More Than The Money Primary

How and why does money translate into votes?

It doesn't have to.

It's really very simple. The people with the most money can afford more airtime and are given much more, free of charge on Cabal news. The media thus decides whom we can vote for in the general election. Everyone wants to vote for a winner, no matter that he or she may not have their best interests at heart. The media is more than happy to tell you who those people are, on both sides of the insane duality-lie of a political system with which we are cursed. They are the ones with all the money, usually an indication that they are corporate-approved

We have taken to paying attention to: (It goes without saying that we must believe in his/her message and more, we have to have some faith that he or she can and will carry out the plan)

1) Of whom does the media, especially the obvious right-wing media, constantly make fun? This candidate is probably the biggest threat to corporate interests, not ours.

2) What is the ratio of donors to total money raised. If the candidate is not getting most or a huge percentage of his/her money from grassroots, individual donors, they are corporate approved.

3) According to polls, can the candidate beat any Republican in the general election, providing Republican machines are not doing the vote counting and the candidate is not a gutless wonder who will refuse to fight for our votes even if it takes months and an all-out revolution?

Right now, the one candidate who meets all of our standards is John Edwards

More Than The Money Primary - CommonDreams.org:

But grassroots activists should ask themselves a question about the money primary?

Why are the frontrunners raising so much money? Is it because they have the best ideas? The best bases of support?

Hardly. Clinton, who has been the strongest figure in the recent Democratic debates, is raising her money in big chunks from many of the same business interests that backed George W. Bush and other Republicans. Obama has a broader pool of givers, but the attraction seems to be his personal dynamism rather than his soft stands on the issues and his tepid debate performances — and he, too, is attracting a good deal of so-called “establishment” money.

In fact, as Republican presidential contenders struggle to keep up with the Democrats in the fund-raising race, there is much evidence to suggest that big-money interests are moving their chips to the Democratic table and placing their bets on Clinton and to a somewhat lesser extent on Obama.

Clinton and Obama are acceptable to those interests.

Edwards, in contrast, has taken strong stands and attracted a substantial number of small contributors. Unfortunately for Edwards, many of his strong stands challenge corporate power — in ways that neither Clinton or Obama has so far done.

Obama and Thompson lead in S.C.

Here's a mystery:

Why is it that the GOP, who never passes up an opportunity to furiously criticize Hollywood, flip their wigs over an actor/politician. Fred Thompson is no more qualified to be POTUS that I am. Sometimes I think the rank and file Goopers really do live in an alternate universe.

New polls shakes up the race

Non-candidate Fred Thompson: He leads in South Carolina (Reuters Photo)
By LES BLUMENTHAL
McClatchy Newspapers

South Carolina appears poised to shake up the 2008 presidential race, with Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Fred Thompson the frontrunners in a new state survey by Mason-Dixon.

With strong support from the African American community, Illinois Senator Obama has assumed a strong lead over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the Republican side, Thompson zoomed to the top spot, slightly ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, even though he hasn't yet announced his bid for the GOP nomination.

The Mason-Dixon poll, made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News, offered disappointing news for two candidates who previously had been polling well in South Carolina. John Edwards, a South Carolina native who won the primary in 2004, was well behind Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side. Arizona Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, appeared to have lost many of his supporters to Thompson, and was far back in the GOP field.

Although it is still nearly seven months off, the first Southern presidential primary is proving a major attraction to candidates in both parties, who are spending extensive time in South Carolina.

Obama led in the new poll with 34 percent of likely voters to 25 percent for Clinton. Edwards was third at 12 percent. Sen. Joe Biden was at 2 percent; so was former Vice President Al Gore, who has given no indication of running but whose name was volunteered by some voters. Twenty-four percent were undecided.

Thompson, a television actor and former Tennessee senator, topped Giuliani by 25 percent to 21 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was next at 11 percent, followed by McCain at 7 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 5 percent. Huckabee has gotten strong notices in the last two Republican debates. Twenty-eight percent were undecided.

