March 29, 2024, 12:52:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Overseas money flowing to presidential candidates  (Read 3482 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« on: July 31, 2008, 08:32:36 PM »

Quote
Overseas money flowing to presidential candidates

By Beth Sussman 
Posted: 07/31/08 07:58 PM [ET]
 
Record amounts of overseas money are flowing into the presidential campaigns, and finance experts say there is no sure way to rule out that foreigners are making illegal donations. 

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who spoke to an adoring crowd of 200,000 in Berlin last week, has already received twice as much money from abroad as President Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) did together during the entire 2004 campaign.

While only American citizens by law may donate to the campaigns, finance experts say it would not be that difficult to circumvent the safeguards that have been put into place to prevent foreigners from giving to U.S. presidential campaigns — if they are willing to make false statements and risk legal trouble in the U.S.

“An individual can easily donate online and otherwise, and if they’re dishonest or overenthusiastic, they can lie about who they are and what their status is to make an unlawful contribution,” said Jan Baran, an elections and ethics lawyer with the firm Wiley Rein.

(snip)

If the contributor deceives the campaign in order to donate, the liability falls on the contributor, not the campaign.

(snip)

A review of federal election records by The Hill found that through June, Obama received $2.8 million in contributions from abroad, including people living in American territories and serving in the military overseas. That is seven times more than the $381,809 that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has received from Americans abroad so far.

In 2004, Bush took in $747,857 from abroad, while Kerry received $550,834.

These types of donations account for more contributions to the Obama campaign than the totals for several states. The Illinois senator’s campaign has a special webpage for Americans abroad who would like to donate. They are asked to include a valid U.S. passport number or alien resident number, in addition to the information regularly asked of contributors.

read the rest of the story here -

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/overseas-money-flowing-to-presidential-candidates-2008-07-31.html

I wonder if they check or validate the U.S. passport number or alien resident number? 

How would the campaign know if there was fraud involved?  Identity theft?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2008, 11:05:21 PM »

Here, Let me expand on this.   HERE is "The REST of the story"

I would bet $200 M that there will never be an investigation into this.

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

 OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING

 

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks.  These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far.  That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history – and this was all from  the internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.

Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff  were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied.  Where was it coming from?  One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.  The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia. 

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters.  This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. 

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations.  They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

 This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out.  We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions?  That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed.  How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit.  It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.


 Muslim Plant?
 

 

 

Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2008, 09:56:42 AM »

Here, Let me expand on this.   HERE is "The REST of the story"

I would bet $200 M that there will never be an investigation into this.

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

 OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING


that's that bogus article.
it is not from Mareen Dowd but made up. possibly by some right-wing smearer.
Logged

crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2008, 01:35:17 PM »

Here, Let me expand on this.   HERE is "The REST of the story"

I would bet $200 M that there will never be an investigation into this.

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

 OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING


that's that bogus article.
it is not from Mareen Dowd but made up. possibly by some right-wing smearer.

And possibly from the Obama campaign.


Is Obama’s Secret Fall Strategy to Wage a Polarizing Smear Campaign?
Peter J. Wirs
Sunday, July 20, 2008

The allegations of Obama planting the false Maureen Down column to immunize himself from legitimate criticism didn’t simply fall out the sky. Astute political observers could easily detect David Axelrod’s fingerprints all over the illicit campaign tactic. It worked before, so why not now?

The senior partner of AKP Message & Media, David Axelrod is a leading political consultant based in Chicago, Illinois. While he is best known as a top adviser to Barack Obama, first in Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Illinois and currently as strategist for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, he has been the power behind the throne in multiple campaigns, including Dennis Archer in Detroit, Michael R. White in Cleveland, Anthony A. Williams in Washington, D.C., Lee P. Brown in Houston, and John F. Street in Philadelphia. While Axelrod will advise white candidates, he primarily specializes in developing campaign strategies for black candidates. His favorite, indeed primary campaign tactic, is to polarize the campaign with smear attacks, in other words, the race card. Indeed when all else fails, Axelrod resorts to the race card as his ace in the hole.

