Barrack Obama - Corporate Candidate

[wyldwolf]

I've often heard people on DU reject certain candidates because of their relationship with corporations. Joe Biden gets trashed for being in bed with the credit card industry. I can't count the number of times Hillary Clinton has been called a "corporate whore."

After years of reading the connections and entanglements, we KNOW this. We've seen the links.

Of the people who have labeled various Democrats as such, some have gravitated to Barrack Obama. He isn't a "corporate whore," is he? He doesn't take that dirty money, does he?

Well, yes he does.

For example, Morgan Stanley contributed over $30,000 to the Obama campaign. That company been indicted in NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's probe into the investment banking industry.

Citibank, through their various entities, contributed over $48,000!
Goldman Sachs over $100,000!
UBS - over $100,000!

In fact, Obama accepted campaign contribution from many of the same sources people on DU often criticize the DLC for - companies like the above mentioned Morgan Stanley and UBS, AT&T, Eastman Kodak, AOL, and Prudential.

Again, claiming Clinton and others have done this is no defense. We already KNOW they have because people on DU have droned on and on about it for years. So based on the precedent set by DU, some of them Obama supporters, Obama is now officially a "corporate whore."

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q1/C00431445/A_EMPLOYER_C00431445.html

[SaveElmer]

1. Be careful...you will be accused of negative posting...

For telling a truth some don't like!

[Bitwit1234]

16. I don't think we should slam our candidates but

posting the truth, just the information, without personal attacks, is not bad. They slam, they slur, they dis Hillary all the time.

It is a shame that people can't just gives us the facts, like this poster and let it go.

Then they can attack and give us the information of all the crookedness of the republicans.

[skipos]

31. It's funny to hear someone talk about wyldwolf "telling a truth some don't like"

He made some claims that were clearly false but refused to respond to the truths HE didn't like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3269586#3269632

You guys like to act like you are the harbingers of truth, but you are no different than anyone else this board. You have posted dozens of primary polls that show Hillary doing well, and never a national general election poll that shows Hillary underperforming Edwards and/or Obama, even though there are hundreds of them. You have an agenda just like the rest of us.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Barack Obama - Most Liberal Voting Record of any candidate

<On the Democratic side, the analysis of "lifetime" voting records shows Obama as the most liberal with a score of 84.3 after two full years in the Senate. The most liberal score possible was 99. The lifetime liberal scores for the other Democrats, in their respective chambers:

- Kucinich, 79.4

- Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, 79.2

- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 78.8

- Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, 76.8>

<...Their ideological purity also varies by issue areas. Obama, for example, is more liberal on economic and foreign policy issues and slightly less liberal on social policies. Clinton and Dodd are most liberal on social policy questions, less so on economic and foreign policy votes.>

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16935220.htm

[wyldwolf]

3. yet, he's still a "corporate whore."

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

8. thanks for once again showing what spinmeisters people can be

and thanks for pointing out Eliot Spitzer, who recently endorsed fellow "New Yorker" Senator Clinton.

:rofl: So... he indicted Morgan Stanley because he's a Clinton supporter?

Ya see, it turns out that people who WORK at some of those companies contributed to the Obama campaign.

To the tune of $100,000!? :rofl:

Link Link Link!

[mckeown1128]

don't act like it is that much

40 employees of morgan stanley(who most likely can afford it) giving the maximum donation makes about 100k in donations.

[CTLawGuy]

19. umm

Morgan Stanley $30,000. From the link

Whered you get $100,000 from?

[Benhurst]

5. Big business controls this country, lock , stock and barrel. The Republicans are the

conservative (and increasingly fascist) wing of the Business Party, and the Democratic Party is its progressive wing.

Most "conservative" governments in Europe are to the left of the Democratic Party.

So this post about Obama hardly comes as a surprise.

[CTLawGuy]

6. that list is a list of employers of donors

so if I were to work as an associate for WalMart and send Obama $100 that would show up as a contribution from "WalMart."

Corporations, purusant to the new campaign finance laws, must contribute through their PACs.

Obama has the largest small-donor network of any candidate in the race. He had 100,000 donors to Hillary's 50,000 donors and Edwards' 40,000. See http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/04/obama_more_donors_than_hillary_and_edwards_combined

Nice Try.

[CTLawGuy]

11. interestingly

Wal Mart is not actually on there. No one who works at Wal Mart donated enough to be put on the list. Anyone who would donate to Obama from that company is too underpaid to do so.

[Ethelk2044]

7. Hillary Corporate and Lobbyist Candidate.

[wyldwolf]

10. LOL! Someone who didn't read the OP.

[Ethelk2044]

18. Did read and yes It is a lie

Everyone who gives money has an employer. So if I put my employer down does that mean my company has anything to do with me giving money. Hell No!

[IA_Seth]

9. Buzz...try again!

You are either naive or deliberately misleading in this post.

