jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (85 posts)

Am I understanding this Obama quote?

  1. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    He says he was outspent in the 2008 campaign? What am I missing?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … _2008.html

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He was not talking about his opponent, Barack does not like to pick up a tab, he is always outspent by his staff and interns.  Coffee and donuts, etc...  lol

      Deep pockets and short arms!

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe he's talking about how much he spent compared to how much all the other nominees from all parties spent, plus what super pacs spent, plus what Americans spent on cable bills to watch debates?

      Probably just a teleprompter problem again.

    3. MarleneB profile image96
      MarleneBposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think Obama is just trying to be misleading. He thinks that since he is the president, if he says something, people will just believe it without verifying it. But, when I see the numbers showing the amount of money Obama raised and spent and the amount of money Romney raised and spent, then Obama's comment about being outspent is a complete lie.

    4. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He doesn't know truth from falsehood. His entire life is a serial fiction. Why would his speeches be any different?

    5. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just occurred to me could he be referring to the democratic nomination campaign against Hilary?

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I wondered about that, too, but from what I've found, that doesn't work, either. Hil outspent Obama at the beginning, but after Super Tuesday, Obama outspent her heavily. And that wouldn't have been his "last" campaign in 2008, anyway.

    6. undermyhat profile image59
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What I find amazing is that people are still surprised by Obama lies.

    7. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, you are completely wrong and maybe should have looked up Obama on Wiki. He was outspent about 10-1 in his first race for Congress--which he lost.

      1. Attikos profile image79
        Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He ran for congress too in 2008, at a ten to one moola disadvantage, and it's in Wiki? That's a surprise.

        The things you learn on Hub Pages!

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I could make wikipedia say so for at least a minute

  2. jacharless profile image77
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    According to public reports, he raised more than any other candidate from all parties during the race, yet was outspent by all of them. His campaign ended up with a huge surplus of cash. Second to none in history. It was one of the things people got excited about, in that he could manage finances very well and possibly an indication of his ability to manage the federal budget the same way. There was great expectation that his administration would create the first surplus in ten years, eradicating a decade of warfare expenses, housing and bank debt and essentially resetting the deficit back to less than 400 million, as it was just after the Dot Com Bubble in 2000; putting the States in the forefront again. At least that's the word...

    James.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      According to Bloomberg and CNN, Obama outspent McCain:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … LDS9WWPQW8

      Obama spent $740.6 million.
      McCain spent $227.7 mil.

      1. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's not surprising that he got so much money since he's completely backed by the entertainment industry. One of his top contributors is dreamworks, and now he's going around hitting up all of his celebrity friends for cash.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this


          Howdy Onusonus. Your statement likely represents your impression of the 2008 race but it does not agree with data published by the Center for Responsive Politics. It seems that...

          1. President Obama was not “completely backed by the entertainment industry.” The TV/Movies/Music sector reportedly contributed $16.5M to presidential candidates of which more than 40% was spread among other candidates including John McCain. 
          2. The significance of this industry to total spending is relatively miniscule. Contributions received by President Obama from the entertainment industry amounted to a mere 1.4% of his total spending.
          3. Finally, the entertainment industry is far from among the top industry donors. Actually, retirees, lawyers, and law firms donated about as much to presidential candidates as the next six industry categories combined and entertainment is still further down the list.

          The value of the financial support from the entertainment industry in the 2008 campaigns for President favor President Obama but is far from a major factor. Perhaps you have access to other reliable figures.

          Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02

      2. jacharless profile image77
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @habee I stand corrected on the spending.
        @readytoescape I agree. Dreamworks and Disney are just two of the lot under his umbrella. He is very in-tune to media -big media and social media.

    2. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I’m not so sure the Obama Campaign’s not spending had as much to do with thrift as is did with recognizing the amount of Free Media Attention it was receiving and not needing to spend.

      1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
        Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        IMHO, that *is* thrift. Buying only what you need.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    Looks like he either misspoke or lied.

    1. JSChams profile image59
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am very sure he was doing one or the other and likely did not even know which at the time.