The most blatant example of Axelrod’s polarization campaign tactics was Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street’s 2003 reelection campaign. Street won his first term in 1999 in a razor-thin victory over GOP Sam Katz, despite a 4 to 1 voter registration edge. 2003 was anticipated to be rerun despite Street’s incumbency.

However, in the middle of the re-election campaign, with polls showing Katz actually in the lead, Street discovered that the FBI placed listening devices in the mayor’s conference room as part of a sweeping investigation of municipal corruption. The FBI’s investigation uncovered a corruption scheme led by Street's fund raiser Ron White, who died before going to trial and secured convictions of, among others, the city treasurer, Street’s personal attorney, a family cleric, and finally Street’s older brother, on hundreds of corruption-related charges. However, the G men were never able to pin anything on Street himself. So shameful was the Street tenure that the April 17, 2005, issue of Time Magazine listed Street as one of the three worst big-city mayors in the United States.

The discovery of the FBI bug at first seemed like a death knell to the Street campaign. But under Axelrod’s skillful media manipulation, Street and his supporters successfully polarized the campaign by leveling accusations of institutional racial prejudice and playing on historical skepticism of the GOP-controlled Federal government. The result? Street crushed Katz by winning re-election by a sixteen-point margin.

The entire sordid episode was memorialized in the 2003 documentary film "The Shame of the City" by Tigre Hill. "The Shame of a City" exposed Axelrod, among others, as disingenuous opportunists who intentionally and falsely manipulated racial tensions and suspicion of Republicans to get Street re-elected, despite the probable cause that induced the Federal investigation in the first place, and which eventually resulted in a string of convictions of scores of people in Street’s inner circle.

Opinion-molders praised "The Shame of a City" as a civic Rorschach test, exposing "how Smear-Room politics alienates voters across the political and color spectrum." The pertinent question is will we see a nationwide version of Axelrod’s polarized campaign smear tactics in 2008.



http://www.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=928ca7dd-d17c-45cb-827b-e6dec88ce13c&t=c
Logged
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2008, 10:30:20 PM »

Here, Let me expand on this.   HERE is "The REST of the story"

I would bet $200 M that there will never be an investigation into this.

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

 OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING


that's that bogus article.
it is not from Mareen Dowd but made up. possibly by some right-wing smearer.

Can you prove it's a fraud?  I gave a link and it is from NYTIMES.   With the state of our economy, can you explain this large amount of money coming in?  Even if all the celebrities and rich left wing radicals donated, they can't come up with this amount.  The middle east WANTS Obama elected, it serves in there best interest.  You want him elected yourself so bad, in another country,  you will attempt to debunk anything that doesn't fit your views. Yes, the truth does hurt, doesn't it?   You will continue, no matter the truth, so whatever.  Thank God YOU can't vote here.
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2008, 02:50:35 AM »

There are a lot of topics in this thread, so let me repeat what I posted earlier today in another one.

We can all disagree, dispute, and challenge any issue, article, or point of view brought into this thread with other sources including our own philosophies. But it stops there; it stops short of personally naming other posters or making other individuals the object of those challenges.

There's been a problem throughout this thread with personal attacks and it stops now for everyone. What's been posted stands, and we'll leave history there. It's a new day, and these are the rules. Follow them and continue a lively discussion, break them and find another forum to post on.

Challenge the issue, not the poster.
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2008, 06:32:24 AM »

Here, Let me expand on this.   HERE is "The REST of the story"

I would bet $200 M that there will never be an investigation into this.

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

 OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING


that's that bogus article.
it is not from Mareen Dowd but made up. possibly by some right-wing smearer.

Can you prove it's a fraud?  I gave a link and it is from NYTIMES.   With the state of our economy, can you explain this large amount of money coming in?  Even if all the celebrities and rich left wing radicals donated, they can't come up with this amount.  The middle east WANTS Obama elected, it serves in there best interest.  You want him elected yourself so bad, in another country,  you will attempt to debunk anything that doesn't fit your views. Yes, the truth does hurt, doesn't it?   You will continue, no matter the truth, so whatever.  Thank God YOU can't vote here.

if you also took some time to click on the link you would see that this column isn't there.
Logged

crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2008, 02:56:18 PM »

Here, Let me expand on this.   HERE is "The REST of the story"

I would bet $200 M that there will never be an investigation into this.

