Well, there's nothing like a crisis on Wall Street to kind of focus the mind - Crowley

Aren't we at war?

Funny how people stop being so afraid of the terrorists when their financial well-being is at stake.

It's funny that MM calls Obama's fundraiser simply a "Bevery Hills fundraiser," but McCain's are "lucrative fundraisers" despite the fact that Obama has raised far more than McCain out of Hollywood.

Wowie zowie "One of those fundraisers ... $28,500 a head."; yeah, I’d call that news too.

What you guys don’t seem to realize is that it *was* the cost per plate that made it a big news story, especially given Obama’s populist message.

Do you even know what Obama's populist message is?

I'm not talking about those childish socialism barbs that you're told to say about progressive populism. I'm asking can you describe progressive populism on its own merits and offer a valid refutation?

of course he can't. Any politican that champions "the poor" must be a homeless man himself lest he be a "hypocrite". I guess Obama should have charged less at a FUNDRAISER and let everyone in off the street.

Do you even know what Obama's populist message is?

Yes sir,

Early on, Obama was loosing the blue color vote that he needed, so he spruced up his message to include verbiage along the lines of ‘educational opportunity’, ‘lack of health care’, and ‘substandard or unavailable housing’. In essence; his position is that he’s running against the things that make life hard for the average American. I.e., the populace.

Candy Crowley is the absolute worst-- always disgraceful and misleading.

She is very misleading, she is the worst of the CNN "reporters".

But which Obama is holding true to his word to use only public campaign funds?  The one clinking champagne glasses with Babs or the one who in the spring promised to clean up campaign fundraising?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

Senator Obama is saving the taxpayer money ... I applaud him for that.  With the way the administration of Failure-in-Chief Bush is wasting money, month after month, we can use all the help we can get.  Now back on topic from your diversion.

What is your opinion of the hypocrisy of McSame having a recent fundraiser in Beverly Hills with the Hollywood elite, but criticizing Senator Obama for having one with Barbra Streisand?

sfismad,

Sooooo sorry, I believe that you are missing the boat here.  If you agree to taking any government money, you are correct when you say you have had to gathered a certain amount of money.  Getting that also relates to the portion of votes you get.

But, both candidates are refusing to take public funding because it limits the amount of money you can EXPEND.  Remember how Media Matters (for very little) took issue because of a ruling by the FEC that McCain had withdrawn his request for public funding, so much that MMfvl took a hissy?  That was because McCain would no longer be limited to what he could EXPEND. 

Before both had the momentum that would propel them to victories in the primaries and the accompanying fundraising power, they thought the public system was fine.

So here's to not pigging out, with lipstick or otherwise, at the public trough!  "Now, Michael Moore, please stop hogging the escargau and left the buffet!"

Remember how Media Matters (for very little) took issue because of a ruling by the FEC that McCain had withdrawn his request for public funding, so much that MMfvl took a hissy? 

Actually, that is because McSame was breaking campaign finance law.  I realize Republicans breaking the law isn't a big deal to you, but it is to some of us.  Again, nice try at diversion, but back to the topic of the thread ...

What is your opinion of the hypocrisy of McSame having a recent fundraiser in Beverly Hills with the Hollywood elite, but criticizing Senator Obama for having one with Barbra Streisand?

I realize Republicans breaking the law isn't a big deal to you

It isn't even news any more.

You're a liar, or you're misinformed. 

Obama never promised to use only to use ONLY public campaign funds.

Why?  Because no candidate can run using only public funds.  The only way to qualify for the public finance subsidy is to raise a specified amount of money privately. 

'You're a liar, or you're misinformed."

There's also the possibility that he's both.

petra & petrified,

Just listen to the clip...   http://www.publicampaign.org/node/35376/

And if that wasn't bad enough......   http://thepage.time.com/mccain-camp-timeline-of-obama-and-public-funding/

 

What you said is still not true.

"Using the public campaign finance system" and "us[ing] only public campaign funds" are not the same thing.

You accused Obama of promising to use only public money, which is impossible. 

If you meant something else, just say it.  

*Sigh*

Here we go again with this nonsense. Fortunately, I have a response that I've posted elsewhere on MMFA. I will re-post it here in deference to the slow people like PROUDCONSERVATIVE:

In choosing not to take public financing, Obama did absolutely nothing illegal, unethical, or dishonest.

His agreement to accept public financing was hinged entirely on whether McCain promised to do so as well. John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC back in August 2007 to accept spending limits for the primary and to abide by the conditions of receiving matching funds.  To get out of that agreement the FEC must grant permission. In December he pledged to use his matching funds as collateral for a private loan to keep his campaign afloat.

Once McCain ditched public funds (illegally, after having secured a loan against the funds), Obama was free to do whatever he thought was best for his campaign.

This is much ado about nothing. Obama didn’t do a d*mn thing wrong.

McCain, on the other hand, broke both the letter and the spirit of his own campaign finance law. 

