Slashdot Mirror


Obama Beats McCain In Spam Landslide

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times runs an article about the spammers' choice of presidential candidate. From the article: 'According to Secure Computing Corp., spammers were nearly seven times more likely to slap Obama's name in the subject line than McCain's during September. The bulk of Obama's lead in the spam wars came from a massive blitz early in the month.' Secure Computing released additonal numbers for the past weeks, and McCain was able to close the gap in the latest spammers' poll."

154 comments

  1. This is stupid. by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is such non-news. Does anyone really care who spammers use in a subject line for spam?

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:This is stupid. by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is at least as relevant as the Halloween mask race. Well it could be. That is why it is interesting.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:This is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. It seems to mean that spammers must realize an obama voter is 7 times more likely to be fooled, which is what they want.

    3. Re:This is stupid. by wclacy · · Score: 0, Troll

      This may be non-news. But I still think that Obama has more Spam coming out of his mouth than any other candidate.

      You have to be careful with those slick snake oil salesman.

    4. Re:This is stupid. by dbmasters · · Score: 1

      Probably the same people that pay attention to who celebrities in Hollyweird support...

      --
      dB Masters
    5. Re:This is stupid. by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm not sure too many people know what a snake oil salesman is. Or at least not too many who would be voting for Obama. I'm afraid that your warnings will go unheard by the masses the matter most.

    6. Re:This is stupid. by Lardmonster · · Score: 1

      Not half as stupid as the spammers. If they really think I'm going to click on a link which says:

      HILLARY CLINTON NAKED!!!!

      then they're much more stupid than I previously thought.

      --
      The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
    7. Re:This is stupid. by wclacy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry, I should have said watch out for the Used Car Salesman. FYI...His name is Obama

    8. Re:This is stupid. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. someone wasted a bunch of mod points. Whats the problem? afraid to have something critical of your supreme leader in public? I mean I'm a troll for pointing out that most people don't know what a snake oil salesman is anymore? That's like saying people are trolling when they don't know what one of the bushisms mean.

  2. 419 by InspectorxGadget · · Score: 4, Funny

    But who do the 419 scam jerks want?

    1. Re:419 by sesshomaru · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear American:

      I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

      I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

      I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

      This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

      Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

      Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson -- The Latest Nigerian 419 Scam Letter

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    2. Re:419 by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd love to help, and I will do so as soon as my transfer fees are processed in order to help this friendly nigerian prince recover his lost millions. I know get-rich-quick schemes don't usually work, but I have a feeling this one will make me rich... and QUICK!

  3. Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly there's no point in the spammers forging the send as McCain, he openly admits he doesn't know how to use email!

    1. Re:Duh! by ionix5891 · · Score: 2, Funny
    2. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but he's aware of "the email"...

    3. Re:Duh! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Informative

      John McCain knows how to use email. He doesn't because injuries he sustained as a POW in Vietnam make it painful for him to type.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Duh! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      John McCain knows how to use email. He doesn't because injuries he sustained as a POW in Vietnam make it painful for him to type.

      "I don't e-mail, I've never felt the particular need to e-mail," Senator John McCain

      Reference: here

    5. Re:Duh! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      ...and why would he, when he has people hired to do that sort of thing?

      Oh, and the NY Times is stupid... why do I need a free login to see their article?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  4. Obama is the king on internet. by dslmodem · · Score: 4, Informative

    We have observed that negative posts on Obama have been deleted on Google, Yahoo, and various news/blog sites.

    --

    ^(oo)^pig~

    1. Re:Obama is the king on internet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was I, a soldier of the great Aryan Nation who has deleted those posts. You see I feel like he will make a much better statement if he wins as president and we pick him off during his inauguration speech, thus making the leader the racial superior that is running as the vice president.

  5. No surprise by bugeaterr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Spammers peddle in CHANGE (in size) and HOPE (for a lower mortgage rate).

  6. Google is evil! by dslmodem · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few more words... On youtube, Videos against Obama posted by Hillary/McCain supporters or independents have low click counts and posts against Obama are frequently missing. This begins the age of internet Big Brother!

    --

    ^(oo)^pig~

    1. Re:Google is evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A few more words... On youtube, Videos against Obama posted by Hillary/McCain supporters or independents have low click counts and posts against Obama are frequently missing. This begins the age of internet Big Brother!

      Hint: Using the N word will get something censored.