The new poll was striking evidence of Thompson's rise from nowhere in early presidential readings to potential front-runner status. Thompson’s first campaign swing as he edges toward a formal candidacy will be in South Carolina on June 27.

“Thompson could be emerging as the Southern candidate,” said Brad Coker, managing director of the Mason-Dixon poll.

McCain’s slide into single digits might reflect his support for the immigration reform package, legislation that is unpopular among South Carolina Republicans. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham was booed at a recent GOP state gathering when he sought to defend the reforms.

“His support among base Republicans is slipping away,” Coker said of McCain.

Giuliani’s performance in the wake of 9/11 and his strong support for the war in Iraq and national security have, so far, overcome doubts among South Carolina Republicans about his moderate views on abortion and other social issues. Romney meanwhile, has found only moderate traction in the state and has been focusing his campaign advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire.

For Democrats, the most crucial group of voters in South Carolina are blacks, who by some estimates could make up more than half of the party’s primary voters.

Nationally, Clinton leads Obama among black voters. But in South Carolina, likely voters overwhelmingly favored Obama (41 percent) over Clinton (18 percent). About one-third of the black voters in South Carolina remained undecided.

“As long as he maintains his edge in the black community, Obama has the edge in South Carolina,” said Coker.

Earlier South Carolina polls have mostly shown Clinton with a lead over Obama and Edwards still in the hunt.

Edwards has been counting on a strong showing in South Carolina, but his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war and drift to the left on other issues may not be playing well with the state's pro-military, generally conservative voters.

South Carolina’s Democratic primary is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 29 and Republican primary for Feb. 2.

The telephone poll, conducted June 13-15, involved 329 likely Democratic primary voters and 423 likely Republican primary voters. The margin of error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for the Democratic poll, and plus or minus 4.8 percentage points for the Republican poll.

© 2007 McClatchy Washington Bureau and wire service sources

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Obama and Hillary: In A Dead Heat?

New poll: Is it really tied up?

ELECTION '08 Obama, Clinton in dead heat in survey
June 6, 2007
BY SCOTT FORNEK
Political Reporter sfornek@suntimes.com


So it's a neck-and-neck horse race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Or is it?

RELATED STORIES• Obama opposes Defense of Marriage Act• Sweet on GOP debate: Security, borders, God• Sweet blog: Race for the White House

A USA Today/Gallup Poll just found the two Democratic U.S. senators in a statistical dead heat for their party's presidential nomination.

It's not the first time Obama has tied Clinton. An automated telephone survey by Rasmussen Reports in April had the South Sider with 32 percent to the transplanted New Yorker's 30 percent -- another statistical draw.

But virtually every other poll gives Clinton a double-digit lead over Obama. Rasmussen's latest puts her up by 8 percentage points. Clinton's campaign officials are dubbing the USA Today survey an "outlier" -- a statistical fluke.

Some experts questioned the results and suggested Obama should be measured in his celebration.

"Sure, any poll that shows you are picking up on your opponent is good," said Kenneth Janda, professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University. "First of all, it may reflect reality. And it may energize your base. So that is good news for Obama. However, there are vagaries in polling, and this is a small sample size."

Further complicating matters is that most of the polls are national, and the race for the nomination is run state-by-state. And in key states with early contests, Obama is trailing Clinton and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the latest American Research Group surveys.

To help you sort through it all, below are some of the latest major polls on the Democratic race. Only the top three candidates are included because all the others finished in single digits. We used results that excluded former Vice President Al Gore since he has not joined the race.

POLL POSITION
How the top three Democratic candidates fared in recent polls.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/415764,CST-NWS-POLL06.article


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Clinton in Trouble in Iowa

It's good to see Edwards in first place. But it is still early....

Clinton Falls to Third Place in Iowa
Sun May 20, 12:22 PM ET

The Nation -- Hillary Clinton's campaign is running into trouble -- potentially very serious trouble -- in Iowa.

