Clinton lends her struggling campaign $6.4 million

In a democratic nation, how is the average citizen supposed to become President?

Under this system only those with large sums of money, or the ability to pursued those with large sums of money, could ever become President.

As most candidates must rely on the latter, via fund-raising, in practice it means that the Presidency is bought rather than democratically won. Thus, only the views of those paying large sums of cash are really relevant.

So, the question must really be asked, what is the difference between this style of democracy and the various variations of dictatorship?

The end result is the same, a small group of people control the nation and manipulate it to their own benefit. The mechanisms of how this achieved are quite irrelevant.

Does democracy exist?

Under this system only those with large sums of money, or the ability to pursued those with large sums of money, could ever become President.

Most of Obama's money is coming in the form of donations of less than $100 from his website.

But in regards to your question of how an average citizen can become President: they can't, and they shouldn't. Do you really want someone who is "average" running the country?

A President should be well networked in Washington and understand the political system, they should have the ability to put together a large team of people and organize a nationwide campaign - those are skills we should want the President to have. Being the President is not something you can decide to go after on a whim - it should take decades of hard work, years of planning, etc.

We only get into trouble if we allow their network of friends and donors to influence them, then things get corrupt (i.e. Bush and Cheney). That is why Obama's campaign is so interesting - he isn't beholden to someone who donates $50-$100, because there are hundreds of thousands of people donating that money.

Clinton and McCain are the "old" politics who host expensive dinners and get donations from corporate friends - the internet is changing the game.

For the record, I would never vote for the "average American citizen".

But in regards to your question of how an average citizen can become President: they can't, and they shouldn't. Do you really want someone who is "average" running the country?

Hmmm....

For the record, I would never vote for the "average American citizen".

Nice distraction from the real issue.

How can people vote for someone they have never heard of?

Without millions in cash, they can afford the media promotion. So, what your left with is a handful of candidates chosen by large corporations and they hedge their bets until a clear leader emerges.

So, the Presidency is purchased long before it ever gets to a public vote.

Democracy does not exist.

So, what your left with is a handful of candidates chosen by large corporations

No - that is the point - Barack Obama's internet strategy has changed the game, and in the next elections (4 years, 8 years, 12 years, etc) corporations will continue to lose their control.

No - that is the point - Barack Obama's internet strategy has changed the game, and in the next elections (4 years, 8 years, 12 years, etc) corporations will continue to lose their control.

Obama has not changed anything.

Watch and learn:

Barack Obama's TOP two Donors:

1. Goldman Sachs ($369,078) 2. Lehman Brothers ($229,090) more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009 ...

Hillary Clinton's TOP two Donors: 1. DLA Piper ($356,000) 2. Goldman Sachs ($350,050) more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000 ...

John Edward's TOP two Donors: 1. ActBlue ($1,965,274)
2. Fortress Investment Group LLC (Edward's employer in 2006) ($187,850) 5. Goldman Sachs ($77,100)

See what I mean?

As I said, what your left with is a handful of candidates chosen by large corporations and they hedge their bets until a clear leader emerges.

Democracy does not exist.

As I said, I would never vote for the "average" citizen. I'd much prefer to vote for a decorated, intellectual government official - which by default means the person will have $$$ as Senator and the like salaries are not meager by any means. haha

Corporations are going to donate money to the campaigns whether you like it or not. Newspapers, foundations, other high ranking officials, bums, the "average" citizens, black, white, yellow, etc. Will all find ways to endorse the candidate of their choice and try to not appear scandalous in the process. This by no means should give the impression that the candidates have some type of allegiance to whoever donates to them.

One thing you can say for sure about Obama. If it comes out that money that was donated to his campaign was in any way tainted, he donates it to charity.

As I said before, nice distraction from the real issue.

The issue here is that democracy is an illusion. Presidential candidates, cannot become Presidential candidates, without advertising. This cost millions of dollars. In practice, this means that the Presidency is not open to just anyone, but only to a select group that can obtain sufficient funding. The only people able to provide sufficient funding are a select group of businesses. It is a business investment, not a selfless patriotic act.

As such, democracy is nothing more that a sham. A side-show to keep millions of morons happy and oblivious to the fact that their opinion really means nothing.

The result is a system that only differs from a dictatorship in it mechanics.

Sad but true.

And as I said, I do not want it open to just anyone. Government officials have the cash flow and the American people supporting their campaign runs want to give them money. Not to mention, it's a requirement that you hold an office within our government to run - regardless. Advertising is a positive thing and there are checks and balances like FactCheck & Snopes that keep the slander to a minimum.