    2. Re:Google is evil! by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nobama?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Google is evil! by dslmodem · · Score: 0

      If it is F/N word, it should be censored. How about low click counts? There were a bunch of videos marked with 200+ count for days which they are very popular in the community. People should stand up and against this new form of Big Brother.

      --

      ^(oo)^pig~

    4. Re:Google is evil! by megamerican · · Score: 1

      I started noticing a certain "bug" on youtube where certain clips would be stuck at 200-300 views, yet have more ratings and comments than the view count. It first popped up on Ron Paul and other political videos. The bug would last long enough to keep the clip out of any most viewed category on the main page.

      I've been using youtube since its inception and have only noticed this "bug" on political clips. It would be great if someone could share an experience of this "bug" on a non-political clip.

      It is also odd that Google Video recently took the view count off their videos. The top 10 lists on google video used to be filled with alternative media documentaries, but after the change they show up less often.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    5. Re:Google is evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going to start censoring words because they offend someone I demand that you stop saying "Honda". The "H" word offends me and makes me sad =(. It reminds me of the days when I was so poor I had to drive one. I also demand that you start calling me a "Wealthy European American" instead of "That Rich White Dude". Sincerely, That Rich White Dude. ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

    6. Re:Google is evil! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If the site is Probama, then yes.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  7. Easy explanation by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

    Spammers know that as long as politicians back the opinion that the public can't take care of themselves, and the public believe this opinion, there will never be any incentive for the ISP or email provider to more thoroughly filter spam. Instead, any legislation against spammers will be at the federal level, and thus ineffective against those overseas. The spam will continue to flow.

    Then again, McCain is for the same nanny-state, so this explains nothing!

    1. Re:Easy explanation by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the article.
      This is not that the spammers have backed Obama with their support. It is that more spam delivered has the string 'Obama' than 'McCain' - it is a crude (but independant) measure of the popularity or current awareness of each individual.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    2. Re:Easy explanation by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      You're telling me that spam hasn't made you think more about your penis size than ever before?

    3. Re:Easy explanation by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Instead, any legislation against spammers will be at the federal level, and thus ineffective against those overseas.

      Overseas spammers can only profit from spamming Americans if Americans buy their products.

      Americans buying products from overseas is international commerce. One of the legitimate enumerated powers of the federal government is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations".

      A "no commerce with spammers" law would be well within the powers of the federal government.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Easy explanation by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      Spammers get money through ads on websites linked in the spam emails.

      As for the legislation at the federal level, I was referring to the ineffective garbage that they continually pass, which completely ignores the whole world outside of the US.

    5. Re:Easy explanation by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Overseas spammers can only profit from spamming Americans if Americans buy their products.

      Sorry but thats wrong. Spammers from anywhere profit from spamming anybody because dumbasses buy their services.

      That there is a continual stream of dumbasses who think they can sell something on the internet is the real problem. They pay the spammers to send out spam and it matters not a whit that they make nothing at the end of it. The spammers made their profit and still have a queue of dumbass customers who because they receive email advertising crap think that sending email advertising crap is the route to success.

    6. Re:Easy explanation by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that a "No commerce with spammers" policy could realistically be implemented with all the free trade and other agreements we have. While is feels justifiable, I'm not even sure it would be a good idea in reality.

      Even when there isn't a free trade agreement in place, a competitor could just start spamming in their competition's products to effectivly lock them out of the market. But more interesting would be how other countries react and if they would impose embargo or tariffs in US products or services going into the country and cause a trade war or worse, cutting trade off altogether. After all, if the company denies sending spam or causing the spam to be sent, then their country is going to see any restrictions as harming our trade relations. It will be extremely hard to prove the spam is because of company X and not a competitor or disgruntled employee or someone looking to incite a conflict for whatever reason. This would be especially hard when we can't comb through their servers or if the act is actually legal in the other country and the government refuses to help.

    7. Re:Easy explanation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Then again, McCain is for the same nanny-state, so this explains nothing!

      Wait... What?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Easy explanation by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      I like this explanation of their differences:

      Obama promises to hold a gun to your head. McCain promises to let you choose what brand of gun he holds to your head.

    9. Re:Easy explanation by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      A "no commerce with spammers" law would be well within the powers of the federal government.
      But it would also be virtually impossible to enforce. All the US bank is going to see is a transaction with a foreign merchant account. Where the money goes after that they are going to find basically impossible to track without the help of the country the merchant account is in.

      Equally unless you totally shut down the international post service you are going to find it very difficult stopping the products sold through spam from getting in.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  8. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Such an honor for Obama.

