News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[chemisttree]

Hamas are a Sunni group, Iran is Shi'ite. You seem to be confusing Hamas with Hezbollah.

No, I'm not. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?

 

[chemisttree]

The donations cited appear to have been made before Obama even agreed to run. One was for the 2006 election, and the rest were only cited as:

They have been made since 2005, which includes this election.

What's more, when I tried to check the link for the list [at the bottom of the page that you linked], it was dead. So either provide evidence that this is a bribe or retract your statement. Intentionally posting misinformation merits 3 of the 10 points needed for a member to be banned.

The links from Open Secrets have all died. There are multiple sources referencing them, however. This is the appearance of a bribe, by the way.

Obama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer.

An Obama campaign spokesman last week said that "there is no connection" between the PAC donations and the presidential campaign.

But Bob Bauer, the private counsel for both Obama's campaign and Hopefund, said yesterday that campaign workers were involved over the summer in identifying and recommending possible recipients when Hopefund was deciding how to spend its remaining money. In particular, Bauer said, senior campaign strategist Steve Hildebrand was consulted "multiple times" on potential donations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902229.html

I'll admit that it was published in the Washington Post, so it could all be a pack of lies.

 

[Astronuc]

This is what I meant. You can't see the effect of lobbists nowadays due to the changing nature of the way money is collected by so-called 'bundlers' and former lobbists.

Comparing numbers to McCain and Clinton isn't my point either, but it is a good point especially in McCain's case. Obama says that he doesn't get money from lobbists but they do work on his behalf. Since they don't hand the check over personally, they don't have to register as lobbyists. But their efforts are noted in his disclosure information.

He does employ lobbyists in his campaign but he didn't say that he is taking money from them. Obama's goal is to break the link between lobbyists, their money and their petitioning of the government but he employs them in his campaign as advisors - not contributors per se. McCain's campaign is practically run by lobbyists as well, so the straight talk express can't really claim the high ground on this issue. That said, this isn't really change at all. Just more lipstick on the pig.

We have a three pig race. Which pig has the least amount of lipstick?

I think lobbyists are all over all three campaigns, and the bundler issue is a great concern. Whether or not a lobbyist hands over personal money, doesn't seem to matter, since in theory each candidate knows who directed/bundled the money. I would imagine that even if former lobbyists are not currently registered as lobbyists, they still have connections and they use them.

The system stinks.


As for Hamas vs Hezbollah, I would imagine that Iran is playing all sides, in order to put Israel and the US off-balance.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?

3. The Financial Assistance Infrastructure

The Hamas has an extensive network of financial sources, operating within the framework of Dawa activity, with a total value of tens of millions of dollars a year.


Gulf States - A considerable proportion of the aforementioned funds originate from various sources in the Gulf States (The Gulf Cooperation Council States). Most of the funding is from Saudi Arabian sources, with a total value of $12 million a year.

Iran - Its contribution is estimated at $3 million a year.

The Financial Sources of the Hamas Terror Organization - July 2003

Of course one would need some pieces of paper with signatures and/or fingerprints to provide absolute proof.

The majority of Hamas funding and logistical support is provided by a number of states, including Iran and Syria. Neighboring Arab states, including Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, also contain well-established charitable groups that fund Hamas activities.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=194942

Clearly there is a link between Iran (and Syria) and Hamas. The link to Saudi Arabia, or the government, would be tenuous or rather impossible to discern.

 

[mheslep]

The Financial Sources of the Hamas Terror Organization - July 2003

I wonder if that is direct from the SA government or individuals in SA. At that level one person in SA could be responsible for the funding. I'm more interested in who's supplies weapons to Hamas, as one could argue (weakly, I think) that Hamas has legitimate political operations in Lebanon - that is they win fair elections.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll admit that it was published in the Washington Post, so it could all be a pack of lies.

