOBBYISTS:

Hillary Clinton (D)
$567,950

John McCain (R)
$340,365

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$233,875

Mitt Romney (R)
$229,475

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$212,100

Bill Richardson (D)
$134,950

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$114,460

Fred Thompson (R)
$90,000

Barack Obama (D)
$76,859

Duncan Hunter (R)
$30,900

John Edwards (D)
$18,900

Sam Brownback (R)
$17,225

Mike Huckabee (R)
$6,964

Tom Tancredo (R)
$250
(Who the heck is Tancredo?)

Posted by Judith at January 2, 2008 04:12 AM

(Who the heck is Tancredo?)

BROWN PERIL!!! Build a Fence! Build a FENCE! Brawwk! Build a fence!

Judith, Tom Tancredo is Lou Dobbs' secret wide stancer. A complete one-trick pony over "immigration". I'm completely surprised he's still continuing to pretend he could be a candidate. Even in the current Republican lineup, he's a bigger loser than Sam Brownback, who at least had the (measure of) dignity to bow out.

The $250 was probably to himself.

BTW, notice the single, significant candidate whose name is NOT on the list? Wherrrre's Johnny?

Happy New Calendar unit!

Posted by DeminNewJ at January 2, 2008 07:51 AM

DeminNewJ, Tancredo dropped out last week. See
http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/current/Tancredo.htm

Only about eight or so to go.

Posted by redstater at January 2, 2008 08:10 AM

DeminNewJ, I think Tancredo stepped aside last week.

Posted by Seven of Six at January 2, 2008 08:10 AM

It's funny that people get all worked up about lobbyist money when it's just a fraction of the total money raised by the candidates.

How much has Hillary Clinton raised in total? 90 million dollars! But the assumption is that she's sold her soul to various lobbyists for what amounts to less than 1% of the total money she's raised.

It's all a bit silly.

Posted by snark at January 2, 2008 08:39 AM

Well Snark, I agree that lobbyist money is a small portion of the total. It IS indicative of the sources of bigger money, though. The money from corporate PACs tends to be from the same collections of interests that give through the "lobbyists".

In my dim view, receiving millions bundled by corporate "players" or huge lump sums from those wealthy enough to afford it (can you say "Kenny Boy Lay? I knew you could.) are all counterproductive to small-d democracy. That goes for money from entertainers as well as from CEOs.

However, I would dispute your assertion that nearly $600,000 is NOT compelling. It's been my sad observation that the most fantastic Return On Investment it's possible to achieve, is with relatively mediocre, $10,000 $15,000 and even $25,000 contributions to an American politician's campaign. Literally, the returns can be in the hundreds of millions for chump change! Money does INDEED talk to our political class.

Thanks for the updates on the Tancredo legacy. I spent the past week suffering the unusual heat wave in southern Florida and my wife, bully that she is, wouldn't let me near the news or even, GASP!, the Internet.

Posted by DeminNewJ at January 2, 2008 01:27 PM

"We as a nation are far past the point of winning the Iraqi peoples hearts in order to win the war."

First, I don't really understand the meaning of "we as a nation winning the hearts" of people whose country your military has invaded and occupied. You "as a nation" are very separate from the day to day reality of and irrelevant in that kind of situation.

But more to the point, how do you expect to win the hearts of people after you have bombed, and destroyed, and killed your way into their country? And how do you expect to win the hearts of people when you are maintaining by force and against their will a military, economic, political, and social occupation that is depriving them of every bit of self-determination? The reality is that the hearts of Iraqis were from the beginning and remain and will continue to be unwinnable as long as the United States continue to occupy the country and rob the people of even the most modest degree of self determination even in their everyday lives.

"its kind of hard to really talk to people with a different look at life than the average American."

Not sure what you mean by "a different look at life". Can you clarify?

Posted by Shirin at January 2, 2008 01:39 PM
Post a comment
HTML Tags:
<b>Bold</b> = Bold
<i>Italics</i> = Italics
<a href="http://www.url.com/">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Note: comments from signed in commenters will show up right away. If you are not signed in, your comment will not appear until it has been approved.




Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

In order to post a comment, you must answer the following question.