    1. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a great day for democracy.

  9. Political interest? by phorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to me that the spammers must be working on a basis of whatever words most likely to interest the reader into clicking further, so it's perhaps an indicator of how interesting "person X" is overall at a given time. I've seen various celebrity names pop up, and I believe that Obama's did awhile back before the newer spams containing Palin's name in conjunction with various sexual keywords.

    1. Re:Political interest? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I'm analyzing spam headers is part of your job description, otherwise you have way too much spare time :D

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Political interest? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Gah! That should read: "I'm hoping analyzing spam headers".

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:Political interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this have /anything/ to do with the post you're replying to?

    4. Re:Political interest? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      who spammers use in a subject line for spam

      it's perhaps an indicator of how interesting "person X" is overall at a given time

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:Political interest? by jrp2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I'm (hoping) analyzing spam headers is part of your job description, otherwise you have way too much spare time :D"

      I know I look at my spam folder and could come up with similar "analysis" without spending much time or effort. It is usually pretty obvious what the trends are.

      Most of us know that spam filters are not perfect, so we scan our spam folders for false positives. Every now and then I open one up, mostly just curious as to what the scam is.

      A few months ago I opened one up. It was an email confirming my registration with some dating site. I was perusing it, looking for the scam, when I noticed it had the last 4 digits of the credit card used to open this account. Strangely, it was the same as my credit card!

      I checked my bank website and sure enough, somebody was using my credit card. They foolishly used my email account, and I use unique email addresses when I buy things online. I canceled my card immediately and contacted the company associated with that email address.

      I convinced them it was likely real and suggested they contact a security firm. Sure enough, a few days later, the FBI called and thanked me for being persistent and asked for any more info I had. They indeed had been hacked (SQL injection), about a year earlier, and about 90% of the credit cards used at that site over the last year had been canceled due to fraud.

      In my case, I was able to cancel my card within hours of it being compromised, and about $1000 worth of fraudulent purchases wiped off my card with almost no questions. It would have been a lot uglier and more hassle if I did not catch this until the statement came. I now get a daily statement in email and scan it thoroughly.

      Bottom line, a little basic analysis of your spam is a good idea. Doesn't have to be your job to find benefit. To the best of my knowledge nobody got busted, but that gaping hole was fixed, and that company now uses a trusted service for their shopping cart application.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    6. Re:Political interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If spammers were really that smart at working out what we do or do not like do you really think they would be sending us spam in the first place?
      Let alone pen15 enl@rg3m3nt and m0rtg@g3s

    7. Re:Political interest? by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 1

      No, this indicates that the spammers are clearly targeting the more gullible of the population. A person who is interested in Obama is more likely to fall for the scam so let's target our spam at them. The others are just too smart for us.

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    8. Re:Political interest? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Informative

      They probably just scrape headlines and look for common words that are proper nouns (capitalized) hoping that these will attract interest. Obama has had more hype than McCain for the most part.

      http://www.google.com/trends?q=obama%2C+mccain&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=all&date=2008&sort=1

      Most likely because, like Palin, he entered the national spotlight suddenly and so people aren't as familiar with him as they are with McCain.

    9. Re:Political interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so sure about the Obama part except as undoing trained filters, but your explanation works for the new numbers showing the spam lead for McCain now. Silly(Stupid) Rebublifuckers, you've done such a fucked up job now your boots can't stamp on anyone!

    10. Re:Political interest? by xant · · Score: 1

      Or they're working on the basis of what words you're already receiving in your email. I can tell you, since I signed up the day his website went online, that Obama's campaign sends a buttload of email. I actually read or skim most of it (I really did ask for it, after all), but the spammer is hoping I'm as interested in their junk as the real deal.

      What I don't understand is why spammers are too stupid to make their emails look legitimate. It's been years since I can remember receiving even a single spam I couldn't sniff out instantly from the subject line.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    11. Re:Political interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spam targeting is all about finding the suckers. It's not about what people may be interested in. Want to find people willing to blindly believe anything? Just put Obama in the subject and you've got your target audience. I've seen people on the streets selling Obama buttons for $2 and poeple were buying them up. The fact that they can still vote shows how doomed we are.

  10. Meaningful? by I.M.O.G. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So thats the trend, but how is it meaningful?

    If the spammers are doing it, I assume thats because the majority of their target customers are aligned similarly with Obama. Makes sense, since Obama's online presence is considerably more progressive than McCains... Still doesn't say a whole lot about anything.

