I've given to Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to Dodd, and to some of the other Democrats, both in this run and in others. After the FISA debacle I was tempted to give to Nader and McKinney, but thought better of it.
Just keep in mind that in 2000, quite a few people said that Gore and Bush were basically the same, though all signs pointed to how dramatically different they would be. Obama isn't going to be a savior, he isn't going to push the country in as progressive direction as people are hoping, he isn't going to immediately solve or resolve the hydra's head of problems the Bush administration has created or presided over, and as his FISA vote showed, he won't forcefully investigate or punish the corruption and criminality that has occurred over the last 8 years. At times he seems ideologically like a more religious, less randy Bill Clinton.
But as his overseas trip did show, he is leagues away from the Bush approach on almost every major foreign policy issue (except the Israel-Palestine conflict), and if elected will offer a "change" in POLICIES, if not always POLITICS.
That is the key: policies. Don't forget that. Politics put politicians in office and determine which policies get enacted, whereas policies ultimately govern the way we live.
Bush often substituted politics for policies or rolled them into one, which is why conservatism has proved to be such a total disaster as an ideological system of governance.
Speaking of campaign finance, according to the
Federal Election Commission, a nonpartisan federal institution, John McCain has been violating the campaign finance laws since March. As
Mediamatters.org points out, the press have carried water for him on this since it began. His violations are pretty serious, but the establishment media, as par for the course, was mainly concerned about Obama's broken "pledge," at least for the hot moment that they could focus on campaign finance at all.
QUOTE
A February 22 Washington Post article discussing Mason's letter noted that "[k]nowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison." Indeed, the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act provides in 26 U.S.C. § 9035 that "[n]o candidate shall knowingly incur qualified campaign expenses in excess of the expenditure limitation applicable under section 320(b(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971." And 26 U.S.C. § 9042 states: "Any person who violates the provisions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Any officer or member of any political committee who knowingly consents to any expenditure in violation of the provisions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
In addition, in a March 21 Wall Street Journal article about McCain's February fundraising, staff writer Mary Jacoby reported that the McCain campaign "spent $8.8 million in February," and that, according to his FEC report, "in February, the McCain campaign repaid $923,000 of a $4 million bank loan he took out in November." But Jacoby did not note that McCain may not be able to opt out of the public financing system for the primary campaign after obtaining that loan, or that by spending $8.8 million that month, his campaign has exceeded the legal limit for spending that participants in the public financing system face.