Contributors

  • John Morgan
    Blog Owner
  • Kirk Wentzel
    Contributor
  • Peter Bonny Jr.
    Contributor
  • Michael P
    Contributor

Blog Ads


  • To advertise on this blog please contact the owner through the "Email Me" link.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2006
Recently on this blog
Recently on other blogs

« "Wind, Not Windfalls" | Main | FBI Intimidating Wecht Jurors »

April 11, 2008

Comments

peter

John, your selective reporting continues a sad trend of undermining your blog's stated objectivity. It slowly becomes a subsidiary of Hillarys44.com. You're right when you say it is your blog, but a couple of more days of this selective reporting & you'll lose this reader of yours.

P.S. I have nothing against pro-Hillary or anti-Obama posts, but check your blogging in the last week and see the balance, or disbalance.

peter

Responding to this piece in substance. Let's see. So, 50% donated less $200 & 50% more than $200. And a conclusion is: Obama's campaign is NOT being funded by small donors. What's wrong with this conclusion, John? I'll give you my examaple. I started to donate back in January. On average, I donated a bit less than $50 per month since then, and I am apporaching $200 range. I guess that will take me out from the category of small donors next month per this piece. Excellent logic, excellent!

John Morgan

Peter I announced at the beginning of this primary that I was objective. The Obama activists weren't happy with that and insisted I cover their candidate when he wasn't even doing public events. Once I received press credentials and Obama began campaigning here I traveled a good bit and spent my own money covering his campaign. That didn't satisfy them either.

I then announced last week that I was no longer covering the Obama campaign. Since there's no pleasing these people with what The Inquirer describes as a "cult mentality" when they ignore facts and refuse to accept that someone can be undecided or willing to support a different candidate. After spending $244 on new tires I no longer have the funds or the inclination to cover a campaign whose supporters have targeted me for harassment and vandalism. Now one is attempting to censor this blog and have it removed. Why would I provide continued positive coverage after all that?

Why should I halt my coverage of the Clinton campaign due to something done by Obama supporters? If I only have enough funds remaining to attend a limited number of events (due to the tire expense) I had to make a choice and I chose to no longer cover Obama. I don't think it is wise to reinforce destructive behavior. If this is what I got for covering Barack Obama I needed to cease that activity.

The dynamics of campaigns also means that coverage swings back and forth. I've been critical of both candidates but, interestingly, the complaints of bias only come from Obama supporters. If anything at all critical is posted about their candidate they cry like murder. The Hillary supporters are far more reasonable. I get regular emails from Obama supporters trying to get me to write smear articles against Hillary. These accusations don't amount to anything when you check them out. I do get some similar emails from Hillary supporters but far fewer.

On the whole I have gotten away from writing about the presidential primary this week due to the vitriol directed against me by Obama supporters. You aren't operating effectively when you turn people against your candidate with such methods.

The article about the Obama commercial was accurate. His misleading ad was criticized by a website which fact checks these and they determined it was deceptive. It was and that is news. To make matters worse the Obama campaign is now running an ad accusing Hillary of negative campaigning for exposing their deception. That's pretty bad. I could be even more critical of them for doing this but I feel I made the point.

On the whole I am concentrating more on the regular topics and content of this blog.

John Morgan

Peter, the point the Obama makes in their press releases is that theirs is a small donation, grassroots campaign. The point of The Post article is that this is misleading.

Kevin

Wow, a "cult mentality." I thought we were all Democrats here? Way to escalate the pie fight.

peter

John, how is it misleading? He raised $240M. $120 of it from people who donated $200 or less. The other half soon will include people like me, donating more than $200. Wow, finally, I guess, I am a big fat donor now. I feels really good.

The point is that you picked rather a weak story, then went to overemphasize it by combining with another piece, relating them together in a clumsy way.

Anyways, it's all about the slashed tires, I guess. A strange way to set your priorities. Even a strangier way to decide how to vote.

tom abrahams

john,

i think obama is pretty certain he's going to win the nomination with or without PA.

here's the latest evidence:

http://thevote.abc13.com/2008/04/in-case-you-t-1.html

John Morgan

The fight was escalated by Cats r Flyfishn when she filed a formal complaint against this blog yesterday. Now I have to take legal action.

I also now have confirmation that the tire vandalism was done by an Obama volunteer. I also know an Obama endorser has been caught parked outside Hillary's office (where the incident occurred)which explains how they knew I was there. How much are these Obama nuts surveiling this office and what else are they doing with this spying?

Tom, Obama has to make a serious misstep to lose this or the Party may decide to go in a different direction at the convention. KDKA's most recent poll has Hillary well ahead. Way ahead.

peter

Tom, another disingeneous piece: Hillary has excatly the same program. Exactly. Check it out on her website.

Alright, John. When you say Obama's "endorser", who do you mean? Sen. Casey or a 18-year old punk? I guess your little war with Obama supporters affected your judgement and caused you to become an official Hillary's shill. Oh, well, good luck with that. What is weird though is that you continue to support your blog with Obama campaign's ads. Considering how insulted you feel, isn't it time to refuse those?

John Morgan

I used the word "endorser" to signify this wasn't some 18 year old volunteer but a person of significance. An elected official who has publicly endorsed Obama.