    1. Re:Meaningful? by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Still doesn't say a whole lot about anything.

      Isn't that what politics is all about?

      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
    2. Re:Meaningful? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      I assume thats because the majority of their target customers are aligned similarly with Obama.

      It could be the opposite - "OMG exclusive video of Obama eating babies !!!!eleventyone".

      Disclaimer: Obama does not eat babies. But I heard he huffs kittens.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Meaningful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: Obama does not eat babies. But I heard he huffs kittens.

      Obama's cheesing?

      That explains it. I knew I saw him in Nippopolis!

    4. Re:Meaningful? by rohan972 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the spammers are doing it, I assume thats because the majority of their target customers are aligned similarly with Obama.

      but I thought only stupid people responded to spam. What could this mean?

  11. oh iiiiis it. by unity100 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    people willingly omitting slanderous and unfounded crap about other people from their websites has been here since the dawn of internet.

    and the person you label as 'big brother' openly declares support about net neutrality and lectures about what freedom and equal opportunity means to internet and how it is tied to network neutrality on his website and policies.

    dont spurt crap without knowing about what you speak about next time.

    1. Re:oh iiiiis it. by Bob-taro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and the person you label as 'big brother' openly declares support about net neutrality and lectures about what freedom and equal opportunity means to internet and how it is tied to network neutrality on his website and policies.

      Politicians preaching one thing and practicing the exact opposite has been around since the dawn of politics.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    2. Re:oh iiiiis it. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      it has been around but it is not an all encompassing rule.

    3. Re:oh iiiiis it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooo, how did that FISA thing go?

  12. Well Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Think about the age range of people between party lines. The republican party targets older voters who are not likely to even own a computer.

    Not to mention that the Democrats are pushing the get out and vote to first time voters who are more tech-savvy.

    1. Re:Well Duh by FourthLaw · · Score: 1

      Think about the age range of people between party lines. The republican party targets older voters who are not likely to even own a computer.

      Not to mention that the Democrats are pushing the get out and vote to first time voters who are more tech-savvy.

      Perhaps. Personally, I feel that it is completely tied to the makeup of the geographic area. I was convinced that technical people were predominately conservative until I found /. to balance it out. This perception was mainly due the region in which I worked.

      --
      Skilled in differentiating ravens from a writing desks.
    2. Re:Well Duh by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You're confusing "technical people" with "/. users". The two intersect, but they aren't congruent.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Well Duh by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      The republican party targets older voters who are not likely to even own a computer.

      WTF are you talking about? Both parties cater to all age ranges. Yes, the youth 'hipster' crowd are more likely to vote Democrat, but not necessarily so. There are plenty of Young Republicans, too.

      Also, I know plenty of older people who have and know how to use a computer.

      This stereotypical image of old people as being technophobic is really out of date with the times.

    4. Re:Well Duh by FourthLaw · · Score: 1

      Ah. There's my bogey.

      --
      Skilled in differentiating ravens from a writing desks.
    5. Re:Well Duh by KGIII · · Score: 1
      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Well Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the "those who do" and "those who read /." groups are nearly mutually exclusive... and here I am reading /.

  13. While you guys are busy fighting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumb and dumber don't care. They got your cash either way. It doesn't matter who sits in what seat.

  14. Obvious Link by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama is the candidate of choice by nearly 90% of the rest of the world. It's no secret that if you want people to read your spam, you'll put his name in the header. He's popular.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:Obvious Link by eagee · · Score: 5, Funny

      What are you saying, that the election is really a big popularity contest?! I feel so disillusioned.

    2. Re:Obvious Link by arielCo · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying (implying) that spam is a big popularity contest. In the same way that there's more Britney than say Sarah McLachlan in spam subjects, spammers apparently hope Obama will pique the interest of more foo... naive people worldwide.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    3. Re:Obvious Link by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Obama is the candidate of choice by nearly 90% of the rest of the world. It's no secret that if you want people to read your spam, you'll put his name in the header. He's popular.

      That's as may be, but spammers in general are simply idiots who try to exploit people that are even dumber than themselves. I think you are overestimating their intellectual capabilities by quite a wide margin.

      IMO it is more likely that these spam campaigns are yet another way of trying to piss off voters with the candidate named in the subject.

    4. Re:Obvious Link by Tenek · · Score: 1

      Spammers aren't idiots. They're making money by sending millions of e-mails to people who just might buy something. Most don't, but the cost is almost zero so it doesn't matter. Unethical, maybe, but not stupid.

