<p>Vicariousparent,</p>
<pre><code>Hate to break it to you, Barack accepted over 340K in contributions from the healthcare industry, he was only beaten by Hillary who was over 360K.
</code></pre>
<p>Go to [Opensecrets.org–Money</a> in politics data](<a href=“http://www.opensecrets.org%5DOpensecrets.org–Money”>http://www.opensecrets.org) then look under white house 08</p>
<p>Hillary did take a lot from lobbyist, @700K, Barak took @100K</p>
<p>[AlterNet:</a> Election 2008: How Far Are the Clintons Willing to Go?](<a href=“http://www.alternet.org/election08/77287/]AlterNet:”>http://www.alternet.org/election08/77287/)</p>
<p>"Some of those financial schemes appear to skirt the law – as some backers consider putting money into “independent” entities that can spend unlimited sums but aren’t supposed to coordinate with the campaign – while other ideas are more traditional, like appealing to wealthy donors involved with the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby.</p>
<p>Sen. Clinton’s new scramble for money – as well as her campaign’s declaration that it is prepared to override the will of the elected Democratic delegates if necessary to secure the nomination – raise the question of just how far Bill and Hillary Clinton are willing to go to achieve their presidential restoration."</p>
<p>bulletandpima: </p>
<p>I followed the link to the site, which I have been to before, and it confirmed to me that 99% of Obama’s fundraising is from individual contributions:</p>
<p>[2008</a> Presidential Election: Barack Obama Campaign Money](<a href=“http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008]2008”>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008)</p>
<p>The industry data comes from looking at the employers of the individuals. If a person who happens to be a doctor or nurse decides to make a private contribution to the Obama campaign he/she still has to specify the exact name of the employer (eg the hospital where he/she works). Opensecrets then counts it as a healthcare industry contribution, but the motivation for the doctor or nurse may have had nothing to do with wanting to buy influence over his policies. </p>
<p>The hospitals and other industries also have formal lobby organizations that also contribute money, usually with the goal of later influencing policy. Obama is not taking such money, as far as I know. I am willing to be corrected if you have other information.</p>
<p>I see from the website that Obama has received maybe about $12,000 from assorted PACs, which is a tiny fraction of the total he has raised. In Q4, he raised a grand total of $25 from PACs, less than the $100 I sent him!</p>
<p>Even if your numbers $100K and $340K are accurate, that is peanuts compared to the millions he is raising from small individual donors.</p>
<p>“Idad, I’ve been black ALL my life, and (I swear!) I would never have picked up any black “code” in the use of the words, hoodwinked, bamboozled, or Okey-dokey. I can assure you that the vast majority of black people in this country below the age of 50 have never actually heard a speech by Malcolm X, either, so (aside from a few short sound bites in Documentaries/news shows), any use of “Malcolm X code” would have gone clean clear through, with no registration whatsoever. How exactly are these words being used? In what context? To what end? Did the NEA become a black organization while no one was looking?”</p>
<p>I’m black and totally agree with PoetsHeart’s statements above with one small correction: The majority of black Americans of any age never heard Malcolm X’s speeches.</p>
<p>According to this article, Obama and Clinton have received millions from “health-care professionals.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Above from Columbia Journalism Review, Feb 15 '08, by Trudy Lieberman. “Obama’s Lobbyist Line: A More Complicated Truth on Campaign Contributions.”</p>
<p>This was a point Edwards repeatedly made in ad campaigns and in the debates. Neither Obama nor Clinton denied it, though Obama said in the SC debate that he thought it was important to make the distinction that, while he accepted contributions from employees of drug companies, he felt that wasn’t the same as taking money from drug lobbyists.</p>
<p>vicariousparent - it all makes sense now to me; whenever I donate they ask me where I work, and what my position is. I also work for a health care agency, so all my donations have contributed toward that number.</p>
<p>teriwtt: That’s really interesting; I’ve made personal donations, and no one has ever asked me either of those questions. My husband has made his own separate donations, and I don’t believe he’s ever been asked either. Perhaps our individual donations were too small. ?</p>
<p>When you make donations through Obama’s web site, you’re asked about your employer and occupation, and the site gives this explanation: “Federal regulations require that all contributors provide their employment information. If you are not employed, enter ‘none’ in the occupation and employer boxes”</p>
<p>“Hate to break it to you, Barack accepted over 340K in contributions from the healthcare industry, he was only beaten by Hillary who was over 360K.”</p>
<p>I find it shocking that the numbers are that low. All of the nurses’ unions have made endorsements in the primaries, making their members fair game for soliciting contributions. I would imagine that larger percentages of individuals in the health and helping professions will support those who support them. That seems like a big “duh” to me.</p>
<p>As for the industry, the health insurance industry stands to make, quite literally, TRILLIONS off either Hillary or Obamadama’s health plans, just as they have made billions off SCHIP, so I’m rather surprised they’ve given so little thus far. Maybe in the general election cycle…</p>
<p>Let 'em give it. It’s good for the economy, and maybe soon we can get some really good negative ads - the best kind!</p>
<p>Northstarmom: Thanks. The only campaign I’ve donated money to this year was Edwards, so I went back to his site-- sure enough, you’re required by law to give this information when you donate. I didn’t remember that at all.</p>
<p>Some people were wondering how it’s going in CA in counting the large numbers of absentee and provisional ballots… I found a link to the Sec. of State’s office that gives a breakdown by county. There are A LOT of ballots still to be counted as of Feb. 15th. In Los Angeles alone there are 200,000 still to count. </p>
<p>So the delegates for Clinton and Obama are not yet set, though no doubt there will be no huge upsets, just a gentle nudging until the dust settles.
