In an article from Slate titled "Yes, He CanBarack Obama should be able to disclose his small-dollar donors pretty easily". (http://www.slate.com/id/2203421/?GT1=38001)John Dickerson and Chris Wilson go on and on about Barack Obama refusing to release the names of the 2 million-plus people who have given his campaign less than $200. Their assumption is that politically, there would be several advantages in releasing the names. Supposedly, this release would rebut McCain's broad and unsubstantiated claims that the list (and the huge sums of money it represents is shot through with fraud. Hmm, if McCain is already making this claim, then whats the point? McCain has NEVER needed a factual reason to say something, no matter how far fetched. Although the writers talk of the transparency Obama has called for, the release of these names is fraugt with land mines. How silly can these people be.
They admit that "releasing the information would also be politically risky, since the inevitable errors in a database so huge (errors of the kind McCain also had, like a contribution from "Adorable Manabat") would give McCain an opportunity to scream fraud. Then again, he does that sometimes even without evidence". What if Arab or Muslim sounding names appear on the list? Does anyone not think that McCain and his evil minions are not going to scream "Terrorist" and "Arab" even louder? Lets just suppose that the name "Mickey Mouse" appears on the list. RUT ROH!!! Here we go with ACORN Deja Vu all over again. Since they admit that its politically risky to do so, why would Obama even consider it during the campaign? I thought the goal here was to win the Presidency, not to provide your opponent ammunition.
Maybe thats why we havent seen Sarah Palins medical records. You never know what might be in there..like maybe she never had a new Downs Syndrome baby, and that proves her daughter is pregnant AGAIN with a second child? There are REASONS why we havent seen these records, trust me. THIS would be a bombshell, besides what we already know ..no integrity, spiteful, misuse of Gov funds, ethically challenged, brain dead etc. The article then goes on and on about how the data can be technically extracted from the Obama databases. Who needs this? Yes, and data can be technically extracted, but the main point is the aforementioned political risks.
If I was Obama, I wouldnt say that it was technically hard to do, I would just say that I wasnt going to do so until AFTER the election, plain and simple. Mistakes have already been found in McCains donor list, so he shouldnt set himself up for failure by providing a list of 2 million-plus people that may have some errors. I really dont understand why journalist understand the risk, but still dwell on this nonsense. In addition, what about MY privacy as a donor? Maybe I dont want my name published on the internet. Obama did NOT take public funds, so why would MY privacy be violated just because some news outlet wants to know. In four days, they can have all the data they want, but for today, I would JUST SAY NO.