    5. Re:Obvious Link by penguin_dance · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Or...maybe it's because they view Obama supporters as more gullible and likely to respond?

      *ducks*

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    6. Re:Obvious Link by dslmodem · · Score: 1

      90% of the rest of the world might hate USA as well. Look at those guys who pretended to by Canadians when traveling abroad!

      --

      ^(oo)^pig~

    7. Re:Obvious Link by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      So why doesn't he run for president of the rest of the world? I mean it isn't America, but I've heard that at least parts of it are nice.

    8. Re:Obvious Link by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Obvious Link by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Spammers are consistently evading some of the brighter technical minds who are constantly trying to trace and/or filter their crap. They are unethical, greedy, and overall evil but they are hardly stupid.

    10. Re:Obvious Link by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Isn't elections in a democracy a big popularity contest?

      Or I must be disillusioned...

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  15. ahhh in a perfect world... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Who cares who spammers want to be President? In a perfect world, their right to vote would be forfeited and they would be in a 10'x12' cell.

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Way to RTFA.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by lilo_booter · · Score: 3, Funny

      In a perfect world, their right to vote would be forfeited and they would be in a 10'x12' cell.

      But in the real world of economic uncertainty, can we afford to give them that much space? Might be better to squeeze a few in there...

    3. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who cares who spammers want to be President? In a perfect world, their right to vote would be forfeited and they would be in a 10'x12' cell.

      This has nothing to do with who spammers want to be president. This has to do with whose name spammers think will get somebody to click on a link.

      My estimate is, they're probably right. Obama supporters will clilck to see what their candidate is up to, and Obama opposers will click to see what their opposition is up to.

      McCain, on the other hand, usually isn't up to anything much. I doubt either side would be easily lured into clicking a link, because he's pretty boring.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    4. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      Yea, 2 x 2 is plenty of room if you shackle them vertically...spammers do not deserve the best accommodations.

    5. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Yea, 2 x 2 is plenty of room if you shackle them vertically...spammers do not deserve the best accommodations.

      How about we pack them in like sardines ... every second one upside down?

    6. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spammers want to be President?

    7. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a perfect world, spammers would not even exist. ;)

    8. Re:ahhh in a perfect world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we pile them in from the top like Tetris, to achieve maximum capacity by volume.

  16. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're saying that Obama is a Nothing. Don't vote for him.

  17. Re:ah yes, the yachting season is upon us again by MLease · · Score: 1

    Um.... A.D.D. much?

    -Mike

    --
    I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  18. Re:ah yes, the yachting season is upon us again by paazin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cute, so even slashdot spam generally follows these guidelines.

  19. Actually what I worry about more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is the amount of spam email I get that is blatantly pro-Obama propaganda.

    Either his campaign is hiring them, or someone who supports him is spending a HELL of a lot of money (and violating campaign finance laws) hiring them.

    I don't vote for spammers or corrupt chicago crooks. Therefore, I won't vote Obama.

    1. Re:Actually what I worry about more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is this a Troll? Because the AC has the gall to say something negative about Obama?

      Last time I checked, "Freedom of Speech" actually meant something in this country--regardless of political preference.

    2. Re:Actually what I worry about more by deroby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh come on,
      I've gotten plenty of Obama or/vs McCain mails too and I have a .be email address for gods sake.

      These mails are NOT targeted, they are just sent out at random based on some lousy email-list; So yes, that implies they are coming from some spammer/bot-net.
      However, receiving a mail from candidate X does not necessarily mean that X (or his spin-team) asked given spammer to send these out. Jumping to that conclusion is just bad-mouthing IMHO. In fact, I find it much more likely that
          * the spammer is simply sending out spam to un-train the filters
          * the spammer prefers candidate Y and tries to make X look bad by drowning people in annoying X-spam, whether Y paid given spammer for this or not is impossible for me to find out.
          * the message contains some malicious payload

      Frankly, I don't care, it's going straight to the recycle bin anyway.

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    3. Re:Actually what I worry about more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is amazing because a large amount of the spam I get it is anti-Obama propaganda. I can't think of any pro-Obama spam I have ever received, although I admit to only skimming through my spam about once a week so maybe I missed something in there.

    4. Re:Actually what I worry about more by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are targeted. Just not very well.

      For the entire run up in the election starting with the primaries, Obama put a splash page on their site's main page and if you didn't look at the enter site in print about the size of the copyright notice in the lower corner, you couldn't get in without giving your email address. Unfortunately for you, someone probably entered your email address instead of their own and your getting targeted information from an ass-clown who was specifically harvesting email addresses and begging for donations. Apparently, this was done for marketing and donations.