I have no control over the Google ads as I noted in an article earlier this week. I get virtually no revenue from them, Google does. As soon as I do finally, get my first check I will discontinue them since readers don't have a clue how they work and they aren't worth this aggravation.

peter

Ok, fair enough.

I re-read Post piece, John, and in light of this segment in the article: "Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million", I think that your headline "Large Donors half of Obama Total" is highly misleading. It's just disingeneous reporting, John.

John Morgan

The article says, as you show, that donors giving more than $200 make up half of his total. To many people $200 is a large donation. I've only made that threshold once and those were eight $25 contributions through Act Blue to a local candidate. I consider $200 a large donation.

John Morgan

As for the Google ads, so far, as of this moment, I've earned $87.19 though I have yet to receive a check from Google. That's the sum total since I began running Google ads on my original blog (at Blogspot). You can see these aren't exactly lucrative. Google alone determines what ads appear and that's based on your blog content and the keywords their advertisers request. When the total gets to $100, which is their minimum amount for remittance I will remove the ads since no one understands how they work. I am not lining my pockets with these ads. I'm lucky if they amount to pennies a day.

peter

People who donate $200 over 4 month of campaign are "large donors"?!? Is that a joke? Whatever, a waste of time.

John Morgan

I suppose everything is relative Peter. To me, yes, that's a large amount, more than I can afford.

Peter Bonny, Jr.

Geez guys, let's cut it out with these pounces on each other. We got to stop this crap before this garbage costs us in November and allows McBush the III to become emperor and create more wars than Mr. Bush the Dumb*** is right now. Get it straight. Sure, you have lobbyists picking Barack as their least-of-all-evils. We gotta realize that we are all at fault if we're not holding our candidates to the fray over public financing of campaigns. We're the ones that f****d up. barack explained in his book, "The Audacity of Hope" how f***ed up to system is right now and what it takes to raise campaign funds.

Now, we know that we also got crazies running around over the campaigns, but we need to get over that and focus on a progressive candidate that will deliver our progressive issues to the table. And we need to stop McBush from getting elected to destroy the world with his war-mongering fetishness. Get. It. Straight. Fighting each other will not get us the best possible scenario here. We have McBush ratcheting up his rhetoric about accusing the Democrats not being patriotic and wanting having a loser mentality about the war. We also have a SPLIT, FRAGMENTED PARTY! We cannot risk those guys painting Obama or Clinton into a corner as flip-floppers like they did Kerry. They need to strengthen their answers, make more of a plan on how to pullout of Iraq and defeat McBush on his war-mongering imperialist objectives. Fight the real foes.

tyler

John, do you take requests?

If so, humor me and do a post entitled..."Scientists reveal...Barrack does NOT walk on water".

Dollars to doughnuts the Barrack folks still hit the ceiling. Talk about a bunch of thin skinned wussies. Hope their leader isn't or else Kim Jon Il ir mahmoud ahmadinejad will give him an earful at the nuclear arms table. Then again, they may not...most of our enemies are pulling for Barrack to win...I wonder why? Kinda like the Chinese giving all the cash to both Clintons...

have a great day and if you do decide to post that thread, prepare for about 100 comments from any Obama-ites and pull your car in the garage or else your tires will be in the crosshairs again.

Melissa

"Talk about a bunch of thin skinned wussies."

Do they expect you to get promoted to the 3rd grade this year, or will you have to repeat yet again? ;-)

tyler

To quote a movie that was misunderstood in its prime and is now finally being appreciated for its pure comedy genius...

"Lane, I've been going to this school now for 7 years. I'm no dummy."

Curtis Armstrong (aka Booger from Revenge of the Nerds) taking to John Cusack in Better Off Dead.

I think my change my name next time I post to 'typicalwhiteperson'...hell, I should even buy the rights to the domain name if its still available.

have a great day :)

Melissa

Ooooh, I can think of much more applicable names for you to use. ;-)

John Morgan

tyler, good idea but I'd have to go underground and hide out for weeks. They'd firebomb my house next.

I don't understand this disconnect between Obama, his message, and the irrational actions taken by his supporters. The venom directed against African Americans who have chosen to support Hillary borders on the insane. Even Tavis Smiley is taking so much heat he just quit his radio show.

The irony is that this isn't what Barack Obama is all about. It runs counter to his messages of hope, change and tolerance. The only tolerance these people have is those who support their candidate. If you don't they spew venom that's lethal. This is why Barack Obama can't in November: his supporters blow off the undecided voters and his campaign is either unable or unwilling to control them.

Joyful Alternative

I gave more than $200 to Howard Dean, and I've never made enough money to be middle class.

John Morgan

I bet that you considered that to be a large contribution too. I managed to hit the $100 revolution goal in $10 increments.

rocketgrrl

senator obama hasn't always "talked a good game" on queer issues. the glbt communities and allies should be very wary of this candidate who speaks out of both sides of his mouth:
"Throughout the campaign, Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of civil unions. During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue,'' he was asked his personal views on gay marriage. 'I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,'' Obama said. But the Democratic state senator added that he does not understand people who say gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage as an institution."
Chicago Tribune | Obama opposes gay marriage
By Nicole Ziegler Dizon
Associated Press Writer
Published September 24, 2004, 3:23 PM CDT

The comments to this entry are closed.