« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama Exaggerates Progress on Bundlers

Share

July 23, 2007 8:33 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates.

When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers are raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that."

Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never become law as Obama seemed to suggest.

Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a "law" that the Illinois Democrat has "pushed through" but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information.

July 23, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (17)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I have noticed that Obama seems to exaggerate quite a bit. He could be a legend in his own mind.

Posted by: cliff jones | Jul 23, 2007 9:52:19 PM

Hmmm, it is true that Mr. Obama is feeling some discomfort from the constant attacks of those wanting to discredit him. Still, I think he is holding up better than most. What is most amazing is that Hilary is not attacked more? Consider that even though she claims to be "running on her own ticket" she conveniently uses/leverages her husband's name and record to get votes from the African-American community. African-American have a love affair with Bill Clinton not Hilary but Hilary is selling the notion that a vote for her is a vote for Bill. Now that is worth talking about!

Posted by: Darryl_T | Jul 23, 2007 11:39:28 PM

Darryl, I think that it's because a vote for Hill is a vote for Bill. You don't think she would do the same as Bill would do?

Posted by: Cat | Jul 23, 2007 11:46:47 PM

Cat,

No, I believe Hilary's agenda would be very different from Bill's. I must admit that I too liked Bill because he really seemed to have a good heart (unlike the Bush family) and cared about all Americans. I think Hilary is really in it for Hilary and not the American people.

Posted by: Darryl_T | Jul 24, 2007 12:02:40 AM

Cliff,
"..but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information."

I think you missed the bigger picture: Obama voluntarily reveals this information but the guy that attacked him does not (remember; it's not an official law yet to disclose where the money is coming from).

So, that guy is beating Obama over the head using Obama's own honesty, and you want to impale him some more over a technicality (nice!).

Posted by: Darryl_T | Jul 24, 2007 12:08:28 AM

Obama is no different then his counter-part liberal Democrats. He overstates his credits and lies about his motives. Hillary overstates her role as a lawyer when working as a lawyer. What cases did she try and win? How many did she win? Obama voted against English as the official language in the USA,yet, calls himself a true American!!! Raised by an atheist mother and Muslim father, yet, he is Christian? WHAT do we really know what is behind Obama's motives?

Posted by: Rosa Cerrato | Jul 24, 2007 12:40:49 AM

Darryl, I am currious as to why you believe that Hillary is in it for herself?

Posted by: Cat | Jul 24, 2007 12:49:01 AM

seems to me the msm loves to dismiss and attack Sen. Obama on the most stupid things but, never calls out Hillary.
The spend so much time finding ways to spin, cover for her and giving her a free pass they feel they must make up for it by nitpicking everything about Obama.
I wish the msm would quit trying to shove their ideal candidate down our throats and please stop trying to find something to criticize Sen. Obama on.
But, most of all, please start doing your jobs and start asking the hard questions and taking a clear eyed look at Clinton.

Posted by: vwcat | Jul 24, 2007 1:22:48 AM

The Republican pundits are at it
again. Twice in the last week I
have heard totally outrageous
statements from both sides of my
own family, claiming that Barrack
Obama is a Muslim. This delib-eratete
ate misinformation campaign is
being spread by Republicans like a virus a virus over the internet email
and blogger pages. Like most
Ditto heads and the like they
want someone tell them what to
think because they are lazy and
and are ready and willing
to accept whatever they hear,
especially when it convenienty
plays to their fears,
misconceptions, and prejudices.
Anyone who bothers to read a
newspaper or listen to an
unbiased news program know that
Barrack Obama is a strong
advocate of the Christian faith
in both word and practice. If these people really care about
what Obama believes in and
practices is real life ,let them
read "The Audacity of Hope". They will will discover a man of true humanitatianism with new
perspectives on government and
the role it should take. It's
time for a complete change in
the self-destructive & corrupt
way our politicians are carrying out the
out the business of the people.
Don't be fooled or misled by the
media and pollsters who seem
ready to write Obama's campaign
off.
He is building a base of the
people who are sick of the way
things are being done in this
country. His campaign funding is being
supported by millions of small contributors not by the packs or companies that own our government lock stock and barrel. If people want
REAL change in Washington, it's
time we elect someone who is
honest, smart,reasonable who can forge
forge a middle ground to put an
end to this self destructive two
party blood feud and get this
country working together again.

Posted by: b dawson | Jul 24, 2007 4:17:31 AM

The army teaches you not to volunteer for anything.

Posted by: cliff jones | Jul 24, 2007 12:02:09 PM

Obama's gross ineptness and naivete were on full display at the debate when he pledged to meet with a full session of the "Club for Dictators"--Ahmadinejad, Kim, Assad, Chavez, and Castro. Too bad we can't dig up Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao--to complete this line up of genocidal despots!