      Note to mods, the assclown doesn't have to be Obama, just some Ass clown working for him in some respect. And yes, I don't believe that you should have to give personal information or pledge support in order to view information about a candidate from his own site. The bypass this page link should have been more obvious, bigger, and somewhere that could be seen without scrolling.

    5. Re:Actually what I worry about more by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      Either his campaign is hiring them, or someone who supports him is spending a HELL of a lot of money (and violating campaign finance laws) hiring them.

      I don't vote for spammers or corrupt chicago crooks. Therefore, I won't vote Obama.

      Oh yeah, absolutely. It couldn't possibly be a Freeper Joe-job.

      --
      Notmysig
    6. Re:Actually what I worry about more by cffrost · · Score: 1

      So you think Obama's campaign needs to step up their pro-McCain spam?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  20. Technically, it is by phorm · · Score: 1

    Depends on the SPAM header, but if we're getting a lot of any particular SPAM variety, then adding a rule which will tag+filter/trash it without killing off legit mail is part of the job.

    1. Re:Technically, it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better kill all mails including Obama in the subject line then... ;)

    2. Re:Technically, it is by Jellybob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Surely that would be the X-Spam header?

      Now... all we have to do is get the spammers to start using it, and we can all get on with our real jobs ;)

    3. Re:Technically, it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like the GayseX-Spam header... haven't you heard the news? Obama is a memeber of the GNAA!

  21. You too? by Moryath · · Score: 2, Informative

    I tried to submit stories on this MONTHS ago, after the Obama campaign somehow got my email and started sending me their constant spam messages. Content directly traced back, emails all about their campaign stops, from "David Plouffe", "Michele Obama", links to their blog entries on the official Obama site, etc... but the headers most DEFINITELY through known spam houses and zombie spam networks.

    For some reason, Slashdot wasn't interested that the Obama campaign does this. I'd think it should be a major concern to us - not only is he corrupt, but he's in bed with the spammers. That doesn't bode well for tech issues for us if he gets elected...

    1. Re:You too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      punch yourself in the neck for me, please.

    2. Re:You too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't bode well for tech issues for us if he gets elected...

      Don't worry, I'm sure Biden (Mr. RIAA) will set him straight...

    3. Re:You too? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Although I wouldn't put it past anyone's campaign to do these kinds of things, it's quite possible that there are simply a large number of loose cannons in the spam world who want to do Obama a favor by spreading his name around. Let's face it, spammers and their targets are not the sharpest knives in the drawer so the spammers are likely to think they are helping their candidate even if they're not, and as to intended spam targets, well, they're an oblique proof of evolution in that apparently it sometimes doesn't work.

      Trust me, I'm no fan of Obama. I think he'll be a disaster for this country worse than the disasters we've had in recent years (i.e., "change" does not mean "improvement"). This will be a victory for the last dregs of the 60's radicals who will finally achieve their goal of gaining enough political power to ruin this country once and for all. Just as it was with Clinton and Carter, it's not the President I fear as much as the people he'll appoint. Clinton wasn't an awful President and with the Republican Congress, achieved some really good things. On the other hand, his Cabinet members had a pretty awful track record (including plenty of indictments and resignations under less than ideal circumstances). Can you imagine William Ayers as the Secretary of HUD or Education?

      Anyhow, to get back on topic, I would not _assume_, however, that Obama or his campaign is behind any spam campaigns. I wouldn't put it past the campaigners, many of whom are likely to do things the candidate would not support. And Obama has a history of playing hardball (not always clean), but this is probably the work of well-meaning idiots.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    4. Re:You too? by AioKits · · Score: 1

      I signed up for Obama campaign email notices to my personal mail and I don't notice them spamming me. I mean, it has picked up since the debates started and the election gets close. I can't really call it spam because the most I've seen is one email a day for three days then they're quiet again until another issue pops up.

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    5. Re:You too? by Zymergy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you live in Missouri?
      I have a hypothesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Break+in+Republican+laptop

      Another hypothesis could be that people are signing up their "friends" (often inadvertently, but sometimes on purpose). This was really popular back in college (as I recall) by signing up known person's emails as a prank.
      Remember at the Dem's convention they were collecting cell phone numbers of the numbers of family and friends of the Dem Convention attendees cell phones.

