These are sidetracking issues. Obama will be happy as long as no one looks into his world view. See:
http://miraclesdaily.blogspot.com/

Sent by Christian Prophet | 4:18 PM ET | 03-31-2008

Christian Prophet, hide from truth all you want, it will not offer you any salvation. You can hide in your words, and your judgments until the end of time, but it will not profit you, and worse, it will exclude from your eyes the light of truth, the light of god.

Sent by Jody Sol | 5:43 PM ET | 03-31-2008

This is the exact smae type of political agenda advertising that is putting the US in the dump. Can't we just get a candidate that will talk straight to us? Yes we can. www.votenader.org

Sent by Joe | 7:15 PM ET | 03-31-2008

Why does Hillary insist on lying about Barack? I have no problem with her running until the votes are cast, but she at least shouldn't stoop to lying about Barack. That's not fair play. She should rebuke, repudiate, etc., her staffers who perpetrated this nonsense.

Sent by Proteron | 9:14 PM ET | 03-31-2008

I'm sorry. While this COULD be investigated further, saying there's a deeper issue of how influential these contributions are, is a bit hollow. Someone could aggregate the amount of donors affiliated with candy stores and then try to construct a connection to the Sugar industry. That's an overly simplified example, but singling out donors by employment and drawing conclusions to any potential connections seems to be an empty chase.

I guess when receiving so many small contributions from so many donors, there's bound to be criss-cross and overlap.

Sent by Rob | 9:42 PM ET | 03-31-2008

Joe's got it right,

or at least that's how it seems to me.

Sent by Jody Sol | 10:04 PM ET | 03-31-2008

I find this tremendously gratifying. Obama runs on a message of change and hope, and yet he is no different than the two candidates that he tries to posit as members of some ancien regime of politics. Yet, he takes money from the same sources as they do! What hypocrisy--running on the hopes of the American people, and yet in reality being just as corrupt as the other politicians.

Sent by Anthony | 2:10 AM ET | 04-01-2008

Interesting, Obama doesn't take money from Oil PAC's. Does that include the implication that the other two do?
As to Nader, I'm sorry, the man just doesn't have the support base to EVER get elected president. Voting for him is either a statement or a waste.
Personally I'll go with a Heinlein paraphrase: the difference between bad and worse is much greater than the difference between good and better. Of all the possibilities Obama is the least bad...and possibly a good one. I'm voting for him.

Sent by Larry Jones | 8:52 AM ET | 04-01-2008

I don't know that where an individual contributor works really means anything. I work for a publisher that creates curriculum for publicly funded schools and benefits from the no child left behind policy, but my campaign contributions have nothing to do with my employment or my employer's business goals. However, I do have some concern with Obama's fundraisers being oil industry executives ...I don't see how he can't be influenced in that situation. This news probably won't benefit Clinton very much though because her spokesman, Phil Singer, can't ever seem to get an accurate and poignant statement out.

Sent by Karen | 10:38 AM ET | 04-01-2008

Tom, Please condsider two points in your further reporting on this subject.

1. The essential question is whether there is a meaningful difference between taking PAC money and taking individual contributions from people who work for a company. I would argue there is a significant difference. NPR might conclude they are not different and opt to blur the differences Obama is seeking to make. Whatever you conclude, perhaps NPR could explain its approach and not simply report it one way. A few days ago, a seperate story confused the subject by reporting on each candidates' contributions from "investment banks and their PACs" or something similar, when in fact, Sen. Obama does not take PAC money. To use that phraseology is to take a clear position on the question without clearly saying so.

2. On this specific story, taking money from a company PAC is much closer to taking money from a company than taking money from its individual employees is like taking money from the company. The WHOLE POINT of a PAC is to aggregate contributions so that they can be delivered with a "company message." Again, perhaps this could be explored in a NPR story. I would be interested to hear about how major US corporations handle contributions -- from PACs and individuals. My experience is that a company CEO or head of government relations schedules a lunch with the candidate or attends a small fundraiser and hands the candidate a check for $10,000 while asking the candidate to support some company-related project or request. When individuals give, they often do not deliver a company message but rather deliver a personal message.

Sent by Philip | 11:55 AM ET | 04-01-2008

BIG DEAL, The point is that he doesn't take money from lobbyists or PACs. Of course some of the many millions he gets will be from someone who works in energy, and by the way even this is less than the other candidates.

Sent by Matt | 11:57 AM ET | 04-01-2008

The point here is Obama is misleading the voters, but the story is written in a manner to suggest the Clinton campaign has done something wrong. It is Obama who is being untruthful about where his money is coming from. The Clinton campaign has to bring this up or the news media would take Obama's word as gospel.

Sent by Susan | 12:55 PM ET | 04-01-2008

I think the point is, in the mind of most casual consumers of news ANY money received by ANYONE in "Big Oil" or some similarly demonized industry is considered "tainted." In fact, this is why Obama's campaign keeps touting the fact that he doesn't take money from PACs or energy "companies" and so forth. They know the assumptions that will be made upon hearing this.
The fact that Obama doesn't receive from PACS, though, is (to me) completely semantic. The fact is, he receives large sums of money from individuals who obtained those large sums of money by working for the demonized industry. Thinking folks will rightly dismiss the whole "It's not from a PAC!" defense and ask, "But does the fact that he is receiving a large sum of money from an oil company executive (as an example) mean that he MIGHT be being influenced by their interests in the very way he's trying to deny?" To say anything else is deceiving yourself. We all know GOOD and WELL what would happen if it was Bush receiving a large check from someone who "worked" for Haliburton but not from a PAC.
In fact, the Clintons are still struggling with the implications of receiving monies from Norman Hsu (an individual) based upon the very fact of WHERE his money was obtained (Chinese gov't influence??).
So please, stop the hair-splitting and "But individual money is soooo different than receiving it from a PAC" business and be honest. The issue is over who is giving him the money and why--individual OR PAC.
In fact, I would add, lastly, that at LEAST a PAC is more up front in exactly their intentions. At least we KNOW where they are coming from with no chance of misinterpretation.

Sent by Stephen Oliver | 2:51 PM ET | 04-15-2008