apparently Mr. Obama cannot acknowledge those donations because of that.

and thus he did not expect a thanks as it would not be legal. So he did not neglect the information, he spoke it out loud during the show....

Citizens United is the SuperPac that brought the issue of limiting the free speech of corporations by limiting their donations before the Supreme Court.

There is no reason then, why a liberal-leaning corporation, like say, Ben & Jerry's, couldn't give millions of $ to MoveOn.ORG if they wanted to.

A few weeks before the 2008 election, he talked about how was afraid that McCain/Palin were going to squeak out a win. They ended up losing by 10,000,000 votes. Obama is raising $80 million per month. I am pretty sure that is enough to run a successful campaign. I highly doubt when you reach these amounts that a few extra million dollars a month that we see from the republicans is really going to make a difference. Obama will be fine.

a little pork here, a fat contract there, perhaps a pardon or a blind eye, and definitely an inside track over one's competitors if that can be arranged by the wording of regulations or the specifics of bids for government work. Anyone who was paying attention during the bush years knows all about all of that kind of thing.

If his previous donors are now absent, having not received the expected favors.

This would seem to suggest that not all donors failed to receive what they expected.

Did any big-money donors in 2008 expect the mandatory-purchase of health insurance instead of bona fide medical reform? If so, they got what they wanted.

I'm sure the big donors were pleased as they issued all those refund checks to policy holders, courtesy of the Obama's ACA.

reform.

For them, it's much better and more profitable to have health-insurance reform.

If they wanted bona fide health care reform, instead of a Republican idea of the mandatory purchase of health insurance, that's what they would have pushed for.

It may be a stretch, but I think that the Affordable Care Act is designed to do and be exactly what it says it is - legislation to make health care affordable for everybody, to make sure that everybody has affordable health care. Putting a limit on the profits of insurance companies is an excellent measure that has worked very well in some European countries, and is unprecedented here(as far as I can tell).

was a liberal position, extended patriotism, and was beneficial to us?



Does the inclusion of a Republican idea of having the mandatory purchase of health insurance in an Act and calling it "the Affordable Care Act" truly make it affordable for everyone?

In your zeal to punish Obama for not being the messiah, how badly will you punish the rest of us?

There was never a chance of losing The Patriot Act once it was rushed into law because NO ONE wants to be responsible for a second 9/11.

So deal with the real.

to be re-elected. Easily.

Saying the truth never punishes anybody. Contrary to your statement, I am not punishing "Obama for not being the messiah." Nor am I punishing him at all.

You indicate that voting for an extension of the "Patriot Act" was a foregone conclusion. In contrast, it seems that Senator Obama voted for an extension of the Patriot Act while Senator Clinton did not.

Was Senator Clinton being unpatriotic?

I was a Hillary supporter, btw. Still am. I have no blinders or rose-colored glasses about Obama whatsoever.

Once the bill was law, it was never going to go away for the reason I stated. Nothing Obama does now can get rid of it and NO PRESIDENT GIVES AWAY POWER. This is our eternal punishment for failing to impeach Bush and Cheney.

As for Romney having no chance...that's what I thought about Bush.

With a million disenfranchised voters in PA alone, try not to be so cocky.

Whining about what can't be changed while we fight a death match is NOT helpful. It's sabotage.

Dwell in your useless time warp. Repetitious sanctimony helps nothing.

...and I can't say I've ever looked into the reasoning behind that. So there is that. Anytime I sound too satisfied with the president, a mention of the Patriot Act does a decent job of peeing in my wheaties, so to speak.

But as far as the healthcare act, you can call it a republican idea all you want (and just to aggravate Romeny and the repugs, that's fine with me), but the models for it are more the Swiss and German healthcare systems - which are two of the best, most efficient and affordable in the world, largely run by well-regulated private concerns. It all gets very technical to break down and analyze, but I think that in both countries (like our own) there were large existing private healthcare infrastructures, and the challenge was to improve them and make it universal via heavy regulation and government involvement. Rather than tearing it all down and building it back up from scratch.

The ACA should follow the Swiss model most closely. We are only about a year into the fixing of our badly broken system, but I am looking forward to the changes myself, and looking forward to affording health insurance for my family, for the first time in 7 years!

Has his panties in a wad because no one has kissed his ring this election.

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/153839/has-david-geffen-abandoned-obama/

the President and he has in fact donated to him. I have to wonder how that qualifies as having his 'panties' in a wad. He said nothing. He's simply not knocking himself out this cycle, which he did in 08. Aside from the 'panties' rhetoric, I wonder if you have any information that in any way indicates why Geffen is taking so much time away from business in general? Anything? Are you, for example, possessing knowledge that the man is not taking care of his own health or that of a loved one? Just saying. Panties in a wad and 'ring kissing' are fairly blustery and choice phrases. They seem totally uncalled for.

That was just one google I found with more information about it.

Just saying. They don't know either. I can see wondering what he's doing or if he's doing, I can not really see characterizing and ascribing motivations when those things are unknowns. The colorful language adds to the flavor, I suppose....

explains, imv, why David Geffen isn't bundling like Spielberg, Katzenberg, and may others are for PObama.

snip from your link..