      Another variant on this is that someone is likely harvesting addresses from the headers from those silly blanket-her-entire-email-list jokes my sweet and dear 65-year-old aunt keeps sending the whole family et al following her discovery of the "free postage" part of email.
      If I ever forward any message to a large group, I BCC them all...

      Based on this, I would not put it past them... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=acorn+voter+registration+fraud&aq=1&oq=ACORN+voter+registration+fraud
      It is notable that Mr. Obama was a very strong 'community organizer' for this group and he actively donated his lawyerly skills for the group's benefit for years as well.

    6. Re:You too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think bought up www.myspaec.com (just trust me on this, click the link)? Is this even legal?

    7. Re:You too? by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Nope, not Missouri, and I'm not a member of the Repuglican party either. I don't have any friends who pull that kind of prank (they're much more the "replace toiletries with something amusing" types). I also keep my work and private email separate, and my relatives (even grandparents) know better than to include me on any chain or "blanket the entire address book" emails.

      The interesting part is that my private, work, and even my "this is probably going to get spammed so I'll only use it when I'm doing a weird site registration" (like I used for Megaupload membership) addresses have all been getting Obamaspam. Since that third is basically a spam honeypot, I'm 99% sure that the Obama campaign got into it by purchasing a "list of known addresses" from a spammer somewhere or paying the spammers to blast out the spam from their own network.

      Interesting link on the voter registration fraud. I knew about a lot of his bad connections, but that one's even worse than most.

    8. Re:You too? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's disturbing. MySpace should sue.

      Incidentally the domain is registered to one PrivacyProtect.com, which apparently is a service that registers domain names for individuals who wish to remain anonymous. Hmmm... I wonder why they want to remain anonymous?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:You too? by modecx · · Score: 1


      Another hypothesis could be that people are signing up their "friends" (often inadvertently, but sometimes on purpose). This was really popular back in college (as I recall) by signing up known person's emails as a prank.
      Remember at the Dem's convention they were collecting cell phone numbers of the numbers of family and friends of the Dem Convention attendees cell phones.

      Heh, I used to do that to friends too. Except instead of signing them up for spam, political or otherwise, I'd write a nice note on their behalf to scientology, kindly explaining my, err.. their drug addiction and psychology problems, with the hope they'd send information. Or was that what I used to do to enemies? Hmmm... Oh well...

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    10. Re:You too? by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

      Did you happen to notice that the domain was registered in February of 2004? It's unlikely that the Obama campaign decided to grab it for this campaign. (actually, this thread shows that it may have been handed over to MySpace in 2006.)

      So who knows who decided to point it at the Obama campaign site.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    11. Re:You too? by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

      [snip]

      Interesting link on the voter registration fraud. I knew about a lot of his bad connections, but that one's even worse than most.

      Note that basically every site that talks about how bad ACORN is is a site with a known conservative bent. No, I haven't read every site out there, and I don't plan to. I found information on many sites by checking SourceWatch, a site that shows the ties that various online and print news outlets have. They do note that they're a progressive organization, so at least they're being honest. Of course, they also use facts and don't really seem to put much opinion in their synopses. They also cite sources, which lets you check for yourself.

      Any site that tells you what to think is probably not worth your time. Sites that don't tell you where they got their information, or what they did with it, are likewise useless or borderline useless.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    12. Re:You too? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Did you happen to notice that the domain was registered in February of 2004?

      Actually, yes.

      It's unlikely that the Obama campaign decided to grab it for this campaign.

      Of course; I never implied that. More likely it's an Obama fanboi.

      I don't know why, but I find a tendency of certain supporters of Democrats to break the law. (I'm not saying Republicans' supporters don't, but I certainly haven't observed it.) In my city, at least the past two presidential elections (this one and the Bush/Kerry in '04, maybe before but I don't specifically remember it from before so I'll just say the last two) there have been Democrat yard signs pounded into city property. (Frankly I'm glad they aren't Republican yard signs; I'd hate to see people taking illegal actions to support Republican candidates.) First off it's illegal to erect a yard sign on property you don't own, and secondly it's illegal for the city to campaign for a candidate, so IMO they're technically required to take the signs down if people put them up.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    13. Re:You too? by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

      Interesting. We don't have that particular restriction on "yard signs" as far as I can tell. Of course you're not allowed to put them in someone else's yard, including city building lawns, but you are allowed to put them on the "treelawn" - the place between the road and sidewalk. The rule we do have is that you must remove any signs you put up - the trash is yours to keep. :)