  4. carol3san profile image61
    carol3sanposted 4 years ago

    What does it matter how he remembers it?  I believe as he was speaking the facts quickly came back into his mind becuse he quickly pevited away from that statement. 
    The fact is,largely because of the supreme court ruleing, in this campaign he is being outspent almost 10 to 1.  Large cooperations are literally donating millions without having to give their idenity.  Is it fair for the cooperations to take over our democracy?  Ordinary people can't compete with the money, so I suppose their voices are drowned out of the political process forever.  Unless the rules are changed one day, I believe democracy in this country has been significently down-graded...practically doomed.

  5. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago

    Sigh....

    You people are so incredibly gullible.  Habee, I though YOU at least were better than this....

    The clip was cut short.  If you can find the complete statement, he was referring to an earlier Senate campaign...

    Hook

    Line

    Sinker

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "You know what, I might be worried about all this money that is being spent, if it wasn't for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, the last campaign I ran in 2008. I've been outspent before."

      "the last campaign I ran in 2008"

      As far as I know, Obama's presidential campaign was the last campaign he ran in 2008...

      Unless you are referring to him starting his 2012 campaign in 2008 maybe?

      Read the transcript here, he doesn't refer to anything else.

      www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/06/11070 … uly-6-2012

      Sigh, hook, line, sinker.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        To answer your original question Habee, No you didn't understand the quote.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're right.

          "You know what, I might be worried about all this money that is being spent, if it wasn't for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, the last campaign I ran in 2008. I've been outspent before."

          Sorry, the bolded part he didn't actually say, I just put it in trying to keep up. So here:

          "You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent, if it wasn't for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, the last campaign I ran in 2008. I've been outspent before."

          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … _2008.html

          Check it yourself. I challenge you to show me where I'm wrong and how he isn't referring to his election campaign. What campaign in 2008 did he run after that?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Did you listen from the beginning?  If not, this may explain your confusion as well as your bizzare posts.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I listened to the whole speech. He didn't say anything about campaign spending before that section. You're attempts to cover your mistake are just sad.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Really?  So you missed the reference to the 2006 senate campaign? (where he was in fact outspent).

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The last campaign I ran in 2008.

                  Not 2006.

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Explain it then. What campaign did he run after his presidential campaign?

          "the last campaign I ran in 2008"

          Get real, this isn't a matter of discussion. You can listen yourself, it's recorded fact now. Nice try though.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're not making any sense...He never claimed to have run a campaign after 2008.  What in the world are you referring to?

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He said he was outspent on his last campaign in 2008. His last campaign in 2008 was his presidential campaign. That was the last one he did, which makes it the last one, which makes it the one he is talking about.

              Do you understand what 'last' means? If you have 2 campaigns in a year, the second one is the last one.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, that's not what he said.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha. Ok, what did he say?

                  "You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent, if it wasn't for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, the last campaign I ran in 2008. I've been outspent before."

                  This is so funny Ron.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Is English not your primary language?

        3. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know how else to understand "the last campaign I ran in 2008." Did he mean to say 2006?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It wouldn't matter. He outspent his opponent in the senate race by 6 to 1. It's nice of him to play the victim though, because he only had enough money to hand out fliers door to door apparently.

    2. MarleneB profile image96
      MarleneBposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I have to say that I like Habee because a source is usually associated with the comment. I realize the video was cut short. Most of them are cut short. But, I could not find a longer version. Do you have a source that backs your comments? If you have a link to a longer version, I would be happy to go watch it. Thanks.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Here you go:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AITbi9NOVwI

        The quote is at 26:40

        1. MarleneB profile image96
          MarleneBposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for the link. I watched the entire 31:14 of the video and took notes. I paused and rewound just to be sure. Right around 26:40 the president started talking about memories of his previous campaigns. Then at 26:56, what the president said was (and I quote), "You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent, if it wasn't for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, the last campaign I ran in 2008. I've been outspent before."

