No, when he got the nomination he became an impediment to Obama rather than a useful tool for the media to bash the GOP with, so they turned on him.
You don't believe that he reversed and/or played down some of his more non-GOP stances that he held previous to his presidential campaign? Really?
No what actually happened in the non-fantasy idiotverse is that he reversed his positions, which resulted in the bizarres spectacle of him denouncing an immigration reform bill pending in congress.....sponsored by one John McCain, R-AZ.
nope - just following the money - obama has been very good to those who have been good to him - he is playing the game and that is why he will win again. do you honestly think the average janitor is giving as much as the average CEO? i dont understand why you think obama is not a corporatist. only a tool would refuse to recognize that there is a serious conflict on interest going on b/t government and the corporate world. you have to be blind/willfully ignorant to not see the revolving door b/t government and the corporate world.
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qkMlqfN0DDU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
you have to be blind/willfully ignorant to not understand that anyone who gets a billion dollars to campaign for a job that pays a few hundred thousand will be owing some serious favors. and it was sam who stated that your precious spent a billion on the last campaign - he was wrong.
You're not just following the money - that's the point. You're following money and then attributing it to reasons that you choose. Of course not. But there are a whole lot more janitors and secretaries and mid-level employees than there are CEO's. Yet you lump all that money into the same category as you do for the CEO. I've never commented on Obama's relationship with corporations. You're only seeing what you want to see.
The problem with this theory is that the money comes from a variety of sources - many of whom have competing agendas. He raised about $750MM total. Of that, $500MM came from his online operation. In # of donations, 92% of that was from small donors: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/obama-raised-half-a-billion-on.html In an exclusive interview with The Post, members of the vaunted Triple O, Obama's online operation, broke down the numbers: 3 million donors made a total of 6.5 million donations online adding up to more than $500 million. Of those 6.5 million donations, 6 million were in increments of $100 or less. The average online donation was $80, and the average Obama donor gave more than once. We don't know the specifics, but if the average of those 6 million sub-$100 donations was $50, that's $300MM - or 40% of his total - from small donors. That's a whole hell of a lot more than he got from any particular industry (finance, etc). If you believe he owes favors to whoever paid for his campaign, your argument would be that he owes a lot of favors to the general middle-class public. By your standard, his policies should be all about them.
lol samuel - i was not on clutchfans for 4 damn days - check my posting history. i guess i should have gone to "law school" so i could get the kind of job that allows me to check into clutchfans every 5 minutes and start arguments w/ strangers. i know a few lawyers and they are very busy people - its pretty incredible that someone who is as successful as you tell us you are has so much time on their hands. if i am so "lame" than why do you chase me around starting arguments w/ me all the time? lol samuel - the only one "embarrassng" themselves is you. you are ignorant about the content of articles you claim to be "well aware" of. you claim that your precious spent a billion on the last campaign when that is not the case and you claim that "if you aggregate the contributions from employees of all these corporations you named, it barely amounts to anything", which is clearly wrong. even though you have dug quite a hole for yourself you can still save a little face by just apologizing to me and admitting your ignorance. and you are the one always going around starting arguments with me so if anyone has an "interweb boner" it is you. you chase me around asking what i like to do at night, where i go, what kind of food i like - clearly you have an "interweb boner" for me. say hi to dorothy and toto for me!
he does "owe" the average american - but his agenda is clearly one that serves the corporate world and wall street.
can you do some math for me to support your "GS has bought and paid for Obama" thesis? This is tabling the whole dumb "aggregating employees is farcical " issue that has been explained to you ad nauseum by myself, major & others. 900,000/700,000,000? Go. You have 48 hours. Incidentally - what is the highest level of education you obtained? I ask not because i'm curious, but because you keep bringing it on yourself by acting like a completely insecure douche, so I figure it will needle you to answer the question. So - what is it? College graduate? Or some college? My money is on some college, you're clearly too smart to be just an HS/GED guy, but obviously quite self-conscious about it since you can't shut about my Juris Doctorate sheepskin. Also, the "some college" demographic, aged 19-25 appears to be the key Ron Paul/"I'm a Libertarian!" bloc, which you're in. Again, you have 48 hours to answer. Also, please know that I vow to not answer a single post of yours again until this information is provided. 48 hours.
Does this make you willfully ignorant? You said earlier: you have to be blind/willfully ignorant to not understand that anyone who gets a billion dollars to campaign for a job that pays a few hundred thousand will be owing some serious favors. You started with a conclusion and just picking and choosing arguments to fit the conclusion you want to believe. You started with the idea that Obama will pander to anyone who gave him money; now you say he should but doesn't pander to those people.
It's hard to pander to millions of people with differing interests and no set bloc of uniform ideas or principles. It's relatively easier to pander to an all-consuming profit machine that has only two or three goals in mind---say, for example, avoidance of government action for criminal activity and government deregulation of its' sector.
So now Obama panders not because of the money, but because it's easy? You all really need to start getting your argument straight, because it's meandering all over the place.
lol, you can spin it anyway you want samuel, but you were wrong. just admit it... again, obama is going to win in 2012 - he is playing the game just like his predecessors and thats why he wont lose. i dont know why that simple statement is so upsetting to you OOFs. you should be happy - you will have 4 more years to worship your precious. lol samuel, if anyone acts like an insecure douche it is the person who feels the need to go around telling everyone that they are a "lawyer" who went to "law school". you continually start arguments w/ others, often about things they werent even saying and you make snide comments about others educational background instead of responding to the content of what they say. and most insecurely douchtastic of all, you keep a mental list of people who you perceive to "hate" you - i believe you call it the "he-man sam haters club". that is the pinnacle of insecurity. and if you are really that curious about my educational background you can do a search and easily find all the info you want. i have discussed my college career at length in appropriate threads. it would not be that difficult at all for you to find not only where i graduated, but what i majored in and what year i graduated. i have discussed it at length over the years. lets test your research skillz lawboi - you have 48 hours! wrong again lawboi - im 36. im giving you that one, but you still must find my college history on your own. again, all the info you want is here w/in clutchfans. you have 47:55!
