Obama Suggests Clinton Show Tax Returns

NEW ORLEANS — Democrat Barack Obama suggested Thursday that Hillary Rodham Clinton follow his lead and release her and her husband's income tax returns so the public can see where the $5 million she loaned her presidential campaign came from.

A day earlier, Clinton acknowledged that she had made the loan late last month. At the time, Obama was raising and spending more money than her heading into the round of presidential primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday.

Asked whether he would call on the Clintons to release their tax returns, Obama stopped short of saying they should.

"I'll just say that I've released my tax returns. That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from. But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down," he told reporters on the flight to Omaha, Neb., for a rally.

"I've disclosed my income tax returns," he said. "I think we set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure that has been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics."

There was no immediate comment from Clinton's campaign.

Obama noted that Clinton is wealthier than he is. Asked whether he would rule out tapping his personal funds to pay for his presidential campaign, he said, "I don't have enough money to drop $5 million into a campaign."

Clinton's financial disclosures, which reveal only broad ranges of assets, place her and former President Clinton's wealth between $10 million to $50 million.

Obama released tax documents last year showing income of more than $991,000 for him and his wife, Michelle. The figure included his Senate salary as well as her income as an administrator of the University of Chicago Hospitals.

Comments

[l.blissett]

"I think we set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure that has been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics."

opensecrets.org shows that in 2007, 18% of donations ($15,925,900) to barack obama were listed as "NO DISCLOSURE".

this is a higher % and $ amount than any other candidate on either side -- rudy's next with 14.5%, mccain 13%, clinton 10.3%.

the rationale expressed elsewhere is that obama's donations come in smaller amounts, many under the threshold of $200 required for discloure by the FEC.

however, another campaign which has excelled in raising large amounts with smaller individual donations is ron paul's. his %? 5%.

assuming that all $16mil was donated in chunks of $200, that's 80,000 donations (minimum) that chose to not disclose any info about themselves, despite the campaign's specific request that all donations come with full disclosure.

i/o/w at least 80,000 of the campaign's donors (that is, if those amounts have all come from different individuals) have chosen to not honor the campaign's pledge for transparency and disclosure and to not voluntarily practice what is being preached.

things that make you go hmmmmm.....

(p.s. yes, i've posted these # twice before in other threads, but have chosen to do it here for the final time, as this thread seems most ironically appropriate to the particular topic at hand.)

[Seafarer61]

careful....you'll be accused of attacking Obama and being a paid Clinton troll because after all, nobody in their right mind could possibly critique the messiah.

[l.blissett]

this is not about attacking on behalf of any other candidate. i personally am completely non-partisan and do not currently support any listed candidate here.

it's about holding certain individuals up to the standards that they are placing upon themselves.

[Dari]

Joe Trippi when interviewed for leading the Clinton campaign had suggested an internet fundraising apparatus like Obama’s and he was eventually hired by John Edwards to lead up his campaign. From Mother Jone’s interview June 29, 2007:

MJ: The next one is a two-part question: What part of the political use of new web tools makes politics more democratic?
JT: Obama just proved it. One hundred thousand people giving 25 or 30 bucks can out raise a bunch of people going to $2,300 dinners that have an axe to grind because they are oil lobbyists or whatever. If 5 million Americans decided tomorrow morning to give $100 to a candidate ¬that's half a billion dollars. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR THAT CANDIDATE TO TALK TO AN OIL COMPANY, AN ENERGY COMPANY, A HEALTH CARE COMPANY EVER AGAIN.

[l.blissett]

yes indeed on paper it is more democratic.

but is it more transparent?

it depends on the candidate and their followers i guess.

point being that if the campaign's supporters wanted to prove that their candidate was running a transparent campaign, then they should take the responsibility to disclose their identity, even when the responsibility is voluntary.

otherwise, questions of hypocrisy will continue to them, no matter where the $ is coming from.

[l.blissett]

as an addendum to the analysis, first of all, i was mistaken, huckabee blows everyone away at 27% non-disclosure.

these #'s are a bit misleading w/o taking into effect the % of donations $200 or less.

paul 54%

huckabee 33%

obama 26%

mccain 22%

clinton 12%

so yes, technically, obama's campaign has slightly more donor disclosure than clinton's, and is about right on par with mccain's.

but the candidate setting the bar by a long shot is not barack obama, but ron paul with the lowest % of donations with no disclosure and the higest % of donors who had the choice of disclosure or not.

