Obama: wrong man for the job

[Guest Loki]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

[WilliamK]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

Yeah! How dare he use campaign donations for campaigning.

What an absurd criticism. This is exactly the sort of thing that a surplus of campaign donations should be used for. To do anything other than spend it on campaigning, including not spending it, would be unethical and disrespectful to all the supporters who donated that money. There's only so much traveling and rallying that can be done in the time remaining, so a major ad buy makes perfect sense.

As for treating our tax dollars any differently, I would certainly hope he doesn't. Using that money ethically, intelligently, and for the purposes it's meant for is a GOOD thing.

[Guest Paul]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

You're damn right he's pulling out all the stops, and he should. Of all the goofy arguments!

He bought half an hour on nearly all the networks and major cable outlets. That's what it costs. Some of that money was mine, and it was well spent. Those of us who donated, more than a million of us, I understand, all feel that way I'm sure.

We cannot afford for Senator Obama to lose this election. The costs of that would be in the trillions.

[Guest Paul]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

Sorry for a second post, but I just noticed --- he didn't spend $3 million per network. That's just plain false. He spent $3 million for the program to run on all the networks.

[Manscape]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

If you think Obama is the WRONG MAN for the job.............just look at Palin and McCain (who gets TOP billing?!).

Ask Obama's donors (I'm one) about the merits of his infomercial expense tonight (Wednesday, October 29, 2008)........

Fine Fine............

This is Obama's money to use as he will............and WE who gave it to him, trust him! The race against the screwball Republican cult is not over until late Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 and it's NOT in the bag yet. I APPLAUD Barry's decision to spend the money on his prime time stage to nail home the gold. If YOU have a problem with it Loki, I suggest you vote for Abbott and Costello..........errr..........I mean Palin and Bulgeface!

[Guest Keith]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

He was given that money to campaign with and that is exactly what he was doing. What's the problem?

[Guest Combat Vet]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

Wow you have exposed yourself for the jackass you truly are. Obama took NO public funding so yes it is campaign donations. That's why people gave donations. Is McCain spending his own money to fund his campaign? No, he's using US Treasury dollars. Public funding.

But.... caribou Barbie's new wardrobe came from repub campaign money which is taxpayer money, yep we paid for it.

It's easy to see why the repubs are in such dire straits.

[Guest Guest]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

Because your tax dollars are for other purposes.

Millions of contributors have sent in money to the Obama campaign. That's because we want to see him win. He spent some of that money to buy 30 minutes of prime airtime to get his message out and win the election. That's exactly why we sent him the money. What's the problem?

Did you contribute to his campaign? You didn't, did you. So stop complaining about how he spent money you didn't give him. I'll guarantee you that we, his contributors, don't have a problem with how he spent the money we gave him.

[Guest Loki]

Allow me to clarify. First, Paul you are right, I heard the price tag of $3 million to air on the networks, and assumed it was the price for each and not all. I apologize.

In my attempt to be brief, I may have failed to convey my point. Obama agreed to public financing and reneged, and while I think it tells a lot about his word, politically it was very smart on his part. He was able to raise an obscene amount of money, and public financing would have only handcuffed his campaign. So, on this point we agree. I also agree if you have the money, and really want the job, you should pull out all the stops.

My main point, and one that no one addressed, was the fact that he is perfectly willing to spend money that doesn't come from his own pocket; re: tax dollars.

So, to answer Keith's question, the problem is not him spending campaign dollars that were freely donated. I'm just curious about the earlier pledge to accept the public financing. I don't understand when politicians, all of them, make a pledge early in a campaign, later do a complete 180, and assume no one was listening. As I said, politically it would have been foolish for him to go that route; I only assumed that he would have known that even in the earliest stages of his campaign.

As for the people who called me "jackass", and Palin and McCain "screwball and bulgeface", I fail to see where namecalling adds anything substantial to ANY discussion. After all, aren't the Democrats the "big tent party" and the party of "tolerance and inclusion." That is, unless you dare to have a different opinion. Oops, missed the "Caribou Barbie" derision; do want to be thorough.

[Guest Guest]

On Wednesday, Obama takes to the airwaves, to the tune of $3 million dollars per network, to make his case for the presidency. My problem is not with what is being described as an infomercial; the man is campaigning and pulling out all the stops.

But, at a time when we are hoping to reign in excesses, is this the example we need. I want less spending in Washington, and Obama is willing, very cavalierly IMO, to spend this money, AS THE FRONTRUNNER. So, my problem is that he is not spending his OWN money like Ross Perot did, but rather campaign donations. Why would I expect him to treat our tax dollars any differently.

[Manscape]

As for the people who called me "jackass", and Palin and McCain "screwball and bulgeface", I fail to see where namecalling adds anything substantial to ANY discussion. After all, aren't the Democrats the "big tent party" and the party of "tolerance and inclusion." That is, unless you dare to have a different opinion. Oops, missed the "Caribou Barbie" derision; do want to be thorough.

I'm not here to give the Bush/McCain/Palin biblethumping, hypocritical deadender cult a civil exchange of ideas on a messageboard.

I'm here to help rip the cancer of your ideological malignancy from the flesh of our nation.

Trick or treat, tootsy.

[Guest Paul]

Allow me to clarify. First, Paul you are right, I heard the price tag of $3 million to air on the networks, and assumed it was the price for each and not all. I apologize.

In my attempt to be brief, I may have failed to convey my point. Obama agreed to public financing and reneged, and while I think it tells a lot about his word, politically it was very smart on his part. He was able to raise an obscene amount of money, and public financing would have only handcuffed his campaign. So, on this point we agree. I also agree if you have the money, and really want the job, you should pull out all the stops.

