Philip Tang,

On President-elect Obama's election fund: "It’s an open secret that a sizable portion came from captains of industries and foreign donors."

If it's such an open secret, perhaps you would enlighten us on where the actual evidence sits?

Fractelle shows his/her racism

'I am still relishing the thought that a right-wing white man and his religious fundy running mate are no longer a threat to the USA and the rest of the world.'

He/she ignores that many of the injustices throughout the world are being carried out by corrupt coloured Politicians. Don't let plain facts get in the way of your own racism though!

Dear runner,

You know that corruption doesn't have a colour.
It's the character of the politician that matters.

Obama won not because of the colour of his skin,
but the content of his character.

As he told the American
people :

"America, this is our moment.
This is our time.
Our time to turn the page
of the policies of the past."

And Americans were ready for a change.
It was the biggest voter turnout ever.

Barack Obama won because he gave people hope,
not fear. He united people, not divided them.

Hopefully, the politics of hope will win again
in the future.

Spikey,

Two interesting articles.

(a) By Patrick Martin in Feb 2008 showed why and how the ruling elite and well-connected endorsed Obama.

“The huge swing to the Democratic Party in campaign contributions from big business reflects this emerging consensus. According to recent financial reports to the Federal Election Commission, investment bankers have tilted their financial support overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party, giving roughly equal amounts to Clinton and Obama. In total contributions, both Clinton and Obama collected more than $100 million apiece in 2007, more than twice the largest amount raised by any Republican, while Obama raised an additional $32.6 million in January 2008 alone.”

“Among those backing the Obama campaign are such pillars of the US political establishment as Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter and an arch-Cold Warrior; retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak and a host of other retired military brass; billionaire Warren Buffett, the second-richest man in America; and an array of Wall Street and corporate executives, none of whom could be suspected of any sympathy for radical social change.”

"Obama’s mantra of bringing everyone together may appeal to the naïve illusions of youth who are making their first political experiences, but Obama and the Wall Street bankers and media moguls who are promoting him know exactly what they are doing."

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5580

(b) Journalist Arrested when taking pictures of Democratic senators and corporate donors.

Overall, 135 protesters have been arrested this week in Denver. The police crackdown has also spread to media workers. On Wednesday, a producer for ABC News was arrested as he tried to take pictures of Democratic senators and corporate donors leaving a private meeting at a downtown hotel. Video footage shows the journalist, Asa Eslocker, standing on a public sidewalk. An officer forces him across the street and shoves him. Eslocker is then put in handcuffs. Police say Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference and failure to follow a lawful order. He was taking the pictures as part of a week-long ABC News series on the role of corporate lobbyists and donors at the Democratic convention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QaIrut9rTc
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/28/headline

Foxy

'You know that corruption doesn't have a colour.
It's the character of the politician that matters.'

Exactly Foxy and we will find out what this man's character is in the next few years. Hopefully like Mr Bush he will have the courage to defend the unborn (that would take some character).

Dear Philip,

Media moguls, investment bankers and the like do not give money to a candidate only because they agree with the ideas of that candidate. Quite often more than one competing candidate receives money from the same source. in fact big corporate donors usually give to to more than one competing candidate.

One reason they give to candidates is so they will have a degree of influence when the candidate is elected. Money talks. Once big givers see that Obama is favoured then they will give. Obama raised a lot of money after he was almost unanimously predicted to win. Most people would see no point in giving money to a candidate who is predicted to win because the candidate doesn't need it.

If one is trying to buy entry or influence that is when such an entity would give money. That is one reason for public financing of campaigns.

In Norway no contributions to candidates or political advertising is allowed. TV times is given to candidates in which they must face each other and debate ideas and prospective acts with no moderator directing questions at them.

If corporate donors groom a candidate as Bank of America and other corporate interests backed and groomed Ronald Reagan then that is evidence that those interests want him in office. Most of Obama's early money came from people like me. My small contribution gives me absolutely no influence. It gave me the satisfaction of giving to a candidate who called the Iraq War stupid when other politicians backed it, a candidate who chose to become a community organiser rather than a big-time corporate lawyer and a candidate who seemed to have a reflective and intelligent approach rather than an emotive one. I think many others felt the same way.