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

 OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING


that's that bogus article.
it is not from Mareen Dowd but made up. possibly by some right-wing smearer.

Can you prove it's a fraud?  I gave a link and it is from NYTIMES.   With the state of our economy, can you explain this large amount of money coming in?  Even if all the celebrities and rich left wing radicals donated, they can't come up with this amount.  The middle east WANTS Obama elected, it serves in there best interest.  You want him elected yourself so bad, in another country,  you will attempt to debunk anything that doesn't fit your views. Yes, the truth does hurt, doesn't it?   You will continue, no matter the truth, so whatever.  Thank God YOU can't vote here.

I first became aware of this in an e-mail I received, and it was the column you posted supposedly from Maureen Dowd, and included the same link you posted, which is indeed her website. She didn't write the article and a search for it on that site won't turn it up. This column, which has been widely circulated, has been the topic of intense investigation by a lot of reporters who want to know who originated it. Whoever did, had knowledge above the average person about how campaign finances are processed and what regulations there are, governing them. What is known right now has led some to suspect that the Obama campaign itself orchestrated it (see the article I posted above). The column was highlighted on Obama's website as evidence of "smear" before it had gained circulation in the public eye, and Obama's primary campaign strategist, David Axelrod, has a history of similar stunts, trying to create suspicion of the opposing candidate.

A definitive answer has yet to be determined, and my personal opinion is that if it did originate in the Obama campaign, this story will simply die. Most reporters who have a nose for this story would back off if it appeared to be pointing to Obama. Quite the contrary if it should be someone close to McCain.

It should prove interesting to watch. I'm not a gambler, but my bet would be that it will slowly fade away, and that will say volumes to me.
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2008, 05:21:18 PM »

i don't see how the Obama campaign would benefit from such a made up article.
to make such an unfounded allegation is just a smear on top of a smear to me.

it fits more in the endless row of made up recycled rumors coming from the anti-Obama camp.
the tactic of the republicans seems to be to misinform as much voters as possible to make them scared of Obama.
but i think this misinformation tactic won't work anymore.

and, if there is proof that Obama received funding from foreign donators, i am sure the McCain campaign would have pointed to the evidence - because that would mean the election rules are violated.
but they can't, so resorting to old misinformation / smearing and scare tactic is their only option left.
Logged

truthseeker2
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1991



« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2008, 08:14:32 PM »

i don't see how the Obama campaign would benefit from such a made up article.
to make such an unfounded allegation is just a smear on top of a smear to me.

it fits more in the endless row of made up recycled rumors coming from the anti-Obama camp.
the tactic of the republicans seems to be to misinform as much voters as possible to make them scared of Obama.
but i think this misinformation tactic won't work anymore.

and, if there is proof that Obama received funding from foreign donators, i am sure the McCain campaign would have pointed to the evidence - because that would mean the election rules are violated.
but they can't, so resorting to old misinformation / smearing and scare tactic is their only option left.

Putting things out there like this is not all that unusual for Liberal Democrats.  Back in 2004 the story out there was that there were bills in both the House and Senate that would reinstitute the draft.  Liberal talking heads were all over it and had "analysts" on the news programs to come in and talk about it.  The short versions always indicated that the Republicans had created these bills.  So theRepublicans called the bluff and called for votes on both bills.  As it turned out....both bills were sponsored by Democrats and they had never intended it to be borught to a vote.  They just wanted to use it as a compaign 'negative' against the Republicans.  They never expected to have to bring it to a vote knowing that most voters would never go out there to see who was actually sponsoring the bills.

Both bills were easliy defeated in both the House and the Senate.  The Democrats then had to go look for something else to smear the Republicans with. 