My main point, and one that no one addressed, was the fact that he is perfectly willing to spend money that doesn't come from his own pocket; re: tax dollars.

So, to answer Keith's question, the problem is not him spending campaign dollars that were freely donated. I'm just curious about the earlier pledge to accept the public financing. I don't understand when politicians, all of them, make a pledge early in a campaign, later do a complete 180, and assume no one was listening. As I said, politically it would have been foolish for him to go that route; I only assumed that he would have known that even in the earliest stages of his campaign.

As for the people who called me "jackass", and Palin and McCain "screwball and bulgeface", I fail to see where namecalling adds anything substantial to ANY discussion. After all, aren't the Democrats the "big tent party" and the party of "tolerance and inclusion." That is, unless you dare to have a different opinion. Oops, missed the "Caribou Barbie" derision; do want to be thorough.

I don't understand the earlier half-pledge either, but I do know that taking public financing would have been naive. It doesn't mean Obama doesn't favor public financing. Maybe he does, although there would also have to be rules limiting the influence of outside groups. I'm not sure it's practical. I expect Obama to do what he did, which is to do everything necessary within the law and consistent with some basic standards of honesty, and actually governing the country later to win the election. At this point in the game, discussion about campaign finance is mainly a distraction from the real issues of the election.

Why don't you give me a call so I know who you are? Maybe you could stop over for a beer on election night.

[Guest Guest]

First thing 44 did was put a cap on his own staff's pay

[Bern]

First thing 44 did was put a cap on his own staff's pay

Really? But then a cap is not the same as a freeze.

Links? Proof?

Don't give me links or proof from Republican or right wing sources. They have proven over and over that they make things up to suit themselves.

From the fantasy world of the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee)

Economy

Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.

Republican tax cuts are creating jobs and continuing to strengthen the economy, yet there is still more to do so that every American who wants a job can find one. Congressional Republicans understand that many Americans are working hard to make ends meet. That is why the GOP continues to push for pro-growth policies that create jobs and oppose tax increases that would add a burden to working families and set back our economy.

http://www.nrcc.org/issues/default.asp?ID=47

[Guest Guest]

First thing 44 did was put a cap on his own staff's pay

Big deal.

[Guest Lincoln Logger]

You're damn right he's pulling out all the stops, and he should. Of all the goofy arguments!

He bought half an hour on nearly all the networks and major cable outlets. That's what it costs. Some of that money was mine, and it was well spent. Those of us who donated, more than a million of us, I understand, all feel that way I'm sure.

We cannot afford for Senator Obama to lose this election. The costs of that would be in the trillions.

Goofy is as goofy does, Paul. I am sure he is grateful that Paul sent him money. I guess thats what he means by change. So lets see how this is not going to cost trillions.

[Guest Guest]

Goofy is as goofy does, Paul. I am sure he is grateful that Paul sent him money. I guess thats what he means by change. So lets see how this is not going to cost trillions.

It is going to cost trillions. It has already cost trillions. Your idiot gave trillions away to his rich friends. We're in a historic mess and it's going to take trillions for us to get out of it. If we had been investing instead of following Bush, the neocons and Limbaugh, we wouldn't have this problem. Don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited from Bush.

[Guest Guest]

It is going to cost trillions. It has already cost trillions. Your idiot gave trillions away to his rich friends. We're in a historic mess and it's going to take trillions for us to get out of it. If we had been investing instead of following Bush, the neocons and Limbaugh, we wouldn't have this problem. Don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited from Bush.

AHHHH!! The playbook revealed. It doesn't matter what the new leadership is unable to accomplish, they've already named the fall guy.

Newsflash! If the Democrats control the Executive and both houses in Congress, at least some of this mess will stick. Unless the media plays along. Oh well, I was just hoping.

[Guest Patriot]

It is going to cost trillions. It has already cost trillions. Your idiot gave trillions away to his rich friends. We're in a historic mess and it's going to take trillions for us to get out of it. If we had been investing instead of following Bush, the neocons and Limbaugh, we wouldn't have this problem. Don't blame Obama for the mess he inherited from Bush.

You forgot to include the democratic congress.

[Guest Guest]

AHHHH!! The playbook revealed. It doesn't matter what the new leadership is unable to accomplish, they've already named the fall guy.

Newsflash! If the Democrats control the Executive and both houses in Congress, at least some of this mess will stick. Unless the media plays along. Oh well, I was just hoping.

Yeah, too bad everyone isn't as open-minded as you are. The guy hasn't even been in office a week. How about giving him a chance. You may not like it, but the American people already did.

[Guest Guest]

You forgot to include the democratic congress.

Well at least you admit that the people in charge recently are partly to blame. Now how about putting the Bush White House (8 years) and the Republican Congress (6 years) in along with the Democratic Congress, which didn't have enough votes to override Bush's inevitable vetoes of any real reform. (2 years).

You know, there's a reason why the Republicans were thrown out in the past two elections. It's because they were in and screwed everything up.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

You forgot to include the democratic congress.

Follow the power, dummy. The Treas Sec and Fed Chair have most of the power to actually do things with the economy. Congress doesn't really have much to do with the short-term running of it. The fact is that (as usual) you can be proven wrong with a 5-second Google News search-every financial wiz but hardcore conservatives was predicting disaster for a couple of years before the Dems took power. It isn't our fault that you only listened to the Faux Noise lie that the economy was doing great.

[Guest Guest]

Yeah, too bad everyone isn't as open-minded as you are. The guy hasn't even been in office a week. How about giving him a chance. You may not like it, but the American people already did.

He's only just realized that he'll have to deal with Social Security and Medicare, I think we are in deep trouble.

[Guest Guest]

He's only just realized that he'll have to deal with Social Security and Medicare, I think we are in deep trouble.

You moron. Where you come up with this crap?