When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interests, and political action committees for his presidential campaign. It was Barack Obama’s judgment that it would be preferable if the next President of the United States were elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington or anywhere else.

Barack Obama’s belief that together ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things has been ridiculed by his opponents as “just high sounding words” and “big talk from a pied piper”. But when 1 million ordinary Americans use their credit cards and each gives $25-50 dollars with the click of a mouse to raise $25-50 million dollars for Obama’s campaign without the help of special interests, political action committees, lobbyists, $1000 a plate dinners, or huge contributions from American billionaires most of us think that’s pretty extraordinary.

Suppose Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president at the Democratic National Convention in August, and suppose on November 4, 2008 the majority of Americans decide to vote for Barack Obama, the presidential candidate who among many other things has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.

Furthermore, suppose this idea of raising money for political campaigns directly from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected? Would that help or hurt democracy in America?

That’s the kind of change that Barack Obama represents which concerns so many in Washington who aren’t very eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of money peddlers, individuals who currently make arrangements to provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning and whom they can then “work with” later on.

Don’t let fear and hate mongers, talk radio hosts, smooth talking politicians, or anyone else do your thinking for you. We are at a historic moment in America. Barack Obama is a very special candidate for president who can bring about significant changes in Washington and help ordinary Americans begin reclaiming their democracy. Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. knows this and has recently endorsed Senator Barack Obama, recognizing Obama’s integrity, intelligence, and the strong leadership he can provide as president. It is time for voters in Pennsylvania and in the remaining states that will soon vote in the presidential primary election to stand up and be counted. It’s time for ordinary Americans to begin the process of reclaiming America.

“Socialism” is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as follows: “1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

Barack Obama is not in favor of any of the above. He simply wants to return to the somewhat higher tax rates on top earners that we had in the 1990’s. So does Warren Buffet. Is he a “socialist” too?

Senator John McCain is a respected 72 year old American warrior, but he is on a path whose slope, however gentle, is downward.

On the contrary Senator Barack Obama is an intelligent, articulate, and insightful 47 year old American whose best years lie ahead of him; a man who graduated near the top of his class at Harvard Law School and was president of its Law Review; a man who understands and respects the American constitution because he was an instructor of constitutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School; a man familiar with the American legislative process because he served 3 terms as an Illinois State Senator and the past 4 years as a US Senator; a man acquainted with Washington but one who also brings fresh ideas and a passion for bringing about important and necessary changes in Washington.

Senator Obama is the man America needs today, and as the 44th American President he will be the man to lead America into the future.

“Socialism” is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as follows: “1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

Barack Obama is not in favor of any of the above. He simply wants to return to the somewhat higher tax rates on top earners that we had in the 1990’s. So does Warren Buffet. Is he a “socialist”? Of course not.

Obama and McCain just disagree about what the tax rates should be on high earners.