Jerome's credibility is still holding except with the Obama supporters; half of his site (and it is still Jerome's site) still respects what he has to say.  For a good portion of the MyDD readers, it is Obama's followers who have lost credibility and not Jerome.  I wish they'd dish out as much venom at Republicans as they do at Clinton and Edwards.

Actually I meant Bruh21, but Jerome as well.  He's as emotional as the rest of us are.  

ugh.  Just admit Obama's accounting is different from other campaigns so it compares apples to oranges.  It's true on teh face of it.

But he's not calling it straight - it's neither novel nor that "clever" a scheme.  It's the same as a meal or any other fundraising device that has been used for years.

The only difference is the campaign sells the t-shirts, etc. ITSELF rather than through a third party and therefore HAS to, by law, collect the name and count it as a donor.  In other words, they thought they could make money by t-shirt sales (most campaigns don't, which is why they outsource it), and they therefore HAVE to collect the names.  It's that simple Big Tent Democrat, I know you don't want to admit it.  

From the FEC:

Yet another way of making a contribution is to purchase a fundraising item or a ticket to a fundraiser. The full purchase price counts as a contribution. If you pay $100 for a ticket to a fundraising event like a dinner, you have made a $100 contribution (even though your meal may have cost the committee $30). Or, if you pay $15 for a T-shirt sold by a campaign, your contribution amounts to $15 (even though the T-shirt may have cost the committee $5).

IMO, you are utterly unreasonable when discussing Obama. And have been so for quite a long time. You view criticism of Obama on most things as illegitimate. That is unreasonable. I have criticized Obama a lot, but not from dislike of Obama, but from dislike of his political style. I have written thousands of words as to why I think it is bad for the Democratic Party, if not necessarily bad for Obama. I was roundly attacked by Obama supporters, including you and accused of having an agenda against Obama. The same happens to Jerome. Why are the views of Jerome and I illegitimate to you and Obama supporters? Because you do not brook criticism of Obama in almost every circumstance.  

Obama has no legislative strategy to end the war. Unless you also believe in the veto proof majority approach. Hell, Obama does not even really lead on the veto proof majority front.

Look, here is what you will not accept, Obama is a candidate, and candidates think about, first and foremost, how to win.

And that is how Obama has acted as a Senator on Iraq. BTW, ALL OF THEM, including folks I supported, Vilsack and Dodd, are acting that way.

I didn't say he supported CAFTA, I said you did. He, and you, were wrong on the Orwellian titled, Class Action "Fairness" Act. And I most certainly provided you, in the original back-and-forth with a nice big link to a ton of data opposing your view. (But hey, it's easy to ignore when you're motivated to do so). I'll post my response below to jog your selective memory.

Re: CTL research, this is where you, and your candidate, truly expose yourself. Even ignoring for the fact that you and your candidate are showing a shocking lack of understanding of the gravity of the threat we face, you also argue that we should ignore the fact that the research was already done, and that this is merely a big payoff to the biggest polluters.

Here's the original comment, where I did point to the data. I'll accept your apology for mischaracterizing whether I provided proof or not in advance:

Certainly not according to consumer advocates, whom I would say have a lot more credibility than either Obama or yourself (no offense). How many consumer class actions have you argued, Adam (on the side of those bringing the suit)? How many have been in State vs. Federal court? If this is based on personal experience, then please elaborate, because otherwise I'll go with the experts (from NACA):

   

The states' Conference of Chief Justices sees no "hard evidence of the inability of state judicial systems to hear and decide fairly class actions brought in state courts." These Justices believe "state courts and state legislatures should be responsible for correcting any problems(with class actions), and history has shown that will occur."
    --CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES, 28 March 2003 letter to then House of Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-IL

   "Misnamed the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003," the bill is anything but fair to injured citizens...[T]he fundamental reordering of basic principles of federalism embodied in S. 274 would, if enacted, result in far greater harm than good."
    --Attorneys General of the States of Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
    New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia, 13 June letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD

   "The Federal courts do not have the resources to administer justice to both their present dockets and the large number of complex state-court cases that would be added if S. 274 or its House counterpart were to become law...Equally troubling is a provision in S.274 that allows removal of a case at any time. This would give a defendant the power to yank a case away from a state-court judge who has properly issued pretrial rulings the defendant does not like, and would encourage a level of sorum-shopping never before seen in this country."
    --105 Law Professors From 26 States, 3 June 2003 letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD
    "S. 274 is an unnecessary attempt to impose federal judicial regulation on matters of law clearly committed to the states...the imposition of such cubstantial new responsibilities on the federal courts will further impair the ability of those courts to carry out essential functions they are intended to serve under the Constitution."
    --Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 20 March 2003 letter to the Senate
    National Association of Consumer Advocates
    1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
    Suite 805
    Washington, DC 20036
    202-452-1989
    Page 2

   "Moving this legislation forward would not serve the best interests of AARP's members or older Americans generally...S. 274 would limit access to remedies now available and delay--for years in many cases--the time needed to resolve class actions...Where older litigants die before tasting the fruits of victory, justice delayed would be justice denied."
    --AARP, 10 June 2003 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-UT