[WLA]

I appreciate your research. Everyone should be so motivated. However, I am unable to see anything conclusive. Hyperbole on your part that the candidate is somehow responsible for his donors making disclosures is not indicative of impropriety.

Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm toward the truth, as opposed to the blind devotion that is much more commonplace here, lately.

[gallo146]

As i said it here before...FOLLOW THE MONEY!...we want the tax returns for the Clintons made public...will the $5Million loan be reflected there? ....i doubt it now....why are they hiding when they dont want to release the tax returns?...we want CHANGE..thinking the best the whole thing was a scam to make her followers send her more money...the worst...some of that Eastern European Dictator flow into her account....

[l.blissett]

exactly...follow the money...on all sides....

[lateralGs]

Folks,"There is no time,because now is the time"Lou Reed...There all corupt,thats the system...We need the W.H.,and super majoritys,to change the system...Lets unite and try to change things working within the system and planet we are trapped on...Simply because as F***ed as we have been we are still not ready for the revolution,which i feel is inevitable...World wide the worker bees will get up to speed...Look out,"The People have the Power" P.Smith...

[SteveCox]

Yeah let's follow the money of the slum lord who bought the lot next to Obama's mansion and then sold him part of it at way under market value. He was a large donor of his for years and Obama had many votes which favored his business.

I wonder if they really checked into Obama's small donors, how much of it could be from inner city drug dealers like on that show The Wire!

There is no doubt in my mind that is true, even if it's just pure conjecture. I know the Repugs will be checking for that!!!!!

[WLA]

Rampant speculation, outright lies and even a veiled racially charged sentiment. All in one small package. Very efficient smear post. You must be proud.

[PartTimeHero]

Perhaps this shows in numbers that Barack Obama is lacking in experience...the Clintons have earned their money through out the years. Anyone in politics on a national level will through the speaking engagements, contacts, etc. The relatively low income of the Obama's show what his experience.
Don't get me wrong, I strongly support both candidates since Edwards left the race, its just Obama's lack of national and international dealing that keep me thinking he's a great VP instead of lead.

[doneflyin]

You're really reaching here.

The Clintons have made all their money after leaving the White House. They were 5.5 million in debt then.
You can't begin to compare Obama to the Clintons as the reason they are so wealthy now is because Bill was President! The title is worth a fortune. Book deals, speaking engagements, board mememberships, contacts, "gifts" etc.
Bill gets up to $400,000 for a speaking engagement. How many millions did they get for their book deals?

I see that you are new here and that this is your first post.
Who you workin' for dude?

Hillary is that you?

[Marrob]

Grow the F@@@ up!! Who cares if he's new here? do you agree or diagree and why?

[seejake]

What do you know about experience? Obama has more foreign policy experience going into this campaign than Bill Clinton did. You want to talk about experience? Talk about all the experience Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had. Give me a break.

[scandals&skeletons]

personally i want the person who can pass the bar on the first try as my president. not someone (hillary) who needs do over. kinda like the iraq war vote.

[phansen]

lack of national and international "dealing" ? isn't all the "dealing" what we're trying to avoid this round? except for maybe Dean, who is advocating "back room deals"... And while I have no problem with the Clintons being worth up to 50mil, it would be interesting to see where it comes from... Hillary is friendly with a huge number of lobbyists... and she claims this was "her money" - does that imply it did NOT come from Bill's speaking engagements, etc?

[westseattle]

I understand how you would think that. But, that lack of Washington experience was a strong suit of Edwards since he, like Obama, doesn't have a lifetime of selling out to the washington establishment. Also, Hillary's experience didn't help her with the decision to go to war in Iraq, why should be think it would help her in other foreign policy decisions?

[OkieMon]

obama is simply not prepared to be president...he doesn't have the foggiest idea about what being president entails....we just got over having an unprepared guy in the oval office...hillary on the other hand has been there, done that...it isn't even close as to who is more qualified to be president between hillary and barockstar...

[gallo146]

prepared? does he need a Monica event to be prepared?

[authoritarianbootlicker]

Been there, done that? You idiot!!

Bill Clinton's been there and done that. Did Hillary sit in during Cabinet meetings? Did she sign the bills? Did she make the SOTU speeches.