Just because the people who donated to Obama have a common employer, doesnt mean said employer donated to Obama's campaign.

I, for example, work for a company that is anti-net neutrality. I have donated to candidates in the past that support net neutrality. So, by your logic my company is donating to candidates that vote against them on key issues? Uh, no.

When you show that these corporations actually donated to his campaign you may have a story, but this is just crap.

[wyldwolf]

12. bzzt! Try again

Unless you can prove employees of Goldman Sachs donated over $100,000., my point stands... UNLESS we can alter the long standing rule on DU and apply the new one you just made to EVERY candidate.

Can we?

[IA_Seth]

21. Your link...

Your link shows the total number of contributions BY INDIVIDUALS, sorted by company name.

So yeah, if someone tries to use similar data the way you are, they'd be wrong too.

If you want to look at corporate donations you will have to look at PAC donations. You are simply using the wrong data to draw your conclusions.

[wyldwolf]

22. someone is getting it...

So yeah, if someone tries to use similar data the way you are, they'd be wrong too.

[IA_Seth]

26. Has that actually happened?

Are you saying that someone has used this sort of data before to try to make the points you are attempting to make?

If someone is looking at individual contributions and using their employers as proof that the employers support the candidate, they are either sarcastic, naive, ignorant, or deceptive. Which one are you?

I could put down that I am employed by the KKK and that would show up on the report you pulled if I donated enough...would that mean the KKK supported the candidate?

What exactly are you getting at?

[wyldwolf]

28. often

Everyone knows a company can't really donate that much money to a candidate, yet people on DU often use similar stats to show how "corporate" a candidate is.

I'm just exposing a little more hypocrisy. The thread should be real fun.

[IA_Seth]

29. Well, if that is truly the case, they are wrong too.

Individual donations do not in any way equate to corporate donations, period.

Saying otherwise is bullshit. I'd hate to get lumped with the donations MY corporate PAC makes, and I am sure they wouldn't want lumped in with mine!

And for the record I refuse to support Clinton for reasons outside of "corporate whoredom".

[dionysus]

25. i'd choose deliberately misleading

[info being]

13. Unthinking people always get tricked this way...

...if a musician is on MTV, he must be the best, right? If a candidate is all over the news and has all kinds of ads, he's the best, right?

Such a perspective on life inherently assumes that the system is working just great. The market decides. Such a perspective is completely unthinking and naive...completely factoring out the market-driven incentives of those with power and pretending money doesn't come with strings.

So why do we fall for it? Because it is too difficult to get everyone to agree on anything without beating us over the head with it. And it takes money to beat the population over the head with something.

[OHdem10]

14. The only candidates who can win must be backed by Wall Sreet and Corporations

I have been waiting to see when people would recognize this.

Until there is a strong movement otherwise this is a fact of
life.

This is why we have a DLC. They assure Business, Wall Sreet
that Democrats will protect their interest.

[ripple]

15. No one would win a national election without corporate donations in today's world

That is the reality of the situation and one any candidate who wishes to be viable must deal with.

I do, however, think that given Obama's emphasis on lobbying and campaign finance reform- not to mention his pledge to use only public financing in the general if his opponent pledges the same- he is the candidate most likely to push for sweeping reform once elected.

[CTLawGuy]

17. Almost $40,000 from Harvard Univ.

Obama's in the pocket of the intellectual lobby!!!!!!111

[jefferson_dem]

20. Hogwash. Distortion. Typical.

These are individual contributions. "Corporations" cannot donate and Obama has decided to forgo PAC donations.

Besides --- looking at his "hard" numbers, Obama's donations were MUCH smaller, in terms of average dollar amount --

The most impressive thing about Obama is how low his per-contribution take was from non-internet sources.

Obama got $25M from around 100,000 donors. But, $6.9M came from 50,000 online donors. That means his non-online donors averaged $362 per contribution from offline sources. In contrast, Edwards non-online sources were around $1070 per contribution, and Clinton's at $2080.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/04/obamas_cash_cei.html

Nice try, silly.

EDIT: For more debunking, please link to http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/384087,CST-EDT-REF14.article

[ripple]

23. FYI - It's Barack with one 'r' n/t

[flpoljunkie]

24. In 2004 cycle, opensecrets reveals top 20 recipients. Obama not on list. HRC and Edwards, #8, #9

Click link for the top 20 recipients of the entire sector, finance, insurance, real estate:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F&cycle=2004&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U

[Bassic]

27. Well, at the end of the day

they are all corporate candidates.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bling bling]

32. Hope you feel good about this thread.

Totally misleading headline and totally misleading post.

But since other people do it to Hillary and you don't like it you'll just randomly pick another candidate, oh say....Obama, and do it to him too.

God forbid you just reply to the bullshit people post about Hillary rather than starting your very own bullshit post about Obama.

Noted.