          Previous to that the president just talked about a lot of "stuff" like how his daughter was born on July 4th and how she is 14 years old now. At 17:43 in the speech he talked about building from the middle class up and bringing manufacturing back to America. At 19:34 he talked about how he ended the war in Iraq. At 21:16 he talked about basic security of healthcare. At 23:00 he talked about wealthy people and how the government can't solve every problem. At 25:35 he talked about how together we all do better. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But, he didn't start ramping up to talk about his being outspent until 26:40 and at 26:56 is when he stated the quote about being outspent.

          So... I defer back to the original question and I look at the reports and I have doubts about his comment that he has been outspent when the numbers indicate differently.

          Thanks for the link to the video. I can see why all the other versions were cut to the chase with regard to the subject of being outspent. The rest of the video has zero mention of it- just the few sentences quoted. Yep. I watched the whole thing just to see for myself.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The speech was given at Carnegie-Mellon last week.  Listen to it all, and you'll understand what's actually going on here.  A team of right-wing hatchet men scoured through a 30 minute speech and pulled a few seconds out to try to find a juicy soundbite.  If this is the best they can do...

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong again. So sad.

          The speech was given Friday, July 6th, 2012. That was yesterday.

          Too bad I already posted the link to the whole speech.

          Do you do this for fun, or are you really deluded by your devotion to the left?

    3. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry to disappoint you, Ron, but I'm a political junkie. And in case you haven't noticed, I've also posted BAD stuff about Rs and GOOD stuff about Obama. I was honestly confused by Obama's statement, thinking perhaps some new evidence had come out about the 2008 campaign spending of which I was unaware.

  6. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    How deluded can people get?

    "He didn't say that!"

    link to video clip with time-mark for comment

    "No, he didn't say that!"

    Ron, you've set a new record. Thanks.

    1. carol3san profile image61
      carol3sanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't anyone see, or care about the big picture here?  The US government is being handed over to the cooperations to run. They will have free range. Ordinary citizens will no longwer have an influence in the government as long as the citizen united law stands.  Don't anybody care about that?  For the first time in the history in the USA a sitting president will be outspent 10 to 1...courtesy of the supreme court citizens united decision. The name should be citizens not included.

      1. Attikos profile image79
        Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have no idea what you're talking about. As of the latest reports, Obama has raised $255 million, Romney $121 million. Including outside spending, Obama's campaign is still ahead by more than two to one. Where did this "10 to 1" ratio in the reverse come from? I've seen no information at all that it's remotely related to reality, and if it is I'd really like to hear about it.

  7. KK Trainor profile image61
    KK Trainorposted 4 years ago

    In the past couple of months Obama's campaign hasn't released what they have raised, but Romney is reaching his fundraising goals each month. This may be why democrats are so scared. But I have a feeling Obama will be able to bump up his contributions as we get closer to the election, as he did last time in Sept. '08. He is way outspending Romney on ads though, which is draining his cash on hand.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 … 0-million/

    1. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Each campaign is required to file its FEC reports monthly. As of the last one, Obama had $110 million in cash, Romney $17 million.

      I'm trying to find out where the information Obama is being buried beneath his competition's spending is coming from. The facts seem to be the opposite of that. I keep hearing from his partisans that he's being outspent, but I have yet to see anything to indicate it's true. He appears to be the one trying to buy the election with the huge financial advantage the numbers say he has, and he's on the telephone every day working to get more.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's all right here, as reported through May 31, 2012:  http://www.fec.gov/data/CandidateSummar … on_yr=2012


        OBAMA, BARACK
        Total Receipts:    $261,459,484.14
        Total Disbursements: $154,044,766.98    
        Cash on Hand: $109,718,115.12    
        Debts Owed by Committee: $1,207,806.97 
        Coverage Date: 5/31/2012

        ROMNEY, MITT   
        Total Receipts: $123,584,366.87    
        Total Disbursements: $106,589,123.07    
        Cash on Hand $16,999,665.75        
        Coverage Date:  5/31/2012

        1. Attikos profile image79
          Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yep. So, where do you think people are getting the idea Obama is a ten to one financial underdog here?

