I honestly do not understand what these politicians require your money for. Really. Many thousands of dollars?

Sorry, I won’t donate to any candidate who expresses support for video game censorship (http://tinyurl.com/22ycdv), even though I find many of Obama’s other positions compelling.

Those who really want to serve technological freedom should instead (or also) consider donating their money to a non-partisan organization with a proven track record, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

It’s unfortunate that non-US-citizens aren’t allowed to contribute. I am from the Netherlands and I really would like to see Obama become president of the US. The rules on the donation page, however, state that someone who gives a donation has to be a US citizens, which I am not.

As an Englishman I must say that I find the presidential race in the US a bit crazy, and asking for public donations a little stranger.

I have two questions about this, and this involves your relationship with novell;

1, Are you supporting Obama because of a corporate desire to get him into office?
2, If there is such a corporate reasoning is this reasoning based on competitive advantages such as preventing changes in law which would benefit your competitors?

I can see that if the first question is true, the second would be a reasonable assumption for the reasoning behind you pimping a candidate on PGO. I think it would be fair and not at all questionable for you to state categorically and publicly if this is the case.

Also, I’d like to point out that I’m not against pimping obama (just glad you aren’t pimping hilary), however in the UK we have a very different view of policitcs, and that is that the prime minister (more accurately first lord of the treasury, prime minister is actually an insult) is there to work for the people therefore the people shouldn’t pay the person they support.

In recent years party fund raising in the UK has raised some questions, with corporate entities having control over the parties policy and the sale of peerages via party donations. So I’m not saying we’re perfect, far from it, but support doesn’t have to come in monetary form, support should be based on policy and shown with a vote, and policy should be one of those things that might not be popular but will benefit people. I think its generally more important to support someone because of policy not because of their iconography, what could be more iconic than the first black president, and it sends a message to the politicians if it comes to pass. All I see in Obama is iconography, in fact I see no substance in any of your politicians, I don’t see a lot of the debating though, but from what I have seen in the UK news its still the same non-issue politics.

Surely they should be displaying a desire to mitigate or prevent the coming US depression? Rather than still laboring issues which shouldn’t be election issues like abortion and international terrorism.

The politics of fear in the US has to come to an end, but still they’re rattling sabres at the public. A fear vote isn’t a vote after all, its tantamount to terrorism in its own right. If Obama is different and doesn’t have the protectionist, isolationist view the republicans tend to hold (which btw I recon is causing the depressed US economy), sure I agree, vote for him but in the end its a lesser of two evils vote.

While I am not a Obama supporter it is probably the best you can get from this elections. While this might be a tactical move Obama does not completely break with the imperialist policies such as the embargo against the Cubans and bashing Hugo Chavez. Also his “progressive” policies are not so progressive as they might seem. For example it does not contain universal healthcare. I think if one of the other candidates win we are set for some kind of return to the dark ages.

Nothing is more shameful in post World War II history than the war conducted for decades by the West’s major military and economic powers led by the United States against an oppressed, dispossessed and refugee Palestinian people.

Both political parties in the United States have been cowed and blackmailed by Israel’s well-financed lobbies into colluding against all international law in Israel’s ongoing atrocities. These include ethnic cleansing; theft of land through the apartheid wall and colonial settlements; massacres; targeted assassinations; the incarceration of over 10,000 men, women and children, etc.

I visited Palestine last year and witnessed how, not just Gaza but the West Bank remnant of original Palestine has become the world’s largest open-air prison: a blatant injustice that turns to bitter mockery the U.S. slogans of ‘Freedom’ and ‘Democracy’.

If U.S. politicians summoned the courage to face down the lobbies and their media apologists and firmly insisted on a truly even-handed Middle East policy, the majority of the public would support them. This was proved by the overwhelmingly favorable public response to the stand taken against Israel’s settlement activities by the former President George H.W. Bush and George Baker. Your own campaign should be acutely conscious of what the deprivation of all hope is causing within the Palestinian population.

Brian Johnston
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The best way to help main street in the current $700 billion package is to set up a government agency to give existing credit card relief to the public. An agency could be set up to extend credit card debt over 10 to 20 years at a low rate of 1 or 2 percent. This would make it possible for people to pay off their debt, restore hope and dignity to people who now are burdened down by high interest rates and shorter pay back periods. It would also free up funds for people to spend on food, fuel and the necessities of life. Thank you for reading this.