by Walter Brasch

    Barack Obama spent the Fourth of July in Montana.  A Red State. A state that few think he can win. A state that gave huge margins to George Bush the past two elections.

    But here he was. On Independence Day. Marching in a parade. Hosting a picnic for hundreds. Trying to rally support for his Presidential run. Trying to show that he can appeal to voters of every political, social, and economic demographic. His web site tells us he "shook hands, kissed babies, signed autographs and posed for pictures." Patriotism just oozed out of his every pore.

    Barack Obama is now as patriotic as the electorate wants him to be. During most of the primaries, he didn't wear a flag pin on his lapel. He didn't think wearing pins makes one patriotic, or not wearing one makes someone unpatriotic. But, the right-wing lambasted him for that. Now he wears a flag pin.

    And every speech he makes, he is now flanked by several American flags. Just in case anyone thinks he isn't patriotic. Or is a foreigner. Or worse, a Muslim.

    Barack Obama has changed in other ways. Once he said he would pull the U.S. out of Iraq. End that war. Now, he's calling for a phased withdrawal.

    Once, he opposed innumerable pieces of legislation sent to the Senate by the Bush-Cheney Administration--and which a Republican Congress rubber stamped. Now, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, he voted a bill that granted immunity to telephone companies that violated both established federal law and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution when they voluntarily gave personal data about subscribers to the government.

    Once, he said he would accept government restrictions and decline the excessive private contributions that have muddied politics. Now, with a campaign war chest at least two or three times greater than John McCain's, he changed his mind and is taking whatever he can get--and doesn't have to report who gave what.

    Barack Obama isn't the only politician to forsake some of his principles for the greater principle--do whatever it takes to get elected. Hillary Clinton moved more to the center when she began to think she could be the next president, and even voted for the renewal of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act. John McCain, by any standards a conservative, began playing even more to the right-wing when the evangelical Christians challenged some of his beliefs and voting record. Every politician, even the most maverick ones, say they need to get elected to do whatever it is they want to do. But, once in office they continue to do whatever is necessary to stay in office and get re-elected.

    Barack Obama, like every other politician, needs to reflect upon the principles of what the Founding Fathers wanted. And maybe every politician should decide that on this Independence Day weekend, it is time to declare that once and forever they will follow their convictions, their beliefs, and declare themselves to be independent, now and forever, not only of special interests, but also of pandering for votes.

    [Walter Brasch has covered politics and presidential campaigns more than 40 years. He is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, a syndicated columnist, and author of 17books. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through amazon.com and other stores.]

No matter who you support in this race and who you have donated money to. Chances are there is a lobbyist, PAC or special interest that has given more cash to your candidate than you did. Take a look at the top donors, especially in the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Do you think that Goldman Sacks, Big Pharma and Excelon energy have the same interests that you do? When your candidate gets elected whose calls do think they will be taking?

Clearly not yours...

...so here's what might be a novel idea.

Let's buy back our democracy.

Target the most embarrassing and corporate donor on your candidate's top donor list. It is easy to find out.
Find the one you'd least like to be influencing your candidate.

Bring together a group in the blogs or in the real world and set a goal to raise the same amount of money for your candidate on the condition that they give back the money they got from that compromising donor.

Notify the campaigns of your intentions and get a pledge from the campaign to give back to corporate and K Street sleezebags what your group pledges to  raise. Maybe even raise the stakes.

Make it an event, like a PBS telethon. Use all the digital tools at your disposal to make it a mega community event. Call the press and tell them what you are doing.

It will be good press for your chosen candidate's campaign...and it will give you the opportunity to buy back YOUR candidate.

Don't just give money, buy influence!!!

As John Edwards, Barack Obama, journalists, innocent bystanders and others repeatedly point out, Hillary can't seem to give a straight answer, or one that makes sense, on any number of issues.  Her debate career thus far involves lots of dodging, bobbing and weaving, tap-dancing and pirouettes but honest answers to important questions have been notably lacking from her repertoire.  

