I posted about April 14, 2008 well after any meaningful campaigning (Super Tuesday was February 5 which would have wrapped up Clinton's nomination if it weren't for caucuses and fetishization of pledged delegates). Obama's donor list was topped by Goldman Sachs and seven other securities and investment firms. Three advocated deregulation of investment banking/securities and privatization of social security:

Obama’s top contributor is Goldman Sachs ($523,478), a major proponent of privatizing Social Security and legislation that would deregulate the investment banking/securities industry (Center for Responsive Politics). Eight of Obama’s top twenty investors are securities and investment firms and two are leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

When you click on the link (also dated April 2008), you find out more details:

Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry."

Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Senator Obama has made the following statement, "I don't take money from oil and gas companies and I don't take money from lobbyists." From the Center for Responsive Politics he accepted $160,000 from major oil companies, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and others. Two of his top bundlers George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar are CEO's for major oil companies. Last month, Obama accepted another $8400 from ExxonMobile, $12,370 from Chevron and $6500 from British Petroleum.

These are the funds and contributors for 2008

Finance/Insurance $15,087,469 $7,035,249

Communications $6,715,680

Securities $5,069,186 $10,261,541

Education there is a little more than $8,000,000 undisclosed

http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/fat-cats-own-obama/

Rosen and Yglesias wouldn't have written a word about a Puerto Rican male with the same credentials considered for SCOTUS. He would also be called "passionate, exciting and fiery" instead of "aggressive, intimidating and bullying".

Sotomayer is a woman and a minority but it is gender again scaring white males.

Like Thomas and Scalia are smart?

commenting on Berman's last article:

Latifa is NOW’s Status Quo

How strange to read criticism of National NOW’s website and its status quo in general, but then a recommendation that the incumbent, Latifa Lyles is the solution! Latifa is one of the current officers and represents the status quo in NOW. She is running on her record – which has been to have NOW function like a traditional inside-the-Beltway organization. For those of us who are concerned that the retreat to backroom meetings and insider politics will backfire and hurt women’s rights, the choice is clear. Terry O’Neill will have a wider array of targets in her sites: yes, government, of course, but also Wall Street and Wal-Mart, the media and the military,religion and familiies…all the institution that shape women’s lives. And she vows a wider array of tactics to hold our friend and our foes accountable to improve the lives of all women–women in poverty, lesbians, women with disabilities, women of all ages, races and ethnicities.

Violet’s comment:

Latifa is not the candidate of change

Latifa Lyles doesn’t represent change. She is Kim Gandy’s hand-picked successor, and it’s well understood in feminist circles that Latifa represents the continuation of Kim Gandy and Ellie Smeal’s control over NOW (Ellie being the power behind the throne). That’s why there is such a strong movement afoot to support Terry O’Neill, who promises real change and a new commitment to feminism.

We all saw the establishment feminist trainwreck last year. If you want more of the same, by all means, support Latifa. But if you want NOW to be a powerful, vibrant organization again, Terry’s your woman.

not Palin supporters. PUMAs protested the misogyny against Clinton, Palin and Clinton supporters and continue to protest sexism and misogyny in all its forms.

is lifelong, pro-choice, Democrats and feminists like myself. We were angry for the first time in NOW's history, they endorsed a Presidential candidate/ticket without a woman. NOW has only endorsed four Presidential candidates/tickets, Shirley Chisholm, Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro, Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama/Joe Biden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women

1972: NOW endorses Shirley Chisholm, a NOW member, in the democratic primary. Chisholm is the first African American woman to run for President, and NOW's first presidential endorsement. NOW rarely endorses Presidential candidates.

1984: NOW makes its second presidential endorsement, supporting women's rights champion Walter Mondale, former Vice President, in the democratic primary. With NOW's urging a "Woman VP NOW," Mondale selects Geraldine Ferraro for Vice President. NOW campaigns nationwide for Mondale/Ferraro.

2003: NOW endorses Carol Moseley Braun, the second African-American woman to run for U.S. President.

2008: On September 16, NOW endorsed Barack Obama for president. NOW originally endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president during the Democratic Party Primary. Also made known that they would not support Sarah Palin, the running mate of Obama's Republican counterpart, John McCain.

could have endorsed the McKinney/Clemente ticket which many PUMAs voted for. I abstained as I could not support McCain or Obama.