Like I said, you can view her spending one of two ways (maybe others). She's trying to buy the office, or she's spending her own money and thus not taking money from special interests. I think if Bloomberg ran for president in 2012 and spent $1B, people would think the latter.
The latter view doesn't work so well if they outspend the competition by a large factor. If they only spend about the same amount, then it is more reasonable to view it as not taking special interest money, but it is still a huge advantage because the competition has to spend time fundraising. barfo
Not taking special interest money is the only way to be viewed as not taking special interest money. Obama raised $750M in 2008, if not more than that. He spent 2:1 to McCain's $370M raised. And that doesn't include 3rd party spending on his behalf. And regardless of the funds coming from lots of individuals, they mostly came from moveOn.org, a single organization (you can try to say the same about tea party, but it's not an actual organization). So if Bloomberg spent $1B to Obama's $750M or $250M (more likely as he continues to sink in the polls), at least he's not beholden to even moveOn.org type groups. And it's HIS money, he is the candidate, and he's using it to have a very big megaphone so he can be heard. It's tough enough being a 3rd party candidate with the way everything else is stacked against him.
If by qualification you meant to say obstacle or barrier, then I agree. No candidate can raise enough money to compete without selling his soul and betraying his country. It is simply not possible. It pretty much eliminates anyone who seriously and honestly wants to represent the people without being a puppet or paid flunkie. Absolutely. They are every bit as valid as the Republican or Democratic parties. They would add a variety of viewpoints that no longer exists in our political arena. In some ways they are both more American than either of our main parties, because they represent people, and unlike the Dems and Reps they are not (yet) corporate owned and corporate controlled.
There were at least 100 candidates, including write-ins, in 2008. What a debate that would be, to have 100 people involved. Give them a minute each to speak and it takes over an hour and a half. 2 minutes each and it's over 3 hours, etc. I don't see how anyone could gain anything from seeing that in action.
You vastly overstate the amount of money raised by MoveOn. It is not the case that most small Obama donations arrived via MoveOn. I'd agree a third party candidate might be given a little more leeway, since the deck is in fact stacked against them. However, that doesn't apply to Whitman. barfo
No way people with money are ever going to agree to that. =) Damn good idea... but Republican's would never let that pass.
Oddly, I was just reading a blog on Robert Reich's site and he names the guys running 3 of the organizations buying a lot of ads. So maybe there is some transparency after all. And Paxil, it's not people with money that wouldn't agree to debates, it's the incumbent or guy leading in the polls who has everything to lose and nothing to gain who refuses to debate in most case.
Of course...every debate involves the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. Why would you ask if they'd qualify?
Wow, you're attributing both the facism AND the communism in my comment to the Republicans? That's a little too partisan for my liking. Please don't demonize the Republicans like that, it's not conducive to productive political discussion.