She may be the front runner in national polls, but she also has the singular distinction of  leading in several pivotal negatives that get less attention.  When people are asked for whom they would NEVER vote, she leads the pack.  (Tim Russert, in one of his more memorable pronouncements, once chortled that Hillary's positives now equaled her negatives!)  And when people identify the candidate they trust the least, her poll numbers surpass all others. Hillary watchers believe that she could yet triangulate herself to an early political death.

Hillary's careful opacity is the direct, ironic, result of yet another area where she has a formidable lead:  fundraising.  Her astounding war chest began to grow the day she declared her run for the presidency.  At the end of the third quarter this year, she had accepted over $90 million in campaign contributions, approximately the same as her two top rivals combined.

Now that Edwards has accepted campaign financing matching dollars, it's looking pretty clear that he's dropping back out of the first/second tier he had just climbed into. As many commenters have said in a previous post announcing his acceptance of matching dollars, this is political suicide. He won't be able to spend adequately in the early states ($1.5M in Iowa, where Obama has spent $3M already on TV, and $800K in NH -- though he can get around some of that by buying TV spots in border states). No it's not fair that he will be able to spend $6M in Pennsylvania and only $800K in NH. But, by taking federal matching dollars, that's the reality. The reality is that he won't have the resources to win.

I'm sure Edwards considered all of this before making the final decision. But, let's face it, while framed as a principled decision, it was a calculation based on fundraising reality. He just didn't succeed in the money race. They made that calculation that Edwards would not raise even $40-$50M dollars in straight donations over the course of the primary! That's huge.

Whatever the reasons, Edwards has now fallen into Dodd and Biden territory. Even if he does well in Iowa, he won't have the resources to adequately compete in NH where Hillary is a natural and Obama is still coming on strong. South Carolina is either Hillary's or Obama's. And Nevada is up between Hillary, Obama and Richardson.

Yes, there's a case that Edwards could do well in Nevada. But a lot of that was predicated on him getting the endorsement of the SEIU. They are withholding an endorsement. And that, I think, is the reason that Edwards has a lot less chance now. I think that Edwards was holding out for help from that very powerful union. And when it didn't happen, te spokes of his campaign rusted a bit.

For those of us who would like to see a change not just in administration but in politics, I think the time is here to unite around Obama. he's not been a perfect candidate. He's stumbled a few times. He's sometimes not as progressive as I'd like. But e's our best hope to win the nomination against Hillary.

I love Hillary. And I think she'd be a very good president. I think she'd win. But it will be a hard fought, extremely partisan election that, I believe, will result in the Republicans winning Congress once again in the next mid-term elections. In other words, she'll be more of the same. Obama and Edwards both have offered a way to a different level of politics -- a place where the pendulum of our politics actually permanently shifts a bit to the left. Their vision for how to get there is different. But it's a change. And while Hillary has tried to cloak herself in a change mantra, she won't bring the same level of change that an Edwards or Obama administration would.

All along, Edwards and Obama have split the change "vote." With the outlook for the Edwards campaign looking dire, it's time for those of us who want something different, those of us who want to stop the yo-yoing between left and right with the center being further defined toward the right to put our efforts behind Obama.

This is the fight we've been waiting for. Let's not bash Hillary. But let's pump up Obama. Let's get behind him and make change happen!

Crossposted on Raising Kaine and DailyKos.
From The Hill News:

The National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) has named Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) to head up its executive committee for the 2008 election cycle, according to a release yesterday.

Tom Davis could also use the money himself. He is jockeying to take over Sen. Jim Webb's title as the state's junior senator.

Is it any wonder why Tom Davis voted against reforming campaign financing and lobbyist influence? Read more...

According to the North County Times, millionaire Roach has already loaned his campaign much of the over $750,000 it has spent on the special election campaign.

Roach is one of three millionaire Republicans in the race who are self-funding the vast majority of their campaign costs. Of this club, Roach is the most recent and least know of the three. He is spending heavily just to earn some name recognition against entrenched and well know Republicans politicians who are in the 50th race.

Roach's tripping of the "millionaires' amendment" potentially allows the 20 or so non-millionaire candidates in the race to dramatically increase their fund raising both from individual donors and, in the case of Democrat Francine Busby, the state and national Democratic Party.