WHY THE HELL IS $$ EQUATED TO WHAT WE NEED IN A PRESIDENT?

[babylonsister]

That really scares me. The more you 'earn', the better you are? Not hardly. What will it take you, make you, convince you to support someone, and is it the money they have accumulated so far?
If so, it stinks imo. I read about an old man who thought the election was THIS November because of all the hoopla and was staying alive to vote.
It sure would be nice if that man stays alive another year, and we find a candidate who is WORTH voting for instead of a money issue attached.
I'm still looking...

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Wow! You Found A Good Thing About Bush!

Keeping people alive longer so they can vote the rethugs out of office.

(Yes, it's totally pathetic that $$$=votes.)

[MonkeyFunk]

2. I haven't heard anybody

say money makes a good a president.

It does, however, make a good candidate. At least a better candidate than the guy with no money.

[TheWraith]

4. Amen.

I get the point that the OP is trying to make, but it's a little heavy on the conspiracy.

[babylonsister]

8. Good. I seriously hope that the one who DOESN'T make the most money wins.

Actually, I think what we're witnessing sucks. Are we supposed to be impressed? I'm disgusted.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. You'd be happier

if the democratic candidate, whoever it is, were wildly outspent by their republican opponent?

[babylonsister]

15. I'd be happier if a person of integrity was lauded for their 'props' instead of

their money. How's that? There is no rethug candidate that equals the many the Dems have; I would love to see someone I can 'trust' to win despite money.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. well that's pretty subjective

The way I see it, you don't like Clinton, and use the money thing against her. I bet if YOUR candidate, whoever it is, raised that kind of money, you'd be happy.

In '04, when Howard Dean was raising a lot of money, I didn't hear a peep from people saying it was unseemly, or questioning his integrity because of it.

The fact is, Clinton, nor Obama, nor Edwards, set the rules for this game, but it would be pure folly to purposely handicap oneself just for the approval of people like you who wouldn't support Clinton no matter how much or how little money she raised.

As I've said repeatedly, Clinton is about my third or fourth choice for the nomination, but the ridiculous smears against her here are unconscionable.

[babylonsister]

18. My point is, I don't have a candidate, but think it's dumb to pick one

who makes the most money, regardless of how 'viable' she/he might be.
I'm pretty turned off by that really, but she's never been my first choice.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I've never heard a single person

say they've switched their support to Clinton because she raised a lot of money.

I just don't get it. There's another thread right now in this forum speculating that Obama might have raised up to 30 million. Not a single person objects - in fact, they're all thrilled.

So the money alone isn't the problem, obviously. It's that people don't like CLINTON raising the money, and they use the money as an excuse to bash her.

[babylonsister]

20. No, my friend, perhaps, like myself, she can raise all she wants, but I

just don't like Clinton. That's fair, and valid. If she wins, I will support her, but I don't like her.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Then why not just say that?

Why make up smears about money that you apply to her and only her? It's OK not to like her - but it's shitty to make up stupid attacks in order to justify your dislike.

[babylonsister]

26. Make up? Surely you gest!! She's raised a shitload of money

because of her connections; doesn't mean I have to like her at all. Actually, because of her connections, that bothers me. She's a very smart woman, I share many values with her, but I don't like her 'take' on the war, her vote and discussion of it. I don't want another Clinton; I don't like the fact that the rethugs are salivating at her run; I don't think she's being in any way 'honest' and don't feel the love; she might get it done if she's elected, but I do not really like her. And, last I checked, I'm entitled to my opinion.
I have not voiced one because I honestly don't know who I want to vote for, but you threw the gauntlet down.

And again, I didn't make up smears or attacks; she's far and away raised more money than anyone else. If you require 'me' to find those articles, just ask. Or google, like I do.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. sorry

I think attacking her for being successful at fundraising is bullshit.

[Robbien]

3. Because the media is the one pushing the message

And the media is the one who will be getting a hefty portion of the contribution pot.

The more the candidates receive, the more the media eventually gets. So it is to their benefit if they make sure the message is big contribution pots means big winners.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Rather than total dollars raised, is how many actual contributors there are.

2 candidates could both raise $10MM and it really doesn't say much about the viability of either. If you know one raised the $10MM from 5000 donors contributing $2000 and the other raised his from 1,000,000 giving $10.00 each, I'd tend to think the latter has far more electability.

