When will someone have the media ask Mr. Obama the ultimate question?...

[cascadiance]

I was hoping it was going to be asked it on 60 Minutes over the weekend, but wasn't surprised when he wasn't.

There are people like me that like a lot about Mr. Obama, and still are hoping for Gore to enter the race, but who would feel a lot better about supporting someone like Mr. Obama if he were to answer the following question appropriately...

Q: Would you help author and put through congress a meaningful national public campaign financing bill through congress and why or why not?

Q: If you were to want to put through such a bill, how would it be different if at all from the one current Clean Elections laws in Arizona and explain why you would have it be different?

The MSM I'm sure is being told NOT to ask such questions of him, and I can't find myself supporting him until I get a concrete and what I feel a substantive answer to such a question or something else that would put him on the hook for being more of a true grass roots candidate, and not a stealth DLC corporate candidate. I really WANT to believe that he's not the latter, but am VERY paranoid these coming years about supporting candidates that smell corporate beholden at all!

I'm also hoping that in the coming two years, he will have the opportunity to make sure he votes on bills that show that he's clearly separated from the wills of the corporate lobbyists and not "conveniently" avoid being present during these votes due to "campaign conflicts". I want to see *actions* to back up any positive words he might have on this.

If I can lose my concerns over these issues in particular, I would be one ardent supporter of a man of color like this making history in running for president!

As David Brock points out in a recent article, there also are times to be hard lined in one's stance and not be "bipartisan" over certain issues that have worked equally hard lined against what most Americans would benefit from. If he can show he's not "bipartisan" on some of these issues where the other side isn't ideological, but the corporations, that's where I can get behind him.

Bipartisan means supporting multiple groups of PEOPLE's points of view, not supporting both the PEOPLE's point of view and the CORPORATE SPONSOR's point of view. The latter I think I and most Americans can do without totally! I want to make sure his references to "bipartisanship" refer to the former, and not the latter!

[zbdent]

1. I think the real question should be

"If you win in November 2008, would you be willing to turn over the war criminals (Bush, Cheney, Rush, Condi, etc.) to the world court to stand trial for crimes against humanity?"

[cascadiance]

2. That too, but we need to attack the corporatocracy at its core!

If we don't, there will be another band of Cheney's, Bush's, etc. some years later which will repeat the same crap all over again with the assistance of more corporate fascists that still haven't had their political hands tied yet then.

That's why for me, even though I think that:

1) Ending the war,
2) PUNISHING those that have been leading us to unconsitutional actions.
3) Stopping global warming

are all DIRE problems that need to be addressed, solving ALL of these problems would be made immensely easier if we can find a way of getting corporations out of our political system. Corporations know this too, and they might "retreat" to allow us to deal with the above, but still try to maintain their power strings to pull their stunts later. It will be a tough battle getting rid of corporate influence now, but it will be immensely harder later (and more costly) later if we don't have someone along with a willing congress to deal with this now (is after the 2008 election or earlier). The Republican Party is completely infected with corporatism now, and the Democratic Party is partially infected. We can't afford to wait for the Democratic Party to be "completely infected" before the public emphasizes this needs to be fixed!