And of course you must remember the Dan Rather debacle.  hehe
Logged

"Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking"..J.C. Watts
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2008, 03:15:23 AM »

i don't see how the Obama campaign would benefit from such a made up article.
to make such an unfounded allegation is just a smear on top of a smear to me.

it fits more in the endless row of made up recycled rumors coming from the anti-Obama camp.
the tactic of the republicans seems to be to misinform as much voters as possible to make them scared of Obama.
but i think this misinformation tactic won't work anymore.

and, if there is proof that Obama received funding from foreign donators, i am sure the McCain campaign would have pointed to the evidence - because that would mean the election rules are violated.
but they can't, so resorting to old misinformation / smearing and scare tactic is their only option left.


I'm sure there are "politicians" on both sides of the aisle, but this is an inopportune time to be painting Republicans with the broad brush of misinformation, on the heels of what the Democrats, led by Pelosi, in Congress just pulled. There has been broad public support for offshore drilling since gas prices have risen at such an alarming rate. Americans have also had their eyes opened to the dire prospects if Middle Eastern Countries should ban together to block exports of oil to us. Pelosi wants our country to release our oil reserves held for National Security to have an immediate impact on prices. (Yeah, that makes sense: let's announce to the world that we have no reserves to protect ourselves!) Anyway, Congress was scheduled for vacation and there was a Republican push for a vote to allow or disallow drilling before Congress broke for the vacation. The Republican position was that it was inappropriate for Congress to go on vacation while the American people were begging for our government to act on their behalf and take some action to at least assure that burden could be relieved in the future. That action would also have some impact on the futures market which is contributing to high gas prices. President Bush had signed the necessary release putting the decision squarely in the Congress.

We have an election in November, and the Democrats don't want a vote on their record that may not follow the majority's wishes. They don't want to vote no, and they don't want to vote yes; they just don't want to vote. (They could follow Obama's lead and vote "present", but Americans are really keeping an eye on this one.) So, the Democrats stalled the vote and scurried out the door for vacation...................only problem was that Republicans refused to leave the floor! Pelosi set security to guard against reporters entering (cell phones recorded it anyway). When that didn't stop the debate the Republicans continued to wage, she had the water removed from chambers. When the Republicans responded by ordering out for pizza, she had the lights turned out. But the Republicans stayed, and voiced their disgust that the plight of the people they were charged to represent could be set aside for political reasons. They called for Obama, as the chosen leader of his party to actually LEAD by commiting to a stance on his party's actions, but he's perfected his two-step and avoided a meaningful comment either way;eloquently. He would neither support and encourage their actions, nor would he renounce them. After all, he has an election to win, too.

Pelosi must have been his student. I saw her this morning with George Stephanopoulos trying everything she could to keep from admitting what everyone knows: The democrats don't want a vote on the issue on the record until after their elections. Keep in mind, that the vote at issue, if defeated or passed, doesn't preclude other legislation pertaining to energy from being developed and voted on. So here's misinformation and double-speak in living color..........I counted 8 times George (previous Clinton cabinet member), asked her, WHY NOT VOTE? It's a riot! 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5504708
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 03:18:26 AM by crazybabyborg » Logged
nonesuche
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878



« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2008, 08:18:58 AM »

It is a riot CBB 

Caesu doesn't seem capable of grasping the big picture of how partisan positioning and manipulation drives a great deal of our political outcomes now - which is effectively confirmed by Pelosi's duck and weave for wasn't she promising longer hours, more votes, more decisions - that was her platform? 

This election (for the Democrats and their party) is far, far less about the specifics of the candidate, and all about winning - Obama led in the primaries which is why they backed him. I also suspect Hillary wasn't quick to relinquish because her own party pledged their support to her FIRST........then when she didn't hit the numbers to defeat him, they kicked her to the curb.

Obama has had strong overseas support since the beginning of this. His use of the internet has been precedent-setting and that has allowed him to build covert relationships. I also posted here early on the massive "spam" his site was sending to me, as well as these emails weekly about "have dinner with Obama" with price tags that were at least 1K a piece.

Obama is the trojan horse, I am however laughing to see even his beloved media begin to peel that onion !

