The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

Only an idiot could see some kind of problem here. C’mon Duane, inform us on something negative on McCain or Clinton.

C’mon Duane, inform us on something negative on McCain or Clinton.

I think that it is safe to assume here that a good percentage of the readers of this site are A. Black,and B. Democrats. Since Obama has solid support in the Black community (particularly from the mid to upper-income portion–the typical demographic who is online), I think that it is also safe to assume that a good percentage of the readers here are either supporters of the senator, or are seriously considering him.

With all of that in mind, why would I waste my time giving coverage on two other candidates my target audience is frankly not considering?

None of the candidates will get my support in this election. I have already made that clear several times already. What you get here on this site is a constant reinforcement of that fact when I focus on Obama (for the reasons I gave earlier). To some (like yourself), this may give the appearance that I am being “too hard” on Obama while supposedly giving the other two candidates a break. Again, if I am not supporting any of them what difference should that be to you? The Internet is not short of criticisms on any of the other candidates and like any other web surfer out there, you have the ability to get your fill on criticisms on McCain or Clinton.

One of the most interesting things about my site is that my traffic has GROWN consistently–even through this presidential race. So either the Internet has suddenly become smaller or folks actually found someone whose opinion they can respect (not necessarily agree with all the time) and someone who in turn respects their opinion. About a year or so ago when I decided to take down this site, I was surprised to see my traffic in the thousands that first week. So what I say here is something I cannot take lightly.

So that I make myself clear again, my personal disapproval of Obama is not that much different from the way I feel about McCain or Clinton.

As to this post, Obama has consistently told voters that he does not take monies from PACs or lobbyists. Yet according to this article, that is just a shade of the truth. Lobbyists have been using their spouses and employees to donate thousands of dollars to his campaign. To me, this gives an interesting explanation as to his ‘miraculous’ ability to raise millions in such a short amount of time from “regular individuals”. If any of this is false, then it is up to his campaign to prove otherwise–not his supporters to downplay simply because they smell a criticism of their favorite candidate. For such a major selling point that has been used by him and his supporters, I think it is worth talking about.

Actually, you have (as on several occasions) made this comment out to be your excuse to go on a diatribe in defense of your position. Which, frankly, who cares about?

I scan your site for the same reason I scan Fox news; it’s entertaining and it gives me another piece of the overall puzzle.

Let me make this completely clear since you apparently jumped to some other conclusion; I do not care who you support politically. I was just suggesting that you give a more complete picture with your choice of references. Not just the references that support your view-point.

As you suggested, I can go to other sources if I don’t like what you’re posting. Obviously I’m informed enough to be fully aware of my options, no need to be condescending.

However, I’m simply suggesting an adjustment. If I didn’t see value in your site, we wouldn’t be having this exchange right now.

So stop being so touchy!

Actually, you have (as on several occasions) made this comment out to be your excuse to go on a diatribe in defense of your position. Which, frankly, who cares about?

I was just suggesting that you give a more complete picture with your choice of references.

If I didn’t see value in your site, we wouldn’t be having this exchange right now.

You are contradicting yourself here and either you are that blind or want me to pretend I don’t see it. There are plenty of websites out there whose views I apparently do not care about. Guess what? I don’t visit them—OR GIVE THEM SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT POST. People who do give such suggestions do care, otherwise they would not take the time to do what you are doing now.

Now don’t get me wrong here, suggestions are always welcomed here. But I draw the line when those suggestions want or expect my personal opinions to be balanced with someone else’s. When that happens, you are no longer getting my opinion on the matter (part of what I do on this site). If this were a newspaper and I was a reporter, your point here would be valid. But that is not the case with a blog. Blogs are heavily opinionated by nature. If you miss that last point, then you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I do not care who you support politically.

But you do care about who I don’t support. As I said earlier, since you are aware of other sources to get your fill of criticisms of the other candidates, why does it matter to you if they are expressed here or not? If you are completely aware of the “complete picture”, then all you are looking for here on this site is an Amen corner–not something that will challenge you on some level.

I was just suggesting that you give a more complete picture with your choice of references. Not just the references that support your view-point.

“Comments” is a tool where you as the reader can express your P.O.V. and provide references. As long as you can stay on topic, your opinion is heard as well. Like you, I am a person with an opinion. Don’t like it? Challenge IT and not the point that I have not grafted your P.O.V. with mine. In the meantime, we can agree to disagree on some issues and move on. Not a big deal on this end.

So can we now talk about the specific topic of this post?

Whenever anyone donates to any campaign they have to state who they work for. Everybody from secretaries to executive are reported the same. Just because someone works for a pharmaceutical company does not mean they represent that company when they donate from their own personal finances. And I have read stories of people who are registered lobbyists who have had their donations sent back to them by the Obama campaign.

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between a citizen, sending in their own personal finances, and a PAC or registered lobbyist? If that’s the case then there are LOT of people that he wouldn’t be able to take money from.

And I have read stories of people who are registered lobbyists who have had their donations sent back to them by the Obama campaign.

I have heard the same accounts. Clinton also did the same I believe. When you have lobbyists using their spouses to donate cash, this is clearly taking money from special interests (something the Obama said he would not do). Technically he is right and frankly, this is a very, VERY slick way to get around it. Plus, it bolsters the appearance that “ordinary” folks make up a large portion of his financial support base. But this is also very risky because while lobbyists are not handing him the money directly, he is still getting it indirectly (again, if this article is accurate).

Personally, I think there is some truth to this because besides Obama, many politicians have been doing this same thing to get around being tied to PACs and special interest groups. Plus, are we to really believe that that non-wage earning spouses somehow able to donate money?

I mention this article because since Obama has been constantly reminding voters of his clean hands in this mess, he is going to get nailed on it in the general unless he deals with it now. If he didn’t put himself out there like that, it would not be that big of an issue.

Check this out–I just found this site tonight. It shows how ALL of the candidates have been using lobbyist bundlers.

Looking quickly through the list, you’ll find homemakers who “raised” over $100k. That is just as bad as the $640 toilet seat or $436 hammer allegedly paid by the government.