First you accused Obama of bribing superdelegates, and now you cite his donations to campaigns as evidence. Since when is it a crime to support people of like mind? There appears to be a point of distinction to be made in the rules, but no one is claiming bribery, except you. Not to mention the fact that $150,000 is chump change; and over how many candidates?.

How much money has Obama raised?

 

[lisab]

Wow. I had the strangest conversation with my uber-conservative Texas sister-in-law. She loves Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity...and more conservative talkers that I've never (thankfully!) heard of.

She and I are worlds apart politically, but I love dearly. We always - no, usually - manage to tip-toe our way around political issues.

She's had enough, she says. The gas prices, the price of milk, the Iraq war...she said she worries for her two sons, in the face of a war that doesn't seem to be winding down any time soon. She says she just has a bad feeling that things aren't going well for America.

She said that she could never have voted for Clinton, but then she hinted she will vote for Obama...I'm just in shock!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, I have met many converts over the last couple of years. Even my relatives in Orange County [notoriously conservative and Republican] are considering a vote for Obama.

In the end, the price of milk and gas speak louder than Limbaugh.

 

[BobG]

In the general election, the most important big states are going to be Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and even Michigan.

Michigan is probably going to go Democratic regardless of the nominee just because we have a Republican President and their economy is dying (it's going to keep dying regardless of who the President is, but that's beside the point - voters will still want change in leadership).

Florida is probably going to go Republican regardless of the nominee. They have a very popular Republican governor that pushed McCain to an upset win in the primaries. He'll deliver Florida in the general election as well.

That means Obama has to win both Ohio and Pennsylvania so Clinton can make a case that she performs better in the two most important states this election. Ohio and Pennsylvania have different demographics than Michigan, but otherwise are in the same boat as Michigan so both are tough wins for Republicans.

Of course, if Obama wins both of those states, the electoral vote is so close (272-266) that some smaller states come into play. McCain could pull in either (or both) New Hampshire or Wisconsin. Winning either would squeak out the general election for him. Obama was stronger in Wisconsin than Clinton and Clinton barely squeaked by him in New Hampshire.

Then again, some of the states Bush won in 2004 will be close enough that Obama could pull them in. Obama could pull in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, and/or Colorado. Winning any two of them (unless it's Nevada and NM) would squeak out a win regardless of WI and NH. Obama has a much better chance of winning Iowa and Colorado than Clinton and they have about equal chances of winning Missouri. Clinton is the only one of the two that could steal Arkansas from Republicans. Winning NM and Nevada in McCain's backyard is probably a long shot for either (unless Richardson were the VP).

I think the Democrats have a small advantage, regardless of the nominee, since I think it would be tough for McCain to take both Wisconsin and New Hampshire. But, if McCain wins either Ohio or Pennsylvania, it's just about over for the Democrats. They would have to hold Wisconsin and New Hampshire, plus win both Iowa and Colorado and would still need one more state (most likely Missouri, but that would be a tough win).

If Clinton has any case left to bring up at the convention, Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to be her biggest selling points. Ohio and Pennsylvania also make Ted Strickland and Ed Rendell possible VP candidates, since Ohio and Pennsylvania are absolutely critical to both parties this November.

(McCain could counter Strickland or Rendell by making Bob Taft his VP? After his conviction, Taft's approval rating as governor was 6.5% - surely a new national record. McCain could choose Arlen Specter or Rick Santorum, but neither of those would really be viable VP candidates - especially a McCain-Specter ticket. Obviously, McCain needs to win Ohio or Pennsylvania by some other means than his VP choice.)

 

[chemisttree]

First you accused Obama of bribing superdelegates, and now you cite his donations to campaigns as evidence. Since when is it a crime to support people of like mind? There appears to be a point of distinction to be made in the rules, but no one is claiming bribery, except you.

I claim the appearance of bribery. Perhaps I should have said something like 'quid pro quo'.

Not to mention the fact that $150,000 is chump change; and over how many candidates?.

The chump change amounted to $8000 per vote for 34 superdelegates who have declared for Obama. Where did you get only $150,000? His fund has donated $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005.