Hillary's numbers are impressive, but how many of her contributors are tapped out now? In the above example, the former candidate's got big problems on sustaining his campaign, the latter is probably going to be able to maintain or grow his financials.

Yes, it sucks that money is important...but it is a tangible metric that can be measured. A guy who everyone likes, but no one commits $ to is going to have problems sustaining his campaign. It costs big money to run a national campaign for President and if a candidate can't win at fundraising, his electability becomes suspect.

[babylonsister]

17. What bothers me is the money, but not the platform; no one is paying

attention to that?! This is important, but got no reaction:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x272445

[Old and In the Way]

21. In a sane political environment, we'd be picking candidates based on their ideas.

Those days are looong gone. Studying policy details are boring. It's all about the visual and the stump speech. We're a generation of TV watchers, not readers.

Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me. I'm voting whatever Democrat the voters go with (wait, getting my Tyvek flamesuit on). Hope it's Edwards at this point (he's probably got my vote in the primary), because I really like his energy policy, which links the need to move away from our dependency to ME oil with a real domestic economic revitalization. But any Democrat will do...I want the Republican Crime Syndicate out of office. We can then start focusing on actual legislation to rebuild and repair the damage that the Organized Crime Party has wrought on this country over the past 40 years or so.

[babylonsister]

23. It's sad we're reduced to 'any Democrat will do', but

that's where many of us are at; I too have preferences, even though I haven't made my mind up yet.

And OT, OaItW, I love you for your thoughtful posts, always-thank you kindly! :hug:

[Old and In the Way]

25. I most certainly enjoy yours, as well...you got the passion, sister!

:toast: to the times when we'll be arguing budget priorities of our progressive agenda.

[outlookin_in]

6. in their perfect world in their heads...

it appears that each dollar equals a vote.  so 50k dollars is
50k votes because anybody serious enough to donate means a
serious commitment of that donator's vote. 

at least that is the way they seem to interpret the money on
their own web sites.  I wonder if it really works that way out
here, outside of their heads?

[shance]

7. What a great question Babylon. I think because Americans haven't been paying enough attention.

This is not to place the blame on us as American citizens, as much as those who are intentionally hoarding, misleading and robbing citizens of what is rightfully ours.....

However, there is the old saying while the cats away, the mice will play.

I think the powers that be have made it especially difficult for citizens to participate without writing checks. However we have forgotten or haven't realized how important it is to be involved.

Until we get rid of the electronic voting machines/optical scans and count the votes ourselves, the power abusers will continue to grab more power and we will see those in office like the ones we have now, because the cheating is guaranteed to continue, until we take back our votes and demand to count them ourselves.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. Sister, I couldn't agree with you more...

I'm sick of all this money talk, and I'm not impressed.

[obamian]

10. In the general, we might not have this problem.

Obama and McCain have agreed to use public financing if they're their parties respective nominees.

[tridim]

12. Is this the first time the MSM is keeping a quarter by quarter cashflow scoreboard?

It does seem odd, and beside the point.

[liberal renegade]

13. Bushie spent $367 million clams

to steal the Blighthouse, it's going to take every bit of that and more to get it back....

[Old and In the Way]

22. The haves and have-mores got a great ROI.

The rest of us will get stuck with the bill.

[elocs]

14. I cannot understand why this should surprise anybody.

This is America: $$$ means everything.

[pnwmom]

27. Because in the past Republicans have raised a great deal of money

which pays for media buys and all the other costs of a campaign -- and this gives them a tremendous advantage. We need a candidate who can compete with the Republican nominee.

[qwlauren35]

29. Be hopeful...

MAYBE the candidates will all pool the money after the primaries and spend it on the nominee... or spend it to support smaller races.

It's not the money, it's what the money can do. And if the money can counter-attack the smear campaigns that are going to come, then, sadly, it's necessary.

Frankly, I'm appalled that its being REPORTED. I don't doubt that its necessary.

[sampsonblk]

30. We will need a lot of $$ to beat the GOP machine-nt

nt

[dogman]

31. M$M

Most of the money raised is going to be theirs.

[DuaneBidoux]

32. It is not equated with what we need. it's equated with what we get.