It is a business investment, not a selfless patriotic act. How is it an investment?

Our system - while not perfect - is pretty sound. Especially in comparison with governments in other leading nations. I bicker often about the finer details of how our government functions but am obviously happy with the system overall or I wouldn't be living in the US of A.

And as I said, I do not want it open to just anyone.

That's what democracy is, it is the will of the people, not the will of a select group of corporations that pay the bills.

So, democracy certainly doesn't exist if the choice of candidates are being restricted by those paying the bills.

Regardless of how you try to dress it up, its just a dictatorship with a different mechanism. It amounts to the same thing in practice.

That's what democracy is, it is the will of the people, not the will of a select group of corporations that pay the bills.

Exactly, and "the people" prefer to vote for people who have served in public office before, since it implies that the candidate is experienced in dealing with similar positions.

So, democracy certainly doesn't exist if the choice of candidates are being restricted by those paying the bills.

There isn't much restriction for candidates who have held public office to enter the race. The current salary (2008) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $169,300 per year.

A presidential campaign is expensive and the American people and businesses show their support through volunteering and donating. Holding fundraisers and asking for donations isn't an inherently evil thing.

Regardless of how you try to dress it up, its just a dictatorship

You're being a bit over dramatic.

You are ignoring the argument and inventing your own. This isn't about people that have held office.

This is about the fact that no one can become a viable Presidential candidate without millions of dollars. To get such funding requires fund-raising from large corporations. Thus, these corporations effectively short-list several people for the post.

That's not democracy. It is just a minor variation on how a dictatorship functions.

This is about the fact that no one can become a viable Presidential candidate without millions of dollars.

* without public support.
It isn't cheap for a candidate to travel the country spreading his campaign platform and unless you have a solution to that monetary issue, I don't see what you're arguing against. I have absolutely no problem with candidates seeking financial support from the American public or traveling the country to spread their campaign platform.

What needs work in the system is the fact that it's just a two party system. Ron Paul is making the most significant difference to help change the issue. Other parties need a voice as well, this country needs to change their mindframes to welcome this. It isn't just Republican or Democrat - American ideals are far more complex than that. For example, my ideals side mostly with Libertarian ideals [sans their view on economic issues] - and both party platforms are incredibly different than the Libertarian platform.

So, in essense I'm agreeing with you on the point of that Americans need more of a choice. The monetary issue is only going to increase as our economy grows - so I really don't see any other way around that issue. And, I still think it's funny that you're implying our government is like a dictatorship. Even with how much the Bush administration has fudged up this country, he is not a dictator. haha Americans chose the man, now they get to learn from that mistake.

It isn't cheap for a candidate to travel the country spreading his campaign platform and unless you have a solution to that monetary issue, I don't see what you're arguing against.

Again, you're inventing your own argument as a distraction from the core issue.

The core issue is that there is no true democracy. Presidential candidates are short-listed by big business through the mechanism of financial funding. This limits the choice of Presidential candidates to only those acceptable to those providing the cash.

Those who are acceptable to big business must have an agenda that matches the agenda of these corporations and key investors. Thus, the will of the people is not represented if it conflicts with the requirements of the financiers.

That's the same principle as a dictatorship.

The only difference between a modern democracy and dictatorship appears to be matter of honesty about what they are doing.

I find that ironic.

Those who are acceptable to big business must have an agenda that matches the agenda of these corporations and key investors.

This is the case not only for big businesses but even your average American. I will not donate my cash to a candidate who I do not wish to win; I'll donate to a candidate who sides with issues that I feel will impact my life in a positive way. Same goes for the business. We Love Trees Inc. is going to donate to the candidate who is environment-friendly. Big Mama's Barbq is going to donate to the candidate that supports small business growth. etc. etc. There isn't anything wrong with that. If the American public supports the candidate - the candidate gets their cash. It's quite simple, really.

This is the case not only for big businesses but even your average American. I will not donate my cash to a candidate who I do not wish to win;

Still distracting from the point.

True democracy is based upon the people choosing their representatives. It is not based upon a select group hand-picking a chosen few and offering them as the only viable candidates.

There is no difference between how that functions and a dictatorship.

Why post, if you are not going to face the issue at hand?

I've made various posts addressing "the issue at hand", your rebuttals appear to only be "distraction from point", "don't see the issue", "you're inventing an argument", etc. etc. You can continue to respond with the same, I think I've sufficiently explained my point and there isn't anyone to discuss it with.