How much money has Obama raised?

Enough to donate at least $8,000 per superdelegate it seems.

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time.

http://www.capitaleye.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338

Pretty effective "support".

 

[mheslep]

Yes, I have met many converts over the last couple of years. Even my relatives in Orange County [notoriously conservative and Republican] are considering a vote for Obama.

In the end, the price of milk and gas speak louder than Limbaugh.

Oh yes, yes. Vote for Obama and he will bring down the price of gas and milk.

 

[Art]

I'm surprised the Democrats haven't made more out of this or perhaps they have and I missed it.

McCain aides quit over Burma ties

Two aides to Republican presidential nominee John McCain have stood down over ties to a lobbying firm that has represented Burma's military leaders.

Douglas Goodyear, who had been chosen to run the 2008 Republican convention, said he was resigning "so as not to become a distraction in this campaign".
snip
Newsweek magazine revealed on Saturday that DCI was paid more than $300,000 (£150,000) by Burma's military leadership for lobbying work to improve its image in the US.
snip
The BBC's Jamie Coomarasamy in Washington says the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr McCain's campaign was already controversial, given Mr McCain's frequent pledges to fight against the influence of special interests in Washington.

That two of those lobbyists were linked to a special interest currently facing worldwide condemnation should give cause for reflection within Mr McCain's inner circle, our correspondent adds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7395773.stm

Also anyone any thoughts on how the following will affect the vote for McCain come November?

Ex-Republican aims for presidency

A former Republican congressman, Bob Barr, has announced he hopes to run for president of the United States - for the Libertarian Party.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7397377.stm

 

[Art]

No, I'm not. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?

lol Classic strawman argument. Where did I claim the Saudi Arabian gov't was directly funding Hamas? Perhaps you should read the link I supplied for the US gov'ts take on the details of the funding and how the Saudi Arabian gov't turns a blind eye to it. Personally I don't see a problem with it as Hamas are the legitimate governing power of the Palestinian Authority after their landslide win in the last election.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Now that the primary season is well underway, I am ready to make my predictions. McCain will be the Republican nominee. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Bush will switch party allegiance one week before the election. McCain will be swept into office on voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic incumbent.

 

[Gokul43201]

Oh yes, yes. Vote for Obama and he will bring down the price of gas and milk.

No, that would be McCain and Hillary that have promised a nonsensical reduction in gas prices.

 

[Astronuc]

Now that the primary season is well underway, I am ready to make my predictions. McCain will be the Republican nominee. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Bush will switch party allegiance one week before the election. McCain will be swept into office on voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic incumbent.

I'm waiting for the Jimmy Snyder Show on Comedy Central, starting Nov. 4, unless they can start on Memorial Day. Can't wait for the special on Inauguration Day '09.

 

[turbo]

I'm betting that the next president of the US will be Dick Cheney. Bush will pardon Cheney and the rest of his staff for any and all crimes, then resign before the Inauguration. Cheney will take over as president, then pardon Bush, and as the Brits say, "Bob's your uncle". They will all have to stay in the US to avoid being invited for a vacation trip to the Hague, but where's the inconvenience in that? There are plenty of things for millionaire neo-cons to do once they've cashed in.

 

[chemisttree]

lol Classic strawman argument. Where did I claim the Saudi Arabian gov't was directly funding Hamas?

Here:

Most of Hamas' funding comes from Saudi Arabia who western leaders meet with regularly

The original comment referred to Obama meeting with governments (Iran and Hamas). Did you intend to take the discussion off topic and refer to western leaders meeting with individuals? That's a bit of tortuous logic... might even say 'strawman'.

Perhaps you should read the link I supplied for the US gov'ts take on the details of the funding and how the Saudi Arabian gov't turns a blind eye to it. Personally I don't see a problem with it as Hamas are the legitimate governing power of the Palestinian Authority after their landslide win in the last election.

