Apparently, Obama is on vacation in the US Virgin Islands right now. He'll have to get back to the American people about this later.  

Your links don't go to any articles about this topic.

Where did you get this information?

And are you counting employees of the companies?  If so, that is not the same thing as taking money from the companies.  If it were, you would consider a contribution from every person who works on a Ford assembly line as a contribution from Ford.

This is what Hillary Clinton said about money from lobbyists, which she takes:

Before an audience of liberal bloggers last fall, Hillary Clinton defended Washington's advocate class. "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do," she said. "They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent, yes, they represent corporations."  The New York senator also made clear that she'd accept help from them, both financially and as volunteers. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9204.html

*  Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
    * Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $150,850 from CS First Boston. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com]
    * Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]

Hillary Clinton:
Goldman Sachs      $707,840
Citigroup Inc      $691,630
Morgan Stanley      $521,630
Lehman Brothers      $340,440

To name four of the company's that you cite Obama taking money from.  Remember, individual employees donating to a political campaign are included in the totals that we're citing.

News Corp      $236,725.   OK, not involved in sub-prime lending.. but they own FoxNews.

Http://www.opensecrets.org

Hillary Clinton caves into the special interests so much, you need splunking gear to eat lunch with her. Jello is as diamond carbide compared with what she is pleased to call a spine.

Remember when she used to back the two-state solution, and then she ran for office in New York, and now she's a reflexive Likudnik? Remember how she got her butt handed to her in the fight for universal health care, and then forgot all about it for fifteen years until John Edwards made it a hot topic again? Remember how she caved to Bush over Iraq? Remember how she then caved to Bush again over Iran (re Kyl-Liberman)?

Hillary's a fighter -- for Hillary and whatever Hillary wants. For progressive causes, not so much.

I went to the sites you cited, and none of the information you present is on those pages. Nor do you link to what the Obama campaign actually said, so that we can determine if it is true or not. You also do not say how much money Clinton and Obama got from these lenders, total, and what form it took (PACs, individual corporate contribution, etc.) If you want to be taken seriously, even in writing a transparent hit diary, you'd be well advised to correct these three omissions.

LOL

---
Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary Clinton has received $364,950.
---
As if that 70K makes that much difference in terms of their level of support.

Did you happen to notice that Hillary is already caving in to the issuers?  Ready to give them that grand-ole Republican Tort relief.

Gee isn't that something??? Here in Pa he is running ads stating he is taking no money from special interests!

Columbia University seems to believe that semantics are the problem with Mr. Obama's campaign truthiness.

"The word "lobbyist" seems to have a particular meaning in Obama's campaign vocabulary. His stump speeches imply that he is not taking money from people who want things from the government and push for them. The reality is that he has."

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_ lobbyist_line.php

The site that publishes those donations:

http://opensecrets.org/

Definition of Truthiness by Stephen Colbert:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertrepo rt/videos.jhtml?videoId=24039

The Obama campaign is bipolar.

Uniting one day...dividing the next.

..as I have pointed out several times above, opensecrets.org and most other trackers include donations from individuals(I.E., not special interest groups, not political action committees, etc.).  Not necessarily upper management, sometimes middle management, sometimes lower management, sometimes even lower than management.  It depends on which corporation is writing your check.

The claim of this post is that Obama has accepted over $1 million from sub-prime lenders; given that corporations are prohibited from contributing to campaigns, that means the employees have contributed over $1 million.  Which begs the question of your logic:  Who can I work for and NOT be considered a special interest?  

To me, the critical thing is this:

Only 3% of Obama's contributions are from donors who've given the $2300 maximum. Only 10% of Clinton's contributions are from donors who have not given the $2300 maximum.

The Democratic Take

This is a huge difference.

Obama has nearly 2 million individual donors and has received nearly $200 million in donations. That works out to an average donation of $100.

I don't have a donor count for the Clinton campaign, but working the numbers, she's received about $150 million from individuals. $20 million of that is above the primary limit, so $130 million is primary money. That would give her about 51000 $2300 donors and $13 million from smaller-ticket donors of unknown number.

Obama, on the other hand, would have approximately 2500 $2300 donors. That's 1/20'th Clinton's high-ticket donor count.

What does all this number-crunching suggest? It's very hard for corporations to bundle in small-dollar amounts -- it's possible, but it's practically unheard-of. It's very inefficient and creates an enormous number of people who all have to lie if asked if they provided their $100 donation.

On the other hand, it's very likely that a whole bunch of grunts at these companies actually like Obama -- maybe because they work for unethical employers and hope he'll improve things.

The upshot of all this is that Obama's contribution base is both so broad and so small-dollar that it would be extremely hard for any donor organization to 1) successfully claim it had bundled donations and call in favors and 2) have any traction on being owed them in the first place. On the other hand, those $2300/$4600 donors to Clinton's campaign have a far easier shot at doing just that.

All numbers are from either OpenSecrets (total contributions), BarackObama.com (number of donors), or the aforementioned NY Times entry about campaign financing.

This diary suffers from a lack of sources.

Here are HRC Top Contributors
DLA Piper  $490,800
Goldman Sachs  $426,100
Morgan Stanley  $368,670
Citigroup Inc  $353,900
EMILY's List  $283,142
Lehman Brothers  $254,400
JP Morgan Chase & Co  $231,220
National Amusements Inc  $217,500
Skadden, Arps et al  $198,610
Greenberg Traurig LLP  $185,400
Kirkland & Ellis  $182,550
PricewaterhouseCoopers  $173,650
Merrill Lynch  $165,750
Time Warner  $163,650
University of California  $161,318
Microsoft Corp  $152,570
Latham & Watkins  $148,788
Cablevision Systems  $146,013
Bear Stearns  $145,090
Patton Boggs  $142,550

Courtesy of http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Intereting reading?

Although I am a Hillary supporter, I feel that this is an unfair attack on Obama.  These investment banks do a lot more than just subprime lending.  99% of those donations are probably from people who do not have anything to do with subprime lending.  Comparing Obama and Clintons donations from Wall Street does not mean that one is more responsible or anyway involved in the subprime mess.