I could throw a million pennies tonight into the Clinton campaign…would that be the equivalent to a million small money contributions?

No, it would be one contribution, Jiminy.

I thought that progressives would appreciate a candidate who was able to excite 500,000 people to contribute to his campaign. Apparently, fewer is better. I stand corrected.

The facts remain. Clinton takes PAC money. Obama doesn’t. Obama has more contributors than Clinton. Make of that what you will.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute…

Obama and Edwards Tag-Team Clinton
Narrowed Democratic Field Faces Off in First Debate Since Iowa’s Stunning Results

http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=4091841

If you truly feel that way, then you are choosing to blind yourself from the facts. The boys “ganged up on the girl?” Go back and watch the debate. Edwards was tough with her, but he wasn’t vicious. Obama, as the frontrunner at the time, hardly raised a finger. Are you under some mistaken idea that Obama attacked her in that debate? He most certainly did not.

But I understand that when we want someone to win, it’s easier to cover our eyes when ugly things come from our candidates.

The overall point is that Obama has a larger set of small money contributors, and a non-existent set of corporate PAC donors. That’s the difference in the total money picture between him and Clinton.

Not exactly. One is touting himself as Mr. Clean, when in fact he’s not. Clinton hasn’t made those allegations. She admits it.

I could throw a million pennies tonight into the Clinton campaign…would that be the equivalent to a million small money contributions?

The overall point is that Obama has a larger set of small money contributors, and a non-existent set of corporate PAC donors. That’s the difference in the total money picture between him and Clinton.

And that little thing called digital photography….how’s that treating them these days. Too little, way too late.

I hate to say it but I think that in 10 years time Kodak will exist only to make accessories and bling for emerging technologies in the photo world they once dominated.

The beast that ate Eastman Kodak was complacency.

We really do need to do better.

It had to do with something called digital photography.

Digital photography could not be developed in the United States? It’s that old line dj_paige…“It’s the economy, stupid”

The United States has done little or nothing to spur economic growth of almost any technology and instead has become the receipient of the “goods”, without the benefit of the “jobs”.

That’s a leadership issue not only with this country, but with Eastman Kodak’s management as well. Double edged sword indeed, but try to tell that to the people who worked at Kodak, and have lost their homes, their jobs and their security.

We, as a country, need to do better - need to do more.

Goldman Sachs, for example, contributed over 400K

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

And if it is Hillary, I think a vice presidency might be in the making for Barack, and I think he’d take it. Other way ’round? I don’t think that’s going to happen.

I’d be more inclined to have the VP be John Edwards, or Al Gore, who is not, to the best of my knowledge, bound by term limitation…

As a member of the Walmart board of directors she shaped policies which drove manufacturing jobs to China and closed locally owned business throughout America

My money says you have shopped at Walmart.

In 2005, long after the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was shown to be founded on lies, she continued to refer to the war (in a two page position letter to complaining constituents) as an “integral part of the war on terror.” Given her intelligence and connectedness the only possible rationale for her position was the desire to look “strong on terror” as she made a run for the presidency. Excuse me, but human lives were at stake.

In the middle of 2 wars, WITH human lives at stake, you expected ONLY HER to put the brakes on the war and use an eraser to make it all go away? We were in it at that point, and we’re still in it today. Obama is a Senator as well…where is his introduction of letters of impeachment. To date, he has voted to continue to fund the same war he voted against…

This is a very well-written piece. However, I come away with a feeling of personal drama much more than of legitimate “resume” experience. A little less Frontline, a little more VH1 Behind the Music.

I’ll agree with your statement. There is much to be said, and much to learn, but I did try to keep my piece short, and tailored it to what I consider to be some of the important points to me personally…