I guess Laura Bush is qualified to be President too based on your logic, dumbass!!

[phansen]

Holy Cow. Laura Bush as President. Based on OkieMon's logic, I guess Jenna is prepared too, huh? I mean, she has spent years "in the White House" and she's traveled around with her dad... and now she has some token Unicef position or whatever, right? WHOA. Pretty sure one drunk Bush was enough.

Time for cronyism to take a back seat. Obama is a Senator, and was the head of Harvard Law Review. Whatever he lacks in experience he more than makes up for in intelligence. Imagine an intelligent President surrounding himself with other intelligent people? What a novel concept.

[wyorange]

Well, let this "idiot" and "dumbass" interject a thought or two here.

First, I think most would probably agree that Sen. Clinton is probably just a tad bit more intelligent that Laura Bush. (Oh, I know I am stretching thinking that Obamamites might agree on that.)

So one only gains experience through cabinet meetings, signing bills, and making SOTU speeches? Would seem to me there are lot of things a first lady might be doing that results in experience; i.e., possibly: overseeing the white house living quarters staff, managing the white house living quarters budget, greeting foreign dignataries and being involved in informal and maybe to a lesser extent in formal discussions with those dignataries, representing and speaking on behalf of the US at various meetings both here and abroad, and most importantly discussions with the President to name just a few.

We also know that Sen. Clinton has a reputation of being well organized and a hard worker whereas Sen. Obama has admitted he is not a manager but "here to inspire". Seems the managerial experience edge would go to Sen. Clinton (again may be stretching that Obamamites possibly might agree to that).

Now, any other names?

[Marrob]

Hey Jackass, Laura Bush hasn't done jack s*** as First Lady. How is the Gang Prevention thing working out for us. Remember that? HIllary has stood up to fight for a lot of issues from women rights to Childrens rights. Stop you dumbass blind hate and read about her. You ObamaLovers are crazy. No wonder he can get you to blindly follow him by saying "fire up, ready to go".

[EvoMan]

This is sort of like saying he has no idea about what campaigning for the presidency entails, since he's never done it before.

The evidence simply doesn't support your argument. Now, this does not mean you're what ABootlicker called you. It simply means logic escapes you.

[Brooklynindy]

Enlighten us, oh wise one. Just what does being president entail? Wow - you'd better call up Obama and give him some tips. I'll bet he hasn't thought things through like you have...Better yet, since you see things soooo much more clearly than Obama, get out of your swiveling office chair and run for president.

[seejake]

as I said to PartTimeHero:

Obama has more foreign policy experience going into this campaign than Bill Clinton did. You want to talk about experience? Talk about all the experience Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had.

[Mike169]

Rush Limbaugh, just to be fair
Used illegal drugs - he's no square
and then he got hooked
and then he got booked
and then he got back on the air

[Mike169]

OOPS - how did this get here?

[WLA]

Don't bogart that doob.

[IkeChicago]

Obama is going to have to invest all his capital in the primaries, his supporters only have so much money, he will have to start anew raising money for the general election. McCain will be sitting their waiting for him. Hillary need to be offered an incentive to get out of the way. Hillary can't win form here on out, you know it and I know it, Romney did the right thing, it is time for Hillary to do the right thing if she looses the upcoming primaries. There is no feasible way Hillary could win loosing all these primaries, Obama will split Texas and Ohio, then what.

Another point is that the Dems have a chance for a 61 seat in the senate, Obama could be out stomping for senatorial candidates to achieve that. Does anyone here think that Hillary could stomp for many of these marginal seats. Republicans crossing over will probably like to give Obama the Senate and House that would not block his programs, not so with Hillary, they would want to see a congress that blocks Hillary.

All in all Obama is the future of the Democratic party, he could successfully put it on a different path to success.

[wyorange]

Have to admit that Sen. Obama would have appeal out helping campaign for senate and house candidates, look how he helped Sen. Lieberman.

Seems to me that both Pres. Clinton and Sen. Clinton have actively campaigned for other candidates in the past and I would expect to continue doing that.

Frankly, I do not think you are going to see all that many republicans crossing over. More than likely a good number sitting out the election if anything.