The latest and best poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in the first state that will weigh in on the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling to third place. And that's not the worst of it. As Clinton stumbles, a new contender with potential to eat into her base it rising rapidly.

The Des Moines Register survey has former North Carolina Senator John Edwards solidly in first. Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state, is at 29 percent. That's about where he has been for some time in Iowa, where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race as it hist full speed next January.

In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) with 23 percent.
Clinton musters a mere 21 percent -- down significantly from her position in several previous polls -- to secure the No. 3 position.

But Clinton, the presumed frontrunner nationally, does not just have to worry about who is ahead of her in the first-caucus state. She's also got to watch who is coming from behind.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the former congressman, cabinet secretary and UN ambassador who only formally announced last week, is gaining 10 percent support among likely caucus goers. As in New Hampshire, where a new poll has Richardson breaking from a pack of weaker contenders to enter the second tier in the crowded 2008 contest, the governor is moving up rapidly in Iowa.

The next strongest candidate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, was at 3 percent.

Richardson, who is campaigning in Iowa small towns this weekend, was making the most of his improving position.

"We have a lot of good candidates running for president," he told friendly crowds. "A lot of them could be in the White House - as my vice president."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Clinton and Obama Join Forces

Clinton for cloture

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines emails:

"Senator Clinton will vote for cloture on both the Feingold-Reid and Reed-Levin Amendments, to send the President a clear message that it is time to change course, redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and end this war as soon as possible."

That is to say, she and Obama both reserve the right to disagree with the substance of Feingold-Reid. They're sending a message, not committing to a policy.

UPDATE: Aides to Clinton and Obama, Philippe Reines and Bill Burton respectively, both say their Senators aren't trying to play cute, and that Clinton and Obama support the underlying bills. Adds Reines, not inaccurately: "You're obsessing with cloture. It's like when someone learns a new word and can't stop using it."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Obama Has Been Threatened

Unfortunately, this was entirely predictable, just as the murder of Bobby Kennedy was predictable, though I was still young and idealistic enough in June, 1968 to be shocked when it happened, not to mention heartsick and bereft of much hope.

Of course, we have all learned alot since then.

I told a friend, when Obama's star began to rise, that I didn't know enough about him to be for or against him; that I only hoped that he wouldn't be killed.

Now, I can only hope that whatever is causing him to need secret service protection is just some cranky crackpot, who will soon be indentified.

If they start killing Democrats again, I doubt we will take it sitting down.

As I recall, the secret service is no gurantee of good health.


Barack Obama placed under Secret Service protection
from Alexander Mooney

(CNN) -- Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been placed under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service, the agency said Thursday. The Secret Service would not divulge the reason for the protection.

The organization said in a written statement that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, "after consultation with the congressional advisory committee, authorized the United States Secret Service to protect presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama.

"As a matter of procedure, we will not release any details of the deliberations of assessments that led to protection being initiated," the Secret Service statement said.

Chertoff works with a congressional panel including half a dozen members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Another Democratic presidential candidate, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, already has Secret Service protection because of her husband's presidency.

Full story


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Do You Believe In Magic?

I did.

When JFK was elected.

When Martin cried out, "I have a dream...."

When Bobby ran.....

....but we all know how that turned out, don't we?

No more magic.

Just a man or woman willing to tell the truth, and clean up Washington!

We want justice, we want accountability, now!

We want our country back, not to mention our money, wasted on this criminal war, among other things, criminal!

We know that our kids are gone forever....but can we get it together face reality and to take out nation back?

By Adam Tanner

SAN DIEGO, California (Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wowed California Democrats at their annual convention on Saturday, drawing a more passionate welcome than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton received hours earlier in this state that carries new clout in the presidential primaries.

More than 2,000 party activists frequently rose to their feet in cheers as Obama, who has served just two years in the U.S. Senate, talked about his desire to end the war in Iraq and usher in a new political era in Washington.