<a href=“http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/unproc_ballots/6feb233.pdf[/url]”>http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/unproc_ballots/6feb233.pdf</a></p>
<p>I forgot to add that I received a phone call this morning from the Barack Obama campaign. I thought this was notable, since-- though I am a registered Democrat-- I’ve received no other phone calls throughout this election, except from the Edwards campaign (and that’s because I signed on to their website, volunteered, and sent them money). </p>
<p>To suddenly receive a phone call from the Obama campaign-- the day after he visits John Edwards-- is notable to me. Could be just a freaky coincidence, but I’m guessing Edwards has given him his list of supporters, and we’ll hear an endorsement soon. That’s my take, anyway.</p>
<p>janieblue: I like your interpretation! I hope you are right. Obama will need all the help he can get in Texas and Ohio. </p>
<p>I think Obama is much more likely to actually align his platform during the campaign <em>and</em> during his administration with the Edwards agenda. Hillary sounds like she thinks she knows all the answers and if she becomes president, she is “ready on day one” to do exactly what she wants to do, regardless of the opinions of others. Not a good way to lead, I.M.O.</p>
<p>vicariousparent: I do wonder if Edwards will announce an endorsement just before this next primary. I just think the phone call is really interesting, since I’ve received nothing similar from the Clinton campaign.</p>
<p>There is a lot of talk here in NY, in light of the irregularities with the democratic primary vote reporting (official, not media), that if Hillary takes the nomination by way of superdelegates and Obama was leading heavily in popular vote/states/pledged delegates that Bloomberg will pony up a great deal of money to fund a third party run by Obama with himself as the VP. Of course it’s not going to happen, but the speculation is buckets of fun.</p>
<p>Janieblue, I signed on & donated to Edwards, too, but so far - blissful silence. :)</p>
<p>kluge: Well, you obviously didn’t donate as much as I did. 
Just kidding-- really. If I’m right about this being more than a coincidence, I bet you get a phone call tonight (at dinner time), or sometime before this next primary. Let me know if you do; we’ll compare notes. :)</p>
<p>janieblue - I can’t remember where you are from. Is it a state with an upcoming primary? When I was making phone calls last week, I asked where they generated their lists from. They said they are from voter rolls; from the experience of my calls, they were Republican and Democrat, and not just Obama Democrats. When they are making calls from the phone bank, they are typically focusing on the states with the next primaries, which is why I ask if your state is coming up (WI, HI, TX or OH). That would make more sense to me, although I’d like to believe it’s an indication of Edwards impending support, just to get the whole issue behind us.</p>
<p>P.S. Believe me, my donations haven’t been big at all, so I don’t think that has anything to do with it.</p>
<p>We didn’t donate anything to any candidate during the NH primaries. However, if we had a nickel for every call we got in the two months prior to the primary election, we would have lots of money to donate now. These calls were from both democrats and republicans, since we were registerd as “Independents”. There were days when we got ten calls (in a single day)from the same campaign!</p>
<p>"A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois is a statistical dead heat in Texas, which holds primaries March 4.</p>
<p>In the survey, out Monday, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Clinton as their choice for the party’s nominee, with 48 percent backing Obama.</p>
<p>But taking into account the poll’s sampling error of plus or minus 4½ percentage points for Democratic respondents, the race is a virtual tie.</p>
<p>Two recent polls by other organizations also show the race statistically even."…
[Texas</a> poll shows dead heat among Dems - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html]Texas”>Texas poll shows dead heat among Dems - CNN.com)</p>