The rest is here, including sources:

http://tinyurl.com/3h7gy5

I agree that nothing about what Obama did is illegal, just quite the opposite from he had promised.  It's just one of many takebacks he'll make as a politician.  So much for change in Washington, that's all.

From the fundraiser, "Please make certain to leave your clinged to bibles and guns at door!"

facts, facts, facts...will you guys stop undermining pc's conclusions and feelings about Obama. He doesn't form such things based on facts, so it doesn't matter what Obama did or didn't do with some money, public or otherwise....Obama is the type of politican that WILL go back on his promises...pc feels it.

He never promised anything. It was contingent upon McCain.

What's really hilariously hypocritical about this is that if Obama DID rely upon public funds, the Repubs and the MSM would be condemning him for squandering taxpayer monies!

They'd be having daily budget alerts on him, counting up all the ad buys, showing cash registers clanging with "your money" at stake.

But which Obama is holding true to his word to use only public campaign funds? 

If Obama accepted public funding, you and I both know that his campaign would be outspent by the combination of Gramps McCain, the RNC, and all the slimy GOP-affiliated 527s out there (like the Swift Boat Liars).  Opting out was his only choice in order to survive.

Oh ProudCon...

Please look where Sen. George McCain's bankroll is coming from before you make a post.

It might save you from a heap of embarrassment.

How's McCain going to be commander in chief if he's afraid of Barbra Streisand?

Shame on Obama's campaign for again snoozing and being late. And kudos to McCain's camp for ONCE AGAIN knowing how to control the news cycles.

Obama missed his chance when McCain held his Hollywood "elite" fundraiser. It's too late now to go back and cry about it.

We should all know by now that the press will not hold the same standard to both and will just repeat the vileness of negative ads and talking points.

Best post you've ever written.

Just making sure you're ok.

Best post you've ever written.

First post you've ever understood.

not sure if I agree with you.

you can win elections by controlling the news cycle but it is the job of the citizenry to realize that they were voting on news cycles, and being worse because of it.

If they don't, they lose and have only themselves to blame for it.

I say, a democracy is only as strong as its weakest citizen. 

The lazy media always pushes the narrative that Democrats cozy up to rich Hollywood liberals, and that Republicans do the same with rich fat car businessmen.  Fact is they are often blurred and they both cozy up and sniff out what fuels political campaigns - money.

"cat",not car.

You are correct, sir. $$$$$$$$  but that is capitalism in its purest form. Actually I would like to sniff up the  $$$$ trail on this chinese co effort to get contracts in iraq for oil field management. $$$$$$$

Another dose of IOKIYAR, courtesy of the "liberal media."

Ooops, wrong Crowley. I heard Monica Crowley go off on this subject yesterday at FOX. Somehow they seem to want to conflate the fact that a rich Hollywood star somehow makes Barack Obama an elitist, process called osmosis, perhaps. Ridiculous. We all have one vote. Unless you cheat the system. So in summary, if I stand next to GW Bush that makes me an oil man ????

However, McCain's Celebrity Con Man pal does not have a vote...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames 

Reeeezzzzkoooo

Reeeezzzzkoooo

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

The key difference between politicians is the length of time they've been marinating in a stew of corruptibility.  McCain's integrity is long gone.  Feel free to pretend it’s not.

Ha, "my crook hasn't been a crook as long as your crook.

*NEWSFLASH*

People have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decades.

So in summary, if I stand next to GW Bush that makes me an oil man ????

Only if you're an oil man giving him money.  Or it makes you a Saudi prince.  But if not one of those, you're probably the next failure at whatever cabinet position he just gave you.

It's this little gotcha game the corporate media has learned to play with Democrats...

When the Cons have their big-money fundraisers it's no big deal.  Just look the other way.  Hey, it's just politics.

When the Democrats have a big-money fundraiser it's time to heap on the ridicule and contempt.  Look at these phonies!  Look at these elitists.

This is a critical strategy for NPR and the rest of the corporate media for keeping the Cons in power.  The American people are way too dumb to see through it.

Scott Horsley shows us what he always has been:  a corporate suck-up.

or a "moran" who voted for him just because you thought you could have a beer with him.

 

The media had to report this story or all the graphics they had made of Obama and Babs together would have gone to waste.

McCain hit the jack pot with the biggest elite fund raiser .............................

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint, dated April 22, 2008, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising luncheon held at London’s Spencer House to benefit Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign. The venue for the event was apparently donated to the campaign by foreign nationals, in violation of federal campaign finance laws."

Where was Crowley or  CNN then?

Ignore? Look what the media is doing to Nader.

 http://tinyurl.com/wechoose

The media is mistreating us and Nader. does that link to the video not work? Try this to see video

Look what the media is doing to Nader.

Nader did all that to himself.

"Easy to refute wingnuts"

 What the heck does that mean "he did it to himself?' The media is excluding him. When Nader shows up in polls with as much as 6%, it is simply DISHONEST to keep showing the same two clowns and act like they are the only two running. see video: Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page. See Renetto's Interview with Nader

 

Why does the party of Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, and Fred Thompson look down upon Hollywood celebrities so?