What factcheck.org is doing is admirable, but it's up to media outlets like Salon to take the story and give it greater exposure.

Why would Obama think he can get away with this? Probably because he knows that since Clinton's hands are a little bit dirtier than his, she won't be calling attention to the inconsistencies in his statements. Also, he carefully stops short of actually lying, preferring to convey an untrue impression through skillful omissions.

This very thing is what's going to tank Obama in November should he be the nominee - his too-cute-by-half way of finessing the facts. When people say they want change, they mean a break from the perceived dishonesty and self-interestedness of our current politicians. Obama will be (accurately) portrayed as the candidate who will say anything to win.

Keep it up, against all the candidates.

Those of us who don't drink kool-aid have known Obama lies like every other politician and isn't the saint he and his supporters claim him to be. Once he is the nominee -- all this will come out in the General Election and we will end up with McCain.

The cult surrounding Obama will bring down the Democrats in November.

Rezko, Wright (the gift that keeps on giving to Republicans), The Weather Underground, the lobbyists and oil companies, Farrakhan...he has as many skeletons as any other politician and at least as many lies...but in a cult mentality...any question of the anointed one results in massive attacks and defensiveness...as is apparent on the Salon blogs. These are not people who want to hear anything negative about their candidate even if it is truth -- a very scary election for that reason.

But the contributions of privte citizens in the oil industry have a tiger in his tank. There is a difference there to appreciably perceive, but as far as dirty hands go, Hillary's the master of cheat and disceive.

How refreshing! Senator Obama does not walk on water!

So what exactly is the problem, if the campaign is acknowledging that this is an imperfect solution? "Not perfect" is something I have heard Obama and his campaign repeat ad nauseum. So ... why go after them for what they already admitted is an imperfect solution? Since he said he would be willing to take public financing if his opponent signed a contract agreeing to the same thing, I at least know that he is interested in changing things, but he's not going to sacrifice his chance to do it by playing by totally different rules from his opponents. That is one of the reasons I voted for him - despite serious hesitations I have about his health care plan (also imperfect, but none of the candidates were offering single-payer anyway) and his bizarre statements about social security. Not because I think all of his money was scrounged up from little old grandma's purses, but because I think he will actually work to change the campaign rules when he is in office. How many people think Clinton will? Yeah, that's what I thought.

I'm glad to see the campaign acknowledge that this "I don't take money from lobbyists" meme is imperfect at best. What it means in practice is, "I won't accept a contribution from someone who is a registered lobbyist." And he really doesn't--I know, because he refused a check from my spouse. So, on the one hand, he can continue to take money directly from CEOs of companies. On the other hand, this policy excludes people like my spouse, who really only registered as a lobbyist in an abudance of caution, and who runs a small nonprofit that often takes a decidedly anti-corporate tack (primarily against the recording and motion picture industries). I can guarantee you, her organization is not in a position to go around offering golfing trips in Scotland to members of Congress.

But in Obama's defense, I don't see any quick and easy way of eliminating the bad influence that money infuses into politics. He did this "no money from lobbyists" thing to try and make a statement, it may have some impact on his independence as a candidate, but the policy is definitely rough around the edges and it underscores just what a sticky wicket campaign finance reform really is. Change the rules as many times as you want, somehow that money just keeps finding a way of slipping through.

Also, as to those CEOs who have given Obama money and/or acted as "bundlers"--you don't know for a fact that they are doing this solely to gain influence with Obama with regard to their respective industries. Maybe they just really think he'd be a fine President. Maybe they're old friends. Maybe they're angling for a political appointee position that takes them out of their industry. When someone contributes or helps out a campaign in his personal capacity, you can't know to a certainty what is motivating him.

Obama detractors love to pull out the Jesus imagery, but here's a clue: we don't think he's perfect. We just think he's better than the alternative, and so far the plurality of Democrats who have voted agree.

And do you really want to snipe about who has been more deceptive?

that she and Bush dispatched U.S. troops to Iraq for a black

gold duel to

the death.

She's the woman in disguise

she's the one who tells the lies

under a cloak of blood red skies

Iraq's oil wealth is an ever elusive prize.

Christ, I thought I could post before the basement-dwellers awoke. They seem to hover like vultures...

Anyway, outraged fellow citizens, think for two seconds. So he got $200k from people working for the oil industry. Big deal. I suppose it might give me pause if that all came from $1000 a plate fundraisers thrown by big oil execs, but what about if it came from a thousand Exxon mail room schmoes giving small amounts? Would you still consider him somehow beholden to the industry?

Second, the dude raises 40 or fifty MILLION dollars a month. $200k is less than half a percent of his fundraising in a single month. I imagine that you could break the numbers down to show, horror of horrors, that he got $300k from bank tellers, or $400k from postal workers or something. Did you think that his money came from nowhere, or from people without jobs, or unconnected to any industry?

In short, I don't see how this sullies him in any way.