But Obama does... if it will help him win Jewish votes.

 

[Art]

Here:
The original comment referred to Obama meeting with governments (Iran and Hamas). Did you intend to take the discussion off topic and refer to western leaders meeting with individuals? That's a bit of tortuous logic... might even say 'strawman'.

But Obama does... if it will help him win Jewish votes.

I'm trying to understand your position here. I was under the impression you thought Obama should not meet with Iran because you thought they were the main backers of Hamas. According to the article I referenced Saudi Arabians are the main backers of Hamas which the Saudi gov't allows to happen openly (and according to some Jewish sources actually contribute to directly themselves) and yet it is okay to meet with the Saudi gov't but not Iran?? Why?? One could also point out that Iranian aid only went to Hamas when they were the legitimate gov't of the PA whereas Saudi backing began when they were in opposition. So if meeting with Iran is supposed to show some kind of support for Hamas why isn't the same true of meeting with Saudi Arabia??

Saudi Arabia's past involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. While the Bush administration decided to redact 28 sensitive pages of the Joint Intelligence Report of the U.S. Congress, nonetheless, Saudi involvement in terrorist financing can be documented through materials captured by Israel in Palestinian headquarters in 2002-3. In light of this evidence, Saudi denials about terrorist funding don't hold water.
*

Israel retrieved a document of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which detailed the allocation of $280,000 to 14 Hamas charities. IIRO and other suspected global Saudi charities are not NGOs, since their boards of directors are headed by Saudi cabinet members. Prince Salman, a full brother of King Fahd, controls IIRO distributions "with an iron hand," according to former CIA operative Robert Baer. Mahmoud Abbas, in fact, complained, in a handwritten December 2000 letter to Salman, about Saudi funding of Hamas. Defense Minister Prince Sultan has been cited as a major IIRO contributor.
*

It was hoped, after the May 12 triple bombing attack in Riyadh, that Saudi Arabia might halt its support for terrorism. Internally, the Saudi security forces moved against al-Qaeda cells all over the kingdom. But externally, the Saudis were still engaged in terrorist financing, underwriting 60-70 percent of the Hamas budget, in violation of their "roadmap" commitments to President Bush.
*

Additionally, the Saudis back the civilian infrastructure of Hamas with extremist textbooks glorifying jihad and martyrdom that are used by schools and Islamic societies throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ideological infiltration of Palestinian society by the Saudis in this way is reminiscent of their involvement in the madrassa system of Pakistan during the 1980s, that gave birth to the Taliban and other pro bin-Laden groups.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm

Anyone who thinks the Saudi gov't isn't up to their necks in financing Islamic extremists is deluding themselves.

Again from testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security.

Well into the war on terror, Saudi Arabia continues to serve as the capital of international terrorist financing. Through groups such as the Muslim World League, the International Islamic Relief Organization, and the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, as well as through Islamic affairs bureaus at Saudi embassies and consulates worldwide, Saudis continue to fund radical Islamic groups that support or engage in international terrorism.

Some cases are both clear cut and extreme. For example, after his arrest in Indonesia on June 5, 2002, Omar al-Farouq, al-Qaeda's operational point man in Southeast Asia, told his interrogators that al-Qaeda activities in the region were funded through a branch of al-Haramain. According to al-Farouq, "money was laundered through the foundation by donors from the Middle East." In another case, Italian wiretaps monitoring members of a European al-Qaeda cell overheard a senior operative reassuring his subordinate about funding: "Don't ever worry about money, because Saudi Arabia's money is your money."

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668

 

[Astronuc]

Well Clinton won WV with a handy (significant) margin, so she is still in the race, and she claims to be the more qualified candidate for the Democratic party.

Next week is the Kentucky and Oregon primaries. Apparently Clinton is expected to win Ky, and perhaps Obama will win Oregon.

 

[BobG]

Well Clinton won WV with a handy (significant) margin, so she is still in the race, and she claims to be the more qualified candidate for the Democratic party.