Posted by: carl | Jul 25, 2007 2:37:48 PM

darryl-

"Obama voted against English as the official language in the USA,yet, calls himself a true American!!!"

obama voted against this law because it was just another trivial bill that really did not help immigration reform move any further. of course english is the language of the US, look at our constitution. and yet why the hell should congress pass a law declaring it the national langauge when our entire country has been founded on immigrants? the real debate was on how can we keep our doors open to as many immigrants who want to start a new life in america the legal way. i wouldn't be here today if my great grandparents had to know english to come to this country. how about you?

obama is more of a true american then you give him credit--he actually has a firm stance on fixing this country, not a quick sound bite that is politics for most politicians.

and this whole overblown assumption that obama wants to shake the hands of dictators is just that--overblown. no one in their right mind would just go fly to a hostile country and march right up to the leader and shake hands. obama was accentuating his openess to diplomacy--a far cry from our close minded, our way or the highway president.

sure, a bit rash to say within the first year, but i have trust in his judgement to make the proper phone calls before landing on a north korean tarmac.

Posted by: jtdotto | Jul 26, 2007 3:20:39 AM

correction, sorry darryl, i was actually calling out rosa.

Posted by: jtdotto | Jul 26, 2007 3:21:40 AM

Obama always exaggerates: He exagerrates his 2nd Quarter donations by including sales from campaign items so as he can claim to have the most donations, he exaggerates about being the most qualified candidate for President when he hasn't even done anything for the state of Illinois, he exaggerates about being smart when in fact he knows nothing about foreign policy. What is not an exaggeration is that he had so many unpaid parking tickets and had it not been for him trying to run for President, he perhaps would have not paid them at all. How many years again did it take him to pay those tickets? It's a figment of his own imagination that he will be next President. I see him as a good-for-nothing, attention-seeking, proud and greedy nincompoop.

Posted by: Gilbert | Jul 28, 2007 12:37:07 AM

OBAMA IS NOT READY TO BE IN THE OVAL OFFICE. HIS PROFESSION SHOULD BE A MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER not a leader of our country. AFTER BUSH WE NEED SOME ONE WHO CAN THINK ON THEIR FEET.

Posted by: Linda | Jul 29, 2007 5:23:28 AM

Obama knows nothing about foreign policy??? That's a bunch of bull. Foreign Policy is one issue I actually know something about and I can tell you that both Obama and Edwards know what they are talking about. CLINTON is the one that is inexperienced. She's changed her mind multiple times on Iraq, supports Israel without question and doesn't speak authoritatively about Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. How is this going to help things? Edwards just gave an excellent speech about Pakistan's instability, the reasons not to depose Musharraf and the serious problem of Al Qaeda and the Taliban becoming entrenched there (YouTube: PoliticsTV @ Yearly Kos '07: Debate Part II). Obama had also talked about Pakistan and highlighted the need to improve the intelligence establishment (our BIGGEST weakness in fighting Al Qaeda and a cause for the Iraq War). Obama also talked about the need to improve our reputation and goodwill between the US and other countries by doubling foreign aid. (cutting off foreign aid was a major reason why the Taliban took over in Afghanistan in the 90's). All candidates mentioned the issue of the Madrassas, or religious schools being extremely radical and providing the only educational option for many Middle Eastern youth... but this was really the only thing Clinton talked about that isn’t splashed across all of our newspapers. Maybe Clinton has some great ideas about foreign policy but I think she’s definitely lacking in knowledge. Overall, Obama and Edwards are the MOST educated in foreign policy. As for 'experience'... it isn't worth a dime if you don't know what you're fighting for. Look at Bush.

Posted by: Brian | Oct 8, 2007 6:40:41 PM

Obama knows nothing about foreign policy??? That's a bunch of bull. Foreign Policy is one issue I actually know something about and I can tell you that both Obama and Edwards know what they are talking about. CLINTON is the one that is inexperienced. She's changed her mind multiple times on Iraq, supports Israel without question and doesn't speak authoritatively about Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. How is this going to help things? Edwards just gave an excellent speech about Pakistan's instability, the reasons not to depose Musharraf and the serious problem of Al Qaeda and the Taliban becoming entrenched there (YouTube: PoliticsTV @ Yearly Kos '07: Debate Part II). Obama had also talked about Pakistan and highlighted the need to improve the intelligence establishment (our BIGGEST weakness in fighting Al Qaeda and a cause for the Iraq War). Obama also talked about the need to improve our reputation and goodwill between the US and other countries by doubling foreign aid. (cutting off foreign aid was a major reason why the Taliban took over in Afghanistan in the 90's). All candidates mentioned the issue of the Madrassas, or religious schools being extremely radical and providing the only educational option for many Middle Eastern youth... but this was really the only thing Clinton talked about that isn’t splashed across all of our newspapers. Maybe Clinton has some great ideas about foreign policy but I think she’s definitely lacking in knowledge. Overall, Obama and Edwards are the MOST educated in foreign policy. As for 'experience'... it isn't worth a dime if you don't know what you're fighting for. Look at Bush.

Posted by: Brian | Oct 8, 2007 6:43:09 PM

Post a comment