"Not block his programs ..." Do not know as I even like the sounds of that. Sort of like the past seven years where GW's or Cheney's programs have not been blocked. Sen. Obama has not put very much in specifics out there as yet, so I would hope that whoever gets elected will be looking out for the good of the country and not just supporting the president's wishes.

Have to see if Sen. Obama is the future of the democratic party. Talks the talk, will be interesting, if he is elected, whether he can walk the walk. Frankly I think Sen. Obama is appealing to everyone in that he is magically going to fix everyone's problems through inspiration. I think he is quite naive if he thinks that he can do that and I think he is even more naive if he thinks other world powers are going to bow down to him like his supporters are doing. They have their interests and goals and compromising and uniting may just not be their interests.

I think Sen. Clinton's approach of what I view as realistic/­responsibl­e change, although far less inspiring, is far more realistic.

[westseattle]

Really? And she has proved this how? Can anybody provide specifics on anything Clinton has been able to achieve? Seems to me like she has failed at everything.

[moda31]

the majority of people donating to obama are nowhere near maxing out. there's still plenty of money to be had, and plenty of people willing to give.

[ProgressiveJ]

The tone of this thread is gone way out of bounds. It's so disheartening to see Democrats going after each other like this.

I have to say though, it seems to me that the Obama folks are much more anti-clinton than the Clinton folks are anti-Obama (a few loud and obnoxious anti-Obama folks notwithstanding - fascist? please...)

At the end of the Day, FOCUS ON THE ISSUES!!!! What about Obama's stimulus plan? Health Care plan? Not as good. His position on Iraq? Identical to Hillary's since he came into the Senate. Yes her original vote was different, but he wasn't in the Senate yet, and said in 2004 he didn't know how he would have voted, and she voted along with a majority of Dems in congress at the time. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!! WHO WILL BRING THEM HOME NOW MORE SAFELY?

And there is more on Rezko and Obama - he wrote letters on behalf helping him secure contracts on STATE SENATE LETTERHEAD!

HE TOOK MONEY FROM EXELON BUNDLERS AFTER HE WATERED DOWN A BILL TO STOP NUCLEAR LEAKAGE!

You think this guy doesn't have dirt? Sorry, but you've drunk the cool-aid.

Obama is not the messaiah, no matter what a bunch of liberal intelligentsia and latte sipping rich folks think.

[CurrerBell]

I think the main difference is that many of us know that if Hillary wins the nomination, she will move way to the right for the general. All the stuff she's said about getting out of Iraq, etc. would morph into her general election message. Obama is consistent.

[ChiGuy]

With Obama breathing down their necks, you think the Clinton camp wouldn't have already used the "dirt" if there was any to find?

Sorry, PJ. I'm no messiah worshiper, but what Obama offers in terms of policy and REAL change outdistances Hillary by a country mile.

You might want to check this out:

Blueprint For Change

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

[EinChicago]

"With Obama breathing down their necks, you think the Clinton camp wouldn't have already used the "dirt" if there was any to find?"

No, because they're not going for scorched earth like barack "Karl Rove Jr. Obama and his crusade to sacrifice any chance the dems have in 2008 to his own ego.

[westseattle]

Issues? Sure! Stimulus plan? Not worth a dime if you can't get consensus. Health Care Plan? Hillary already had a chance, gave it all she had and came up way short. Position on Iraq? Not the same. He came out clearly against it when it was considered political suicide. 2004? That's called putting what's right ahead of personal gain. The country would have been better off with Kerry, and Obama was being a team player to help. Bring them home more safely? Are you crazy? How is that even a policy stance? I don't think you really want to get into who has taken money from whom (defense industry what?). Perhaps there is a reason why people are more anti-Clinton than anti-Obama?

[gallo146]

ask the nurse and health related association in the State of WAshington why they are supporting OBAMA...the answer is OBAMA's superior healt care plan proposal over the Clintons.
OBAMA: right on iraq, right on Iran Vote, right on Banckrupcy vote, right on health care!

[Seafarer61]

right on bankruptcy vote? Are you freakin' kidding me?

bwahahahahahahha

If you work for Capital One I suppose.

[jasket]

Universal health care does not equal Free Health care like many uninformed voters think. I think this is one of Hillary's biggest weakness. When will this be brought out into the open that she is forcing us to buy healthcare and if we don't buy it she's going to garnish our wages?