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            All people hear is that Mitt Romney is rich and has rich donors and they believe he's raising more than Obama. Remember, Obama still has the media on his side so Romney can't win this battle of the numbers until people start doing their own research. Overall Obama will no doubt raise more than Romney but most people will never hear that said in mainstream media because it would make him look bad and greedy, and like he actually had to spend money to beat Romney.
            I can't even count the references to the Koch brothers I have seen on the news and the forums here but does anyone ever mention Soros? They have to make Obama look like the underdog so he can play up that rich Romney angle and people are dumb enough to buy it for the most part.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Campaign contributions reported to the FEC are only part of the story, though.  If you factor in PACs, the story changes completely:

              http://www.boston.com/politicalintellig … story.html

              "The Globe reported Thursday that on the whole, super PACs supporting Republicans have outraised those backing Democrats by a 3-1 margin: $158 million to $47 million.

              Super PACs are independent groups that can accept uncapped donations from individuals, corporations and labor unions but cannot coordinate spending with candidates’ official campaigns."

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I understand PACs. But I personally don't mind them being able to contribute because the unions have been able to do that for years and no one minded that. And some of those paying dues didn't even agree with what the union was supporting! It's just that now both sides can raise lots of money and the democrats are freaking. It's up to the candidate and their party to encourage contributions, and if they can't do it then they won't raise money. Simple as that.

              2. Attikos profile image79
                Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So the Obama campaign has a $138 million fundraising advantage over the Romney campaign, and SPACs supporting Republicans (not specifically Romney) have raised $111 million more than SPACs supporting Democrats (not specifically Obama). I'm still looking for the source of the idea Romney is outspending Obama by a multiple. A lot of people seem to have been sold that, but it doesn't appear to be true.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I can't find a definitive source (I'm not willing to spend a ton of time looking), so I don't know the answer.  According to this article, Romney's PACs are outpacing Obama's, as of May.

                  http://www.investorplace.com/investorpo … d-romneys/

                  1. Attikos profile image79
                    Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But by a drop in the bucket compared to that $138 million advantage Obama has.

                    Thanks. I do appreciate your input, and I don't blame you for not wanting to plough in a lot of time searching. I'm still looking for the answer to where this one is coming from, though.

  8. Christene profile image80
    Christeneposted 4 years ago

    "You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent, if it wasn't for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, the last campaign I ran in 2008. I've been outspent before."



    This doesn't mean *every* candidate outspent him. If *any* candidate outspent him the statement is true.

    ETA: Total money *raised* is irrelevant.

    1. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't you think that may be overparsing? Surely he didn't intend to bury his meaning so deeply.

      Or is he really that disingenuous?

    2. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I listened to the video. He doesn't specifically say he was outspent in 2008.  He refers to his first campaign (Illinois Senate), and his last campaign. Then he says he was outspent before.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And it still isn't true; just look at the numbers from 2008. He outspent everyone by a wide margin.

      2. Attikos profile image79
        Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So, what he really was saying was that he has outspent his opponents, but he wanted to leave his listeners with the untruth it was the other way around?

        I don't think I buy that.

        1. rebekahELLE profile image90
          rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know what he spent or his opponents in his first senate race, but I do understand the English language and semantics, speech patterns. He does not say he was outspent in 2008. He refers to his first campaign, and the last campaign in 2008.

          I also agree with one of the posters above (carol3san) that we should we more concerned with the Supreme Court ruling making corporations citizens. Corporations now elect our president. That should concern us enough to demand a change as some states have already taken action against Citizens United.

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Corporations have been "people" since 1819, has it been a problem all this time?

            Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819)

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_ … ._Woodward



            Or only now that it affects Obama's re-election bid...

          2. Attikos profile image79
            Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The way this one's going, I can't blame you for wanting to change the subject. Obama is lying. Now the facts are being dug out, it looks as if he has had an enormous funding advantage nearly every race he has run, maybe in all of them, including the 2008 one. Does the fellow think he can get away with saying anything, that no one will ever check him on it?

