Obama/Paul? Paul/Obama?

The latest buzz seems to be that Barack Obama and Ron Paul ought to be running mates, in one fashion or another. Let's do a comparison and see how that might work out.

Lobbyists
Paul voted NO to H.R. 437, to require lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations, May 2007.
Barack Obama has spoken out against such bundling.

Energy Independence and Environmental Impact
Paul Voted NO to H.R. 6
Obama voted YES to H.R. 6
to move toward energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to increase the energy efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, January 2007.

Paul Rated 5% in 2003 by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating anti-environment votes.
Obama rated 100%, the highest environmental rating by the LCV.

Paul Voted NO on raising CAFE standards and providing incentives for alternative fuels, August 2001.
Barack Obama believes that we can meet energy needs while also protecting our environment, with such things as a Cap and Trade system, finding alternative fuels, and that the way to achieve that is to invest in them.

Paul Voted NO on the Kyoto Protocol, Jun 2000.
Barack's energy policies are in alignment with the Kyoto Protocol.

Big Business vs. The People
Paul spoke out against Network Neutrality.
Barack Obama is most certainly for Network Neutrality.

Paul Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules, making it harder for the average American, while protecting business, January 2004.
Barack Obama spoke on the Floor of the Senate against such restrictions.

Individual Rights
Paul Rated 0% by NARAL in 2003, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Barack Obama has a 100% score from NARAL.

Paul Rated 100% by FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), indicating a voting record restricting immigration.
Obama wants tough, practical reform, but not an end to immigration.

Paul Voted NO on H.R. 2, to increase minimum wage to $7.25 in January 2007.
Barack voted YES to minimum wage.

Paul Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC in July 1999.
Barack Obama believes LGBT couples should have the same rights as everyone else.

Government Reform
Paul wants to close the Departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security.
Obama wants to overhaul and improve them, not destroy them.

Paul wants to abolish federal Medicare and leave it to states.
Obama will give all of us healthcare that works.

Paul Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox, May 1999.
Obama promises to fight for and strengthen Social Security.

Paul says he'll abolish the IRS immediately after taking office.
Obama has a tax plan to both cut taxes and ease the hassle of filing.

In considering the above differences, and these are just a few, I do not believe that our country would benefit from a ticket including both of them. We need progress, and Ron Paul's idea of progress is quite different from Barack Obama's. Ron Paul's voting history tells me he wants to protect businesses and eliminate government, while Barack Obama wants to protect the people of America, while eliminating government waste. Our President and Vice President should be working towards the same goals, not against each other with opposite goals.

I agree that Obama must work across party lines, which is usually the argument for this, but that doesn't mean he needs to get in bed with them. He could pick Richardson, Edwards, or whoever it is that he's inclined towards, and still be able to work just fine with the Republicans. That's just who Obama is, and he doesn't need a GOP running mate to do it.

Lobbyists and PACs Represent Americans?

I think that lobbyists and PACs represent corporate interests and a few people who have a lot of money. So, it really pisses me off that in order for me to pay for Utah for Obama to have a booth, or advertise an event in City Weekly like our Bowling for Barack fundraiser this Friday, that we have to jump through hoops to make sure we are within FEC guidelines. We, as a small group of citizens cannot hold a BBQ without worrying that we save every receipt that might be slightly related and turn it in as an in-kind donation to the campaign. And, if we wanted to form a Political Action Committee, so that we can pay our own way for events and BBQs, we couldn't because a PAC can't have the sole purpose of helping a presidential campaign. Besides which, Obama isn't taking PAC or lobbyist money in this election.

So, we jump through those hoops, and it's so frustrating to watch PACs and lobbyists funding Hillary's campaign. We, average citizens who want Barack to be our next president, cannot be a PAC, but yet PACs and lobbyists donate to Hillary's campaign, and she turns around and declares that they do represent us.

She's wrong. A very small portion of PACs and lobbyists might represent us. But, her statement is far from true. By far, the money that has gone into Hillary's campaign represents special interests, and not the individual American. 350,000 individual people have donated to Barack Obama. Very few of those donors are maxed out, while far more of Hillary's are.

We truly need campaign finance reform. Until then, sadly, the lobbyists and PACs get a greater say in who our next president will be than we do. Donating helps, but considering that most "average" people aren't going to be able to max out their $2,300 donation limit in the primary, it still feels like "they" get a far bigger say in what happens than "we" will. I do have faith that Obama will continue to outpace Hillary with the sheer number of donors. That's been why he had higher fundraising dollars than Hillary did for the first two quarters.

Why does it have to be about money, though? This has got to be fixed, and soon.