"It is time to put an end to this war," Obama, of Illinois, said at the convention center in San Diego shortly before many started chanting his surname.
Reuters Pictures

Even Clinton supporters recognized Obama's speech -- full of generalities such as the need to "turn the page" -- had tapped into the crowd's emotions.

"It was the same thing in 2003 for Howard Dean," said Andrea Dew Steele, 38, referring to the former Vermont governor who made a strong showing early in the last presidential race largely because of his opposition to the war.

"We have a very progressive left-wing constituency here in California. Obama's extremely talented, but this is Hillary's time," said Steele, who wore a Clinton sticker on her lapel.
Democrats were making their pitch to a state that has become key in the primaries since California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month signed a law moving up its primary to February 2008 from June to give the state a greater role in the presidential selection.

BIG EARLY TEST Continued...

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Al Gore Is The Man To Beat

Giuliani leads in key 2008 states, Gore shows strong:

poll Published: Thursday April 26, 2007


Republican Rudolph Giuliani is favored over Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for the US presidency in three key electoral states, while ex-vice president Al Gore might be the Democrats strongest choice for 2008, a new poll showed Thursday.

The Quinnipiac University poll showed that former New York mayor Giuliani, who is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination, would beat Democrat Senator Clinton solidly in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The three populous states are seen as crucial swing states in any election, with their voters never clearly in the Republican or Democrat camp.

In Florida, Giuliani topped Clinton -- the wife of former president Bill Clinton -- 49-41 percent; in Ohio 46-41 percent, and in Pennsylvania 47-43 percent.

The poll showed that Ohio had switched sides for Giuliani from an earlier March survey, but that she held the same against the Republican in Pennsylvania and gained ground in Florida.

However, the Quinnipiac numbers showed that non-candidate Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race to George W. Bush in a controversial Florida showdown, could do better than Clinton against Giuliani in those states. Giuliani led the now-global warming activist 47-43 percent in Florida and the two were tied at 44 percent each in Pennsylvania.

But Gore trailed Giuliani in Ohio much more, with the poll 47-39 percent for the Republican.
Gore, vice president in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, has steadfastly maintained he has no intention of running for the White House again. Instead, he is riding his fame as the creator of the Oscar-winning global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

"Mayor Rudoph Giuliani remains the front-runner, but he and the entire Democratic field should wonder if Al Gore will become an inconvenient truth in the 2008 presidential race and go for the biggest Oscar of them all," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

...And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Obama Has To Play The Game

Though I sure as hell don't like what this article says, we, as Americans, must face the fact that until we demand change in the way we elect our officials, special interest money will call the shots and anyone who wishes to get elected to reform the process will have to play the game as it is played by everyone else in order to get elected.

Push for publicly funded elections NOW.

We will never have a Democracy until we get the big money out of politics.

Sen. Obama finesses his lobbyist ties
By Alexander Bolton
April 20, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has pledged to create a new brand of politics in the Democratic presidential primary by rejecting contributions from lobbyists and political action committees (PAC), but his fundraising records show that he relies on donors with special interests.

Three of Obama’s top fundraisers, who each have raised more than $50,000 for his campaign since January, were registered as lobbyists last year, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. In 2006, Alan Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures earned $90,000 in lobbying income; Tom Reed, of Kirkland & Ellis, lobbied for the Seismological Society of America, the Nanobusiness Alliance, and the Airport Minority Advisory Council; and Scott Harris, of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, represented Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Dell and Sprint-Nextel.

All three Obama fundraisers have said they are no longer lobbyists, although the public records office has not posted contract termination reports for any of them. Several other major Obama fundraisers also have histories of lobbying government officials for a living. Thomas Perrelli was a lobbyist for Jenner & Block as recently as 2005. Until 2003, when Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate, Peter Bynoe was a registered state lobbyist representing Boeing and other corporate interests, according to the Illinois secretary of state.

They have both raised at least $50,000 for Obama’s presidential bid, according to his campaign.