   "S. 274, `Class Action Fairness Act,' is a poorly conceived proposal that will substantially reduce the effectiveness of one of the most important legal tools consumers now have: state court class actions."
    --Consumers Union, 2 April 2003 letter to the Senate

   "S. 274 will also deny consumers access to protections afforded by their state consumer protection statutes...Thus consumers will not be protected by the state procedures written and passed by their state legislatures and interpreted by their state courts that may enable consumers to pursue claims that would be unavailable under federal rules...the jurisdictional changes mandated by S. 274 are designed to impede class actions, not to make them fairer or more effecient."
    --Consumer Federation of America and US Public Interest Research Group, 2 April 2003 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

   "The bill would allow corporate defendants in pollution class actions to remove virtually any type of state environmental law case from the state court to federal court, placing such cases in a forum
    that could be more costly, less timely, and disadvantageous to the citizen plaintiffs."
    --Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Mineral Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Group, 2 April 2003 letter to Senators Orrin Hatch, R-UT and Patrick Leahy, D-VT

   By pre-empting state laws, which often provide superior remedies for aggrieved citizens than available under federal law, and state courts, whose dockets are "lighter" than federal courts, a wide
    range of public interest groups believe S. 274 "is designed to give corporate defendants a lef up
    against consumers by moving virtually all state-filed class action lawsuits to federal courts...[resulting in] fewer certifications of class actions and delays in those cases that move forward."
    --American Cancer Society, American Association of People With Disabilities, Families USA and other public health related groups, 2 April 2003 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-UT

   "In general the tabacco industry prefers to litigate in federal court where the rules for certifying class actions are often more favorable to corporate defendants...The tobacco industry does not need more protection against citizen suits. If anything, citizens need more protection against tobacco industry
    wrongdoing."
    --American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Lung Association, 10 March 2003 letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT

   S. 274 "would radically alter state court jurisdiction over class action lawsuits by forcing most class actions into federal court. This bill would benefit the unregulated gun industry at the expense of victims of firearms violence and gun consumers."
    --Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United With Million Mom March, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 10 February 2003 letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

So why exactly should I take your word over those who are in the business of protecting my rights as a consumer? Are you saying that you know better than Consumer Advocates, NACA, the NCLC, the AARP, the State AGs mentioned, etc?

I almost missed this gem of a quote:

My motive is that I want to see Barack Obama elected President.  If that's "questionable," fine.

I am motivated because I want to see a return of Reason, and because I feel that sophists and magicians have become entirely too powerful. I am motivated because I want to try and do something about the Environment before it is too late. I am motivated because I feel that I am personally responsible for making the world a better place, and that I am personally responsible for working to ensure that all people are treated equally by the law. I am motivated because I know men/women, and I know that without the active participation and skepticism of large groups of other people, that those men/women will ALWAYS lead us towards tyranny and destruction. I am motivate by a desire to turn the Democratic Party back into an institution that fights for middle and lower class people, for the environment, for equal rights for all, etc.

And you are motivated because of a man. I guess we're just different.

Think about it it really doesn't belong to Dean either, Remember that "We the People" stuff in the constitution, it sort of is in the DNA of what it means to participate in the great experiment that is America. My next observation in my comment is that Obama is not appreciably different from other progressives interms of policy, it is just that he connects better with many people. The fact that you can still be harking back to Dean, (and I was also a part of that) means to me that like Obama people you found someone who you felt carried a very old democratic theme in a new and exciting way, but yet when you see the same excitment in others you "object" to it.

Like I said, if I went to an Obama event in Tampa and paid $5 to get in, I would be counted as part of the "movement," yet I am not supporting Obama for the nomination (but as VP candidate.)  If I bought a trinket for my daughter, that counts as yet another donation from a separate donor.   So, I would have counted twice as part of the Obama movement.   Whenever you see an article from a campaign event you read half the time "Well, I have not made up my mind yet, it is too early, I am just checking out the candidates."   That person can be hardly part of the movement, even though he/she is counted in as part of it by ponying up $5 to get into an Obama campaign event.    

There is no question that Obama has a lot of support, but why do the numbers have to be inflated this way to make the numbers of actual supporters appear bigger than they really are?

I am speaking from observation.

Indeed the most memorable things Obama has said are pretty damn bad:

OBAMA'S CHANGE ON TROOP FUNDING

In April, Obama Said That Congress Would Provide Funding For The Troops, Saying "Nobody Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops On The Ground":

Obama: "I Think That Nobody Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops On The Ground." (Mike Glover, "Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Expected Bush Veto," The Associated Press, 4/1/07)

Obama: "[W]hat you don't want to do is to play chicken with the President, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced Humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles." (CNN's "Late Edition," 4/1/07)

"Given That Bush Is Determined To Veto A Timetable For Withdrawing U.S. Troops From Iraq, Congress Has Little Realistic Choice But To Approve Money For The War, Obama Said." (Mike Glover, "Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Expected Bush Veto," The Associated Press, 4/1/07)

Being a pol, Obama then contradicted himself and voted against the Supplemental. And good for him. I like him much the better for his reversal.