"Geffen spokesman Dallas Dishman wrote in an email that “Mr. Geffen has maxed on contributions to the Obama campaign and that he continues to be supportive of President Obama and his campaign.” In a subsequent phone call, Dishman said that he couldn’t say anything further on Geffen’s political giving, that there was no one else who could, and that Geffen himself was traveling."

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/153839/has-david-geffen-abandoned-obama/#ixzz23yJkL5nU

Seems he's been retiring from public life and enjoying his retirement on his yacht. Good for him!

What, is he suppose to go around and personally thank each of us? Or should he just thank the rich and famous ones because they are able to give more than I was able to give?

I saw this, and Bill Maher himself wasn't even really griping about it. He was just putting it out there for conversation. But you left out the part that Chelsea Handler brought up in rebuttle to that. And what she said was true. He is the fucking President of the United States and he has more important shit to do with his time than that.

People that donate to Presidential campaigns should have enough common sense to realize that they are one among many and that there isn't any reasonable reason that they should expect special personal treatment over it.

Aside from that, Barack Obama has verbally and through campaign emails, thanked ALL of his donors many times.

thousands of dollars to a campaign, the campaign should personally thank that person

To not do so is impolite, and if the story is true no matter what our personal view is, it shows that it was not a smart thing to do

....I'm not sure how this "single donor giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a campaign" scenario plays out.

All I know is, they don't deserve any more of a thank you than I do as a smaller donor, who would give more if I had it. I donate because I want to help my candidate win and I'm enough of an adult not to expect anything in return other than an attempt at good governing. If these so called donors are that shallow and that childish, then fuck em.

My take is President Obama is plenty grateful to all his supporters as we are to him for the amazing job he's doing! Whew!

note. Maher may say he wasn't disturbed, but he was. He was talking out of both sides of his mouth

When I made my donations, all I wanted was good governance. A closing of Gitmo. A prosecution of openly admitted war criminals. A prosecution of banksters. A discontinuance of spying upon all Americans by the telecoms and the NSA. A discontinuance of squandering billions (or trillions or whatever it now is) in the Middle-East. Etc.

I didn't want a governmental contract or a continuation of the Bush policies, including the Bush tax breaks for the super-rich.

Maybe I didn't get my "thank you," but that doesn't mean that other donors did not.

Oh well Barack didn't call me so I'll just sit this one out and left the Rethugs win. Children.

Perhaps the "big donors" shouldn't be so full of themselves in thinking they are entitled to more than what everybody else gets.

They e-mail me call me a hundred times a week!

That is what the donation was for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/r-donahue-pebles-obama-fundraiser_n_1663361.html?utm_hp_ref=

Almost a year ago, on Aug. 8, 2011, Peebles and his wife Katrina hosted the president for a fundraiser with roughly 140 people at their Washington home. The price of a ticket to the dinner was $15,000 per family, according to a pool report from that evening. Peebles has raised $100,000 to $200,000 for the president's reelection, according to the Obama campaign's list of top "bundlers."
....
HuffPost was not the only news organization that Peebles spoke with on Monday or Tuesday. He was also quoted in The New York Times, Politico and the Hill. Peebles told the Times that he found certain attacks by Democrats on Romney's wealth to be "offensive."

"We cannot attack wealth creation and attack people just because they're wealthy and we can't attack wealth and success, and making that a bad thing. It's like going to school and the bullies picking on the A-students, calling them nerds and so forth. So, what do we want, a whole school of dummies?"

And Peebles also defended Romney from the Obama campaign's criticisms over the candidate's bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

"They weren't illegal. There's not one allegation that he didn't pay his fair share of taxes. I will guarantee you that if you look at a large number of companies that the CEOs and so forth are supportive of this president, I would bet you that many of them have bank accounts in other countries," Peebles said. "Offshore, when it came to organized crime and illegal activity, to have bank accounts offshore, that's one thing, and that in conjunction with criminal conduct is something to criticize. Legal bank accounts offshore, there is not anything to criticize about."

could see that's not the case. What is being attacked is how he's used his position in life to screw over working people who work their asses off so that douchebags like him and your other heroes can fly around in private jets. The least he could do is invest in the country that allowed him to become this wealthy. No one begrudges his money. Is what he uses it for and the lives he's destroyed in his quest for more. You should be embarrassed to constantly promote this garbage.

Funny thing is I'm not wealthy but I can see how counterproductive this line is.

to pitch to anyone for donations. You should be thankful that this administration's done everything possible to keep the mobs from lynching the rich in this country. Barack Obama has bent over back wards to accommodate your greedy asses and now you have the giant balls to cry like babies about it. Grow the fuck up. It was the wealthy buying up the system wholesale that got us here. Buy a fucking clue. I'm sure you can afford it. Oh you say you're not wealthy then do everyone a favor and stop pretending you are.

