When Edwards was still a candidate and participating in the presidential debates, one question he was particularly fond of asking the other candidates (in fact, he seemed to almost relish the opportunity to ask it) was what they thought the health care, pharmaceutical and other industies expected from the candidates who took so much money from them. I think it's a legitimate question.
What do CEOs and other Executives expect when they commit to raising $200,000 for a candidate? In at least one debate, Edwards asked either Hillary or Obama (can't remember), "do you think they are just interested in good government?" Again, a legitimate question.
I'll admit that I don't usually read USA Today. But I travel a lot of work and sometimes that's all there to read in the hotel. So I picked up a copy today and was not happy to read the article linked below which talks about the lobbyists and corporate executives who collectively have pledged to raise millions for Obama.
Maybe this is how the game is played. Maybe candidates really can't win without this type of corporate funding. But that system doesn't sit well with me. Obama's campaign has built an incredible small donor fundraising apparatus. People talk about his campaign being a "people-powered" campaign. It's a nice idea and desperately needed, but why then are all of these lobbyists and corporate types raising money for him? What do they expect? Are they, as Edwards asked, just interested in good government?
I know Obama has very strong support from people on this site, but c'mon, doesn't anyone here find this a little disappointing?
http://www.usatoday.com/...
http://www.usatoday.com/...