[Veeve]

Think about it. I was right leaning until 2004 and I voted for Obama in the primary.

If the dems don't nominate him, I'll go to my second choice in John McCain. That's just the way it is.

Senator Clinton has never taken a single position that isn't supported by at least 55% of the electorate. How can you support such a political coward? -- I just don't get it.

BTW... Your Rezko stuff is crap and I don't have enough room to post all the Clontonian scandals. You wallow in the mud. I hate doing laundry.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Isn't taking positions supported by the electorate good?
And how is Obama's voting history different than Hillary's in that respect?
And finally, any voter who can easily switch from Obama to McCain is obviously doesn't consider the Iraq vote an issue that determines their vote.
So what is driving your choices? This isn't a combative question...I'm just curious. I simply can't see how the two candidates are remotely interchangeable.

[WLA]

If Obama is not nominated, please stay home and soak your head next Nov. K thx.

[SamuelBerry08]

Where do these so-called public servants get so much income? Almost a million - per year - for the Obamas, and a net worth for the Clintons of between $10 to $50 million? I thought the Clintons were in debt to their lawyers not too long ago. This whole scene makes me very suspicious of our political system.

[SteveCox]

You don't get it, because your an idealistic zealot! You don't see the wisdom of pragmatisim. You don't get that if your not around to stop the Repugs, they will do what they just have done or worse!

Look what they did after 02 election. Look what they did when they got in because people like you believed Nader that there was no difference. Well if you don't see the difference, it's no wonder you don't get it!!!

[wyorange]

Just might have a little to do with a couple of, if I am not mistaken, multi-million dollar books deals. Also expect that maybe Pres. Clinton's speaking fees (which are quite high) may play some small part in it. Possibly his pension as an ex-Pres. and her salary as a sitting senator might have something to do with it also. Don't know much about foundations, but is it possible that Pres. Clinton some sort of salary for running his foundation? How about salaries for having been/or currently being on board of directors of corporations?

If you are now just becoming aware that "so-called public servants" amass what I would call small fortunes, you have not been paying attention over the past few decades. I first became aware of this many, many years ago when I read when Margaret Chase Smith, I believe I am right on the individual, was retiring after a long senate career that her annual retirement would be quite a bit more than her annual salary as a sitting senator. Our retired public-servants, at least at the higher federal level, certainly are still feeding at the trough.

[WLA]

Well, they both had best-selling books, for one...

[NoScreenNamesLeft]

Wow Senator Barack H. Obama Kennedy Shriver is getting desperate. What a cry baby...Hillary is richer than I am...wah, wah, wah. Of course if he becomes president, then after his four years in office he too will be able to go out and hit the speaking circuit and make his millions too.

[SteveCox]

LOL so true. Then it will be Mitt in 12.

Promise, if it's Obama, he'll be the Jimmy Carter of our era. He'll make a great EX President!

I'm starting to think he could be the anti-christ though. I mean the way people on this site are so whipped into a frenzie. If there is an anti-christ coming, I say it's 50/50 that Obama is it! LOL

[WLA]

There is no substance to your post and the anger dripping from it is just sad.

[Irizzee]

Nice misleading headline, you people should be ahshamed...HE ANSWERED A DIRECT QUESTION POSED, HE DIDN'T SUGGEST ANYTHING YOU BUNCH OF CREEPS

[WLA]

1st accurate observation on this thread. Thank you. I'd give you a cookie if I had one.

[blackpope]

okay there is a crazy truck load of anti-obama supporters on this post...when mccain adds rice to his ticket I wonder where you guys are going? Obama would be nobody's vice guaranteed....so think about who can deliver for democrats and stop with the ignorant false accusations

[Groobiecat]

what the-- When McCain adds Rice to the ticket? What's next? Frogs start raining down from the sky for the beginning of the end? I love that ticket. Condoleeza is one of the leading war criminal cheer leaders. Let's make this entire election about the Iraq war. That's what it should be mainly about anyway, since it casts a long, dark shadow over our ability to pay for anything for decades to come. Bring it. But remember this:

ONE MILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN THE IRAQ WAR.

Any response to that? I'll bet money that you don't. Pro-war types never have a word to say about it...

[jasket]

I have that feeling too. Rice on the GOP ticket. There simple minds think that putting a black woman on the ticket will counter balance a black or woman running for the dems. It's silly logic.