Logged

I continue to stand with the girl.
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2008, 08:58:11 PM »

i don't see how the Obama campaign would benefit from such a made up article.
to make such an unfounded allegation is just a smear on top of a smear to me.

it fits more in the endless row of made up recycled rumors coming from the anti-Obama camp.
the tactic of the republicans seems to be to misinform as much voters as possible to make them scared of Obama.
but i think this misinformation tactic won't work anymore.

and, if there is proof that Obama received funding from foreign donators, i am sure the McCain campaign would have pointed to the evidence - because that would mean the election rules are violated.
but they can't, so resorting to old misinformation / smearing and scare tactic is their only option left.

Hillary just ended a campaign battle with Obama, and she would disagree that he isn't capable of manufacturing an issue, tagging it to her campaign, and exploiting it to stir up resentment toward her. Geraldine Ferrara, and Bill would confirm it as well. Bill said today, he will have a lot to say after the election, but he is not a racist, as Obama's campaign alledged, and Ferraro has all but said that Obama isn't fit to be president.


Ferraro: 'They're attacking me because I'm white'Story Highlights
NEW: Geraldine Ferraro says she is being attacked because she is white



From Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN Washington Bureau
     
(CNN) -- Geraldine Ferraro defended her controversial comment that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign was successful because he was black, telling an interviewer Tuesday that she was being attacked because she was white.


Comments by former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro are drawing criticism from the Obama campaign.

 "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

In another interview Tuesday, she compared Obama's situation to her own 24 years ago, when she was the first female candidate for vice president.

She told a FOX News interviewer, "I got up and the question was asked, 'Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today" as the party's delegate front-runner?

"I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president," she said.

In her first interview with Daily Breeze, published late last week, Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

She also said Hillary Clinton had been the victim of a "sexist media."


"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive," he told the Allentown Morning Call.

"I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign, they shouldn't have a place in Sen. Clinton's, either," he added.

Earlier, Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, called for Clinton to sever ties with the former New York congresswoman, who serves on her campaign's finance committee.

"When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said.

Axelrod said the comment by Ferraro, coupled with Clinton's "own inexplicable unwillingness" to deny that Obama was a Muslim during a recent interview, was part of "an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed."
Ferraro could not be reached for comment.

Clinton told The Associated Press that she did not agree with Ferraro's comments.

"It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal," she said. "We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we've produced for people. That's what this campaign should be about."

The former congresswoman is the latest Clinton surrogate to launch a firestorm with comments that related to Obama's heritage or ethnicity.

Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, drew sharp criticism from black leaders for a series of comments he made before the South Carolina primary, including comparing Obama's campaign to the Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1984 run.
Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a major Clinton backer, said several times that an Obama presidency would improve the world's image of the U.S. because of the Illinois senator's Muslim roots.

Obama, however, said Kerrey's comments were intended to highlight Obama's Muslim heritage in voters' minds
.

And shortly before the Texas primary, 84-year-old Clinton supporter Adelfa Callejo told CBS 11 News in Dallas, Texas, that Obama would have trouble attracting Latino support because he was African-American.

"When blacks had the numbers, they didn't do anything to support us," Callejo said. "They always used our numbers to fulfill their goals and objectives, but they never really supported us, and there's a lot of hard feelings about that. I don't think we're going to get over it anytime soon."

Last month, when Hillary Clinton was asked whether she would reject and denounce Callejo's remarks, she said, "People get to express their opinions," adding that "a lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign."

Later, her campaign released a statement saying that she had been unaware of the substance of the remarks during that interview and both denounced and rejected them.

Obama has faced his own headaches. Foreign policy adviser Samantha Power ended her connection with his campaign last week after telling a Scottish interviewer that Clinton was a "monster."

Power also made remarks about Obama's Iraq war policy that were used by the Clinton campaign in recent attacks.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/ferraro.comments/index.html
*************************************************************************************


Obama's campaign got a lot of mileage out of the above situation, and they'd love nothing more than to have another crack at it, in my opinion.


Logged
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 4.897 seconds with 19 queries.