Obama’s campaign is admired by insiders of both parties for its functional beauty—not just admired but gawked at, like some futuristic concept car leaking rocket vapor at an auto show. Obama’s campaign has made a similar leap in how it has applied technology to the practices of raising money and organizing, and it is already the clear model for everyone else.

In a sense, Obama represents a triumph of campaign-finance reform. He has not, of course, gotten the money out of politics, as many proponents of reform may have wished, and he will likely forgo public financing if he becomes the nominee. But he has realized the reformers’ other big goal of ending the system whereby a handful of rich donors control the political process. He has done this not by limiting money but by adding much, much more of it—democratizing the system by flooding it with so many new contributors that their combined effect dilutes the old guard to the point that it scarcely poses any threat. Goren­berg says he’s still often asked who the biggest fund-raisers are. He replies that it is no longer possible to tell. “Any one of them could wind up being huge,” he says, “because it no longer matters how big a check you can write; it matters how motivated you are to reach out to others.”

There is some irony in the fact that the architect of the most recent campaign-finance law also happens to be the Republican presidential nominee. John McCain likely views all that has happened with considerable trepidation. Contrary to the widespread assumption at the time the McCain-Feingold Act became law (The Atlantic published an article on the legislation titled “The Democratic Party Suicide Bill”), it has not hurt the Democratic Party. Neither has it clearly benefited Republicans; McCain in particular has little to show for it. He raised $15 million in March, only $4 million of it over the Internet. His small-donor base is virtually nonexistent. When challenged about his staunch support for the Iraq War, McCain likes to say that he’d be willing to sacrifice the White House for principle. Nobody asks about campaign-finance reform. But that, and not Iraq, may wind up being the principled stand that does him in.

Kim, evidence abounds that Obama has surrounded himself over the course of years with people who, let's just say, are not all that crazy about this country, leading many to wonder just what all he really thinks of the country.

Honestly, I believe Bush and Cheney have looked at this country as their personal gold mine, to plunder and loot at will.

What have they 'plundered' and 'looted'? This is evidence of just how adept the MSM is at manipulating public opinion to suit its agenda.

Think about Halliburton and big oil.

Think about some of the measures enacted under the name of homeland security. Think about contracts being handed out to cronies without bids.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the MSM's agenda is?

Other than regurgitating a talking point, your proof is?

Maybe you need to put down the Kool-Aid and take a closer look at the journalistic landscape instead of just parroting old talking points.

The Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn's and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal.[5] The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

You might also watch the video of Chris Matthews trying to get right-wing radio host Kevin James of Los Angeles to explain what he meant by "appeasement." Matthews finally got so frustrated that he pointed out that Mr. James didn't have the slightest historical idea of what he was talking about.

Whatever. This is what I am talking about.