Amen, Brother!

drink in the middle of losing my shit..... Oh what the hell On second thought, that might actually help me relax.

You Just Fucking ROCK! One of the BEST posts I have ever read on DU.

waitress.

and they received it all right.

The fact that Wall St. is outstandingly fickle, and will throw anyone over the side for the chance of a better deal elsewhere should be surprising to no one, least of all a self-styled smartypants like Bill Maher. As psychopaths Wall St execs don't experience gratitude or loyalty internally and in their position they don't need to fake it. Maybe it surprised Obama, but that shouldn't be too surprising. He thought he could get Republicans to come together with the Democrats on their agenda by appealing to their spirit of bipartisanship.

seriously, they are upset about something like that ? they need to get over themselves.

a family member in Canada made a special card for her using the campaign logo and other stuff. The card we think arrived too late. She passed away shortly after it was mailed.

Not long afterwards, the Canadian family member received a handwritten thank you card of a few sentences making reference to the card from Obama's sister, Maya - mailing it to the Canadian address at international postage rates.

Either this president has his priorities screwed up and thanks international nonvoters for gestures instead of millionaires who give to his campaign or the story is basically bogus. In the worst case, they had some sort of a screw up getting a thank you to a few of the big donors while the country was in complete financial meltdown, fighting two wars and trying to make the transition to take over the Oval office.

for the donation.

Though given Obama's position on lobbyists, etc, I'm not sure how much more they should have expected beyond what all who voted for him expected.

them in his Administration until two years had passed from their previous employment. However, a few days after taking office in January 2009, however, he hired a defense contractor's lobbyist for the number two spot at the Department of Defense which oversees transferring funds to defense contractors.

This was widely reported in early 2009.
Obama's Lobbyist Ban Meets a Loophole: William Lynn
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html

Do you know what Obama's position on lobbyists is? Until January 2009, I thought that I did. Now I know for certain.

Here's my understanding of it:

They wrote up a pretty excellent set of "rules" for their transition. But they rant into trouble. They had to hire thousands of people for the Administration. Because Washington had been riddled with lobbyists and it was a common career path for those leaving government, they had trouble finding qualified and experienced people to fill all the roles. They could not go with rookies riddled throughout their administration because they did have the government to run.

Secondly, there were two types of lobbyists yet their rules excluded all. One type of lobbyist was the type Obama was concerned with, padding their bank accounts influencing government for the good of corporations or special corporate interests. The other type were people not concerned with personally benefiting financially nor corporations per se - they cared about the issues for the good of the people and the country.

Obamas rules allowed waivers for exceptions because of the problems they were running into.

One waiver of the latter type I mentioned above for example was a "tobacco lobbyist" - a person who fought against the tobacco companies - and not for big money personally. Some media criticized Obama for that hire but they overlooked the overall point of the exercise: Obama didn't want big corporate money influencing government for personal gain by the lobbyists and this particular selection didn't represent that type of lobbyist.

Waivers were also employed to fill a few positions where they couldn't find qualified, experienced people. A good example of that was William Lynn above. And it was more complicated than that when Sec of Defense, Robert Gates apparently insisted on Lynn because he needed a right hand man that Gates felt he could trust, work with and had the experience Gates felt was needed.

Look at Lynn's resume and who he worked for (Ted Kennedy & Bill Clinton)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Lynn_III
He was experienced and had spent the bulk of his career working for Democrat administrations or elected members. He wasn't a get rich quick off lobbying type of person.

Under the literal promise of "no lobbyists", the media jumped on Obama because he hired some lobbyists. But under the spirit of what Obama promised, in the practical sense of what was best for the United States such that special interests within his administration did not compromise the people, he either has delivered on it or came darn close. Politifact scored it a broken promise and I don't think that's fair based upon what actually took place, why or what it unfairly implies.

Because I can pretty well say that I am sure it is the latter, and in that case, fuck them AND the horse they rode in on.

I always got an email that said thank you for your donation.... I didnt expect anything else.

I think this bit on Maher was from an op-ed by Maureen in the New York Times.

While I don't think a donation entitles anyone to anything, getting someone on your staff to send out a thank you note is just the bare minimum in the game of politics these days and I think it's a mistake on Obama's part not to do at least that. But I'll take poor etiquette from the President over Ryan's visit to Shel Adelson after his $100 million pledge any day.

Just how much ass kissing were those large donors expecting?

From what I know anyone can, even if they are from China or wherever.

for robbing the nation and stock market investors blind...

then they need to examine why they're donating in the first place.

With Christmas cards and requests for more donations ever since.

Biden, etc., daily, ever since (plus a gang of assorted others). Have not heard from Bo.

I read that at first as you "had not heard from BO"..then I went back and read it again..

WRITING PERSONAL CHECKS to letter writers who are desperate.

Really. PO'd because they didn't get a Thank You card??? Grow the fuck
up, 1%. My guess is he considers you mature enough to live without one.

Supposedly one donates to a campaign because one wants them to win, which is in one's own interests.

It would be incredibly immature to let Rmoney win over a thing like that.