Frank Clark, chairman of Commonwealth Edison, helped lead a $2.2 million congressional lobbying effort on nuclear research and waste disposal in 2000, according to a report under his name filed with the Senate. He also raised more than $50,000 for Obama this year. He played an important part trying to persuade state lawmakers to deregulate the energy industry in Illinois.

All this may surprise Obama’s supporters.

In a fundraising e-mail sent to supporters at the beginning of March, the candidate wrote that Washington’s special-interest industry is trying “to own our political process and dictate our policies in Washington.“We’re not going to play that game. We’re not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees. We’re going to transform the political process by bringing together hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans to build a campaign.”

Critics of lobbyist influence in politics say Obama cannot make a serious bid for the Oval Office and escape the influence of special interests. “You don’t escape special-interest influence-giving simply by banning lobbyists from being able to give to you,” said Nick Nyhart, the president of Public Campaign, which advocates public financing of elections. “Most of the givers are in some way connected to entities that employ lobbyists.

The interests are there even if the individual [donors] are not lobbyists themselves.“By collecting $1,000, $2,000, and $2,300 checks, you’re simply walking into the interests of special-interest America. “I think it’s a positive gesture,” Nyhart said of Obama’s ban on lobbyist contributions, “but to the extent it makes people think candidates are not taking special-interest money, it’s just wrong.”

Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said the candidate is doing his best in a difficult situation.“This ban is part of Obama’s best effort to address the problem of money in politics,” said Burton. “It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem, and it isn’t even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates.”

While several of Obama’s fundraisers have recent experience working as lobbyists, at least 10 other big fundraisers hold senior positions in companies that have lobbyists under contract or employed lobbyists in the last few years, according to public records. David Heller and Bruce Heyman are big Obama fundraisers and managing directors at Goldman Sachs.

Last year, Goldman Sachs spent $3.3 million on lobbying. The company hired firms such as DLA Piper, Rich Feuer Group, and the Duberstein Group to influence lawmakers. James Dinan, the founder and CEO of York Capital Management, is another Obama bundler. His company hired Dutko Worldwide to lobby on asbestos issues in 2005 and 2006.

Some Obama fundraisers have obscured their professional affiliations. John Schmidt did not list his employer on Obama’s April fundraising report. But a comparison of his name and address with old Federal Election Commission records shows that he works, or at least did until recently, for Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, a firm that lobbied the federal government on behalf of 70 clients during the second half of 2006. Its client list included Chevron, Motorola, Verizon, Visa, JP Morgan and Credit Suisse.

Other Obama fundraisers work for companies that have hired lobbyists to work on issues of the jurisdiction of Senate committees on which Obama sits.

Bill Kennard, for example, is managing director at The Carlyle Group, based in Washington. The Carlyle Group paid a lobbying firm, Ogilvy Government Relations, $460,000 last year to lobby on pension legislation and trade relations with China and Korea, issues that fall within Obama’s committee responsibilities.

He sits on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Foreign Relations panel.

One Obama fundraiser who said he did not feel comfortable speaking on the record said Obama has left millions of campaign dollars uncollected by eschewing lobbyists’ contributions. “There is an enormous amount of money he could have collected from folks who are lobbyists who are not contributing or fundraising, at least in the D.C. area,” he said. “I’ve called a lot of people; more of them are registered than I understood.”

The financial sacrifice enhances Obama’s effort to portray himself as a reformer and new brand of politician. Such an image is potentially helpful on the campaign trail, but as the year wears on, a saintly reputation could become a liability if opponents successfully frame it as an exercise in hypocrisy. “

Senator Obama is in a very difficult situation — he wants to wage a serious campaign for the president when the entire public-financing program has been abandoned by everyone who is a serious candidate for president,” said Craig Holman, an advocate of public financing with Public Citizen. “He has to raise $300 million to $400 million or $500 million. He’s trying to do that at the same time he is trying to clean up Washington.”


....and the truth shall set us free.