            1. rebekahELLE profile image90
              rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not attempting to change the subject, simply adding to it.

              So you're ok with the Citizens United ruling that corporations are entities that can buy our democracy?  They're owned and run by the 1%, with shareholders to please. What if the US corporation is foreign owned? Now they can sway executives to vote for a specific candidate. There are no restrictions that can be placed on corporate treasuries which can indeed influence an election.  Is that the democracy that you want?

              a few examples of large foreign owned US corporations
              Anheuser Bush - the beer company- Belgian owned
              Firestone - Bridgestone tires- Japanese
              Gerber- baby food - Swiss owned (just check the label if you're wondering)
              Ben & Jerry's (come on, our favorite ice cream)- bought by Unilever - Dutch and Belgian

              there are many more

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Actually if you read the opinion it in now way lifts the restrictions on foreign entities being involved in U.S. elections. They still can't contribute and can't have any influence on our system. If you believe otherwise then you may be a pessimist, I don't know. That's not a criticism, I know many people believe that will be a problem with the decision. I just believe in the law, and the Court was simply reinforcing the right of "citizens" to free speech, which includes political contributions. If Congress wants to change that then they should come up with something that will pass the test with the Court.

  9. KK Trainor profile image61
    KK Trainorposted 4 years ago

    Some more numbers:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

    Doesn't look like he was outspent by anyone.

  10. Christene profile image80
    Christeneposted 4 years ago

    Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney outspent Barack Obama before suspending their presidential bids.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I've been wondering if what he was saying (badly) is that he has been behind in spending.

    2. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Uhm .. when did Romney suspend his presidential bid when running against Obama?

      IN RE Obama vs. Clinton: The pivotal primary month was February. Obama at the beginning of that month time had outraised and outspent Clinton by a small margin, and had a big cash on hand advantage. When was it, once the campaign got rolling, he was outfunded even by Mrs. Clinton? When the crucial time arrived, it simply is not true that he was, so far as I can find out.

      No, this theory too seems not to fit the facts.

    3. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "On February 22, 2008, the New York Times reported for the period through January 31, 2008, with Hillary Clinton's campaign spending $106 million, Barack Obama's campaign spending $115 million and John McCain's committee $41 million"

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election

      1. Christene profile image80
        Christeneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Scroll down to Election cycle summary and you'll see

        Hillary Clinton 106,000,000
        Barack Obama 85,176,289

        Mitt Romney 87,644,955


        Since only Obama continued, his spending of course kept increasing.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Those figures are through 2007. The ones I quoted were through Jan. 2008.

          Obama wasn't outspent in the primaries, he wasn't outspent in his Senate campaign, he wasn't outspent by McCain in the presidential election. There's no truth to his statement, unless you claim he was outspent by Obama-vs-Everyone.

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Especially not outspent by McCain since he took public financing and Obama broke his promise to do so, going the more lucrative route.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well... don't mention that. Apparently campaign spending is a bad thing. And promises don't matter if the candidate is from 'your party'.

          2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Get a grip. Obama lost his first race. Just like the quote says. It was for Congress and he was outspendt 10-1.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ok.

              In 2000 Obama spent 500,000. Bobby Rush spent 700,000. Yes, Obama was outspent by 40% in 2000 for his congressional bid.

              He never mentioned that race in his speech.

              He outspent everyone in his 2004 senate race. He outspent everyone in the primaries in 2008. He outspent McCain in 2008.

              I can't find any records for his state senate spending. You can look for it, but what you said about him being outspent 10-1 was wrong by a factor of 2500%.

            2. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Please, show me where Obama mentioned his 2000 congressional campaign.

  11. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    I'm talking about US based corporations owned by foreigners. They absolutely can influence elections. There is nothing to restrict an US corporation, based in the US, owned by foreigners, from forming PAC's which are then funded by their American employees.

    I'm not a pessimist at all, just looking at what has happened and is currently taking place in our country.

    Now I'm going swimming, enough politics! I usually stay out of these forums. smile

 
working