Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Obama and His Threat to ' Business as Usual' in Washington

Hat tip: Jack and Jill Politics

This relates to the story I posted below about Obama passing his One Millionth Donor down below, and how Obama's campaign threatens the status quo of Washington, and they don't like it.

Why the War on Obama
By Robert Parry
February 26, 2008

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign – having burned through $130 million and needing a $5 million emergency loan from the Clintons’ personal finances – has gone hat in hand to some of the special interests with a strong stake in protecting the Washington status quo.

For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby when these pro-Israel AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 14.

The approach made sense because these pro-Israeli lobbyists remain wary of Obama’s advocacy of high-level talks with Iran, his opposition to the Iraq War, and his skimpier record of supporting Israel when compared with Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

One former Israeli official told me that the Israeli government feels it can work with Obama, Clinton or McCain, but that the Israeli lobby in the United States is adamantly opposed to Obama, preferring Clinton because “they own her.” The ex-official said the lobby has some concern, too, with McCain because of his independent streak.

Like other powerful lobbies, AIPAC is threatened by Obama’s ability to raise large sums of money from everyday Americans, thus reducing the need of Washington politicians to hold out their tin cups to AIPAC’s legendary network of wealthy donors.

Rest of article is HERE.

Think about what the author has written. Barack Obama is a threat because he has connected with THE PEOPLE, and has been fully funded by THE PEOPLE. It's articles like this that make me shake my head in disgust, and explain more than a little bit about Obama's candidacy. I believe THE PEOPLE have wanted, for a long time, to believe that they can make a difference. For so long, they have watched as THEIR GOVERNMENT pulled away from them, frustrated them, disgusted them. Made them feel as if they didn't count and that they were impotent to do anything about it. When Obama tells them that they can, it awakens a fundamental AMERICAN SPIRIT that, deep down, we all have, no matter our background.

I wonder if the MSM will pick up on this story....why do I believe the answer to this question is HELL NO.


Brian said...


Just look at the list of Clinton's donors...full of Big Business, and CEO's.

She also gets free help from the corporate media.

The military industrial complex, and other big corporations want someone in office who will keep the tax breaks coming, and will fight more wars...or at least keep tensions high overseas (for example... the way that the U.S. plays India and Pakistan against one another...then turns around and cuts deals to sell weapons to both countries... it's a really slick game they play). In fact, the Defense industry and the State Department have been in cahoots for creating business for the other. The State Department often negotiates on behalf of the private weapons manufacturers.

So the idea of someone coming along threatening that decades long tradition... is bothersome to the big corporations.

This is why they feared John Edwards so much.

I'd love to see John Edwards get the VP nod for Obama (if he can survive the Clinton Crime Syndicate)...that would be like twisting the knife...adding salt to the wound.

But I don't think Obama could get away with having such a young VP.

Obama will have to have a more seasoned VP, to erase fears about his perceived lack of "experience". a Black always need to have more of everything, just to get basic respect. Some people will always see him as the inept, inexperienced Black matter what he has accomplished or how much talent he has.
So he will be forced to pick a Bill Richardson...A Biden, a Kerry, or someone along those lines.

But then again... Obama spent a whole afternoon at Edwards's house last week. I wonder what that visit was all about.

Constructive Feedback said...

You guys AMAZE ME! You can look at the same set of FACTS between one politician that you HATE and another that you are swooning over and respond accordingly.

How do you explain this? Was it OBAMA that did anything in particular to get these small donors or was it the DONORS that bought into what THEY HOPE of Obama?

Shouldn't you be pointing to the REJECTED MONEY FROM BIG BUSINESSES that Obama refused to take to substantiate your claims?

1. Goldman Sachs: $441, 851
Hillary Clinton: $131, 850
Barack Obama: $310,001

2. DLA Piper: $318, 627
Hillary Clinton: $284, 620
Barack Obama: $34, 007

3. Citigroup, Inc.: $312, 261
Hillary Clinton: $18, 145
Barack Obama: 154, 116

4. Lehman Brothers: $303, 510
Hillary Clinton: $83, 650
Barack Obama: 219, 860

5. JP Morgan Chase & Co. : $243, 555
Hillary Clinton: $89,100
Barack Obama: $154, 455

6. Skadden, Arps et al: $242, 716
Hillary Clinton: $135, 060
Barack Obama: $107, 656

7. Morgan Stanley: $215, 035
Hillary Clinton: $127, 700
Barack Obama: $87,335

8. Kirkland & Ellis: $213, 301
Hillary Clinton: $110, 200
Barack Obama: $103, 101

9. Time Warner: $210, 971
Hillary Clinton: $103, 220
Barack Obama: $107, 751

10. Viacom Inc.: $173, 599
Hillary Clinton: $93, 200
Barack Obama: $80, 399