[SteveCox]

Oh you poor baby! The free ride doesn't go where the people get a chance to express their opinions. I'm sure your not used to your guy getting any scrutiny. But if he does win, it will be good for you to get a truck load now so you can get a taste when the Repugs bring it by the boad load!

[kiddub]

Another reason Hillary is a candidate who will be easy to defeat in November, especially when McCain is the nominee. The majority of people trust him, they believe that he is honest and honourable. I think if you asked most democrats, they would grudgingly admit he is the most likable of the remaining conservative candidates and the most in line with democratic views. Hillary is divisive even within her own party. If Obama is such an inexperienced platitude spewing gnat, why has it taken the presumtuous winner of the democratic nomination so long to swat him away. Hillary has the baggage of Bill Clinton, and the spotty record that the conservatives are simply drooling for. They have been waiting for this moment since Bill left office. They are ready to sacrifice Hillary in effigy of Bill. It will be ugly, she will lose and the Clinton legacy will be reduced to a pile of gold-plated tin.

[wyorange]

As a life-long registered republican, I like your view of how McCain is viewed by the democratic party. Have to say that he is not viewed in quite the same way by a good part of the republican party.

As for Sen. Clinton losing the Clinton legacy, I think you are quite mistaken on that. I think that Pres. Clinton's legacy of bring about a very strong economic growth period in the 90s accompanied with relative peace around the world will whether Sen. Clinton wins or loses.

I like the "...and the spotty record that the conservatives are simply drooling for." Yes, some conservatives having been drooling for this; however, a good many republicans respect Sen. Clinton's toughness and are wary of her as the democratic candidate, especially with McCain not having much support among the conservatives.

I and a few of my republican coffee drinking buddies, think that the media would have a better time attacking Sen. Obama in a general election than they would in attacking Sen. Clinton. Most things the anti-Clinton people bring out have been hashed and rehashed several times over whereas it appears that the media so far has been avoiding looking into some of Sen. Obama's potential problem areas. We think this will certainly change if he makes it into the general.

[WLA]

"The majority of people trust him, they believe that he is honest and honourable."
===

Can you share with us the research that led you to this conclusion? Just asking because I think it's a steaming pile of bullshit, that's all.

[RSchewe]

Like Jon Stewart said of Rudolph Giuliani having 9/11 Touretts, well Hillary supporters have "Rezko Touretts".

Sure, he may have done something wrong here. No one in politics is pure. I do think though that there are levels to these kinds of things.

The Clintons are the last people that want to go blow-for-blow about scandals. People reactively go to the well and bark Rezko whenever they want to attack Obama. Thats fine. Clinton loyalists just better be ready for anything that may surface against Hillary.

As far as I have seen, Rezko is all people can dredge up on Obama and that one is a stretch. That story has been around for a long time and it hasn't stuck.

Let me throw out a few links just for kicks:

Clinton campaign co-chair got Rezko funds
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-rezko_N.htm

Secret Clinton Library donors
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/clinton-libary-.html

Canadian mining financier & Kazakhstan
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

Release the tax returns
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-to-clinto.html

BTW, look at the Wolfson response in that article. Whoa baby. That is Exhibit A of Rezko Touretts.

Phone monitoring
http://www.slate.com/id/2167180/%26#clintoncell

This goes on and on and on.

So I'll raise you a Kazakhstan and a library donor list for your Rezko.

I bet you I got more chips.

[kiddub]

Candidates need cash. People who have lots of cash usually step on people in some not so legal ways to get where they are. Candidates are forced to deal with characters who have the connections and cash to meet their end goal. Oddly, the only people who could be considered pure, like Nader, probably have no shot, because they refuse to make deals with the types of people that mainstream candidates will. (I'm sure even Nader has his skeletons.)

[sufi0828]

He's a conventional politician, despite his ability to project otherwise.

[bkztx]

I suggest Obama's racist church, www.tucc.org, open their books and see who they've given money to!

[EvoMan]

Sigh. Republican troll.

[xargaw]

If you knew anything about this demonination and this church, you would know that they give to those in need. When you make comments that have no factual backing, that are simply enuendo, you expose your ignorance.

[PortiaElizabeth]

DEMONINATION???

Freudian slip?

[scandals&skeletons]

yup