Next week is the Kentucky and Oregon primaries. Apparently Clinton is expected to win Ky, and perhaps Obama will win Oregon.

She makes some good points. West Virginia doesn't matter because Clinton wouldn't win WV, either. But, the demographics show why McCain has a real shot at either Ohio or Pennsylvania. And, if Michigan isn't eventually seated at the Democratic convention, will that create enough backlash to bring that state into play, as well? Not resolving Michigan and Florida has been the DNC's biggest blunder.

I don't see any way this gives her any shot at actually winning. Besides, she ignores the fact that even if Dems win Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they still have to win some states where Clinton is pretty weak.

Republicans hold a natural advantage that Dems still haven't adjusted to. In 1968, the Great Lakes states (NY, PA, OH, MI, IN, IL, and WI) were worth 170 electoral votes. Today, they're worth 131. In 1968, Texas, Florida, and Georgia were worth 51 electoral votes combined. Today, they're worth 76. In 1968, the Southwest (CO,NM, AZ, UT, and NV) were worth 22 votes. Today they're worth 34. That's a net change of 75 electoral votes from strong union states to more conservative sunbelt states - mostly in the 90's, but still continuing.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My source, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229239" , gives Obama 26% of the vote in West Virginia yesterday. That's bizarre. It doesn't change the race for the nomination, he's still going to win. But it should give the Democratic party something to worry about. The fact that 13% of the voters didn't even vote is an even bigger problem in my opinion. Given the demographics of these primaries, I expect education is going to be a big plank in Obama's platform. Also, there has been some talk about Obama sharing his campaign funds. Can he really give money to Barr without legal ramifications?

 

[chemisttree]

Anyone who thinks the Saudi gov't isn't up to their necks in financing Islamic extremists is deluding themselves.

You persist in your claim that wealthy Saudi donors (including members of the Saudi royal family and the government) are actually the Saudi government. You haven't yet shown that the Saudi government is directly funding Hamas as is Syria and Iran's.

 

[chemisttree]

Also, there has been some talk about Obama sharing his campaign funds. Can he really give money to Barr without legal ramifications?

I don't think that is legal. Where did you hear this?

 

[turbo]

Clinton beat Obama by 41 points, about as expected. Surprisingly, John Edwards got 7% of the vote and he's not even running.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think that is legal. Where did you hear this?

It's been in the air. Here's an example story: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money14-2008may14,0,1137125.story" .

 

[mathwonk]

It seems to me the attacks on obama, including by clinton, have turned racist in tone.

quite explicitly, here in marietta, georgia we have a tavern owner, in a scenario right out of the 1960's, selling obama t shirts depicting him as curious george the monkey, eating a banana, in case you missed the story.http://www.cbs46.com/news/16250318/detail.html

 

[chemisttree]

It's been in the air. Here's an example story: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money14-2008may14,0,1137125.story" .

Oh, that. What Obama can do is ask that his supporters donate to her (defunct) campaign to eliminate her debt but only after she has quit the primary process and agrees to say nice things about him, asks her supporters to vote for him, etc. I think that's legal.

I hadn't heard anything about Obama helping the likes of Barr, though...

 

[chemisttree]

It seems to me the attacks on obama, including by clinton, have turned racist in tone.

quite explicitly, here in marietta, georgia we have a tavern owner, in a scenario right out of the 1960's, selling obama t shirts depicting him as curious george the monkey, eating a banana, in case you missed the story.


http://www.cbs46.com/news/16250318/detail.html

Ain't it awful! It's also sad that the uber left has continually referred to Bush as http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/30/151828/389".

This is offensive to chimpanzees!

 

[mheslep]

Ain't it awful! It's also sad that the uber left has continually referred to Bush as http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/30/151828/389".

This is offensive to chimpanzees!

Hey there's some hate speech on those sites. Must be fronts for Limbaugh or Savage. They're tricky bastards.