      As for Democrats breaking the law more often than Republicans - I don't know. There are people who will do anything they can to get their candidate elected. There are things that aren't against the law (like lying or misleading people) that are done by conservative and republican people/groups. In this state (Vermont), we had a state equal rights amendment on the ballot in the mid-'80s. The intent was basically to insure that women would get equal wages for equal work. The day before the election, a conservative group (I don't remember which one) took out full page ads in all the major newspapers, telling people that if they passed this amendment, mothers would be forced to go out to work, they wouldn't be allowed to stay at home to raise their kids. Small businesses would die, the economy would tumble ... I know people who saw those ads and voted no because of them (including one woman who had been in the full-time military, and had a full-time job anyway).

      I know that there are dishonest people in and out of both major parties. What's funny to me is that you specifically said that you don't want Republicans doing dishonest things, but you don't seem to care if Democrats do, since (I assume) it allows you to point the finger at the Democrats and say "see, they're dishonest!".

      Personally, I'd prefer it if *neither* party did anything dishonest or illegal - that would actually allow us to maybe have free and fair elections in this country

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    14. Re:You too? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the "tree lawn" (heck, most people think it belongs to them anyway), I'm talking about grassy medians in boulevards and highways, along roads at the edges of city parks, and next to exit ramps on the highways. In 2004 I specifically remember hundreds and hundreds of Kerry/Edwards signs lining the grassy median on one boulevard in my city. They were placed maybe 20 or 30' apart. Frankly I thought they were an eyesore and they'd have been equally so if they'd been Bush/Cheney signs.

      And as far as Democrats vs. Republicans breaking the law, as I said, I'm just commenting on one area where I explicitly notice Democrats doing so and not Republicans. I'm quite sure the fringe elements of both parties break the law in ways I can't directly observe...

      I know that there are dishonest people in and out of both major parties. What's funny to me is that you specifically said that you don't want Republicans doing dishonest things, but you don't seem to care if Democrats do, since (I assume) it allows you to point the finger at the Democrats and say "see, they're dishonest!".

      Well, since I generally tend to agree more often with the Republicans, it'd pain me to see them doing things that would tarnish their overall reputation (despite the fact that I'm sure there's plenty of such things if one wants to look closely).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  22. Pics of hot chicks by dwarg · · Score: 1

    You put Obama in the subject line for the same reason you you use pictures of attractive women to sell products. Obviously men want to look at hot women, but marketing research shows women are more drawn to, and persuaded by, pictures of attractive women. Not for any sexual reason but due to competitive pressures women feel.

    Right wingers can't get enough Obama email. Claiming he's a Muslim, talking about how much he hates America, tying him to terrorists, questioning his ethnicity, etc. I know because I have friends that forward it to me.

    On the other hand, the lefties are so excited to finally have another candidate that can appear both intelligent AND human, after Kerry and Gore, they can't see/hear/read enough about Obama.

    1. Re:Pics of hot chicks by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the lefties are so excited to finally have another candidate that can appear both intelligent AND human, after Kerry and Gore, they can't see/hear/read enough about Obama.

      Appearances aren't everything.

  23. so by this measure by i_hate_robots · · Score: 0

    the true choice of spammers for president is "penis"?

  24. So which party... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    ...nominated Giant Tallywhacker?

    rj

  25. McCain email? by steve263 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Of COURSE the bulk of the emails would come with Obama's name in the subject line - everyone knows McCain is computer illiterate! Oh, and very few care to hear about McCain anyway.

  26. Well... by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Spammers want to reach as many people as they can, and if they think Obama is ahead in the polls (whether he is or not), then they'll pick his name for the subject.

  27. Obama Obama Obama by MazzThePianoman · · Score: 1, Funny

    Lets see how many mod points I get for my post subject.

    --
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
    1. Re:Obama Obama Obama by Theoboley · · Score: 0

      looks like you get none... FTL

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  28. not impressed by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    Rep. Ron Paul is still not impressed. ;-)

  29. Have to say it. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Because it is easier for them to spell.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  30. My Favorite So Far.... by gsmalleus · · Score: 4, Funny
    Every once in a while I like to read the subjects of mail in my spam folder for my own amusement. My favorite so far was what seemed to be a McCain pro-war spam crossed with a Viagra ad.

    McCain says "I want to invade your vaginas"

    1. Re:My Favorite So Far.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dislike spam but most of the time I don't see it. Sometimes I get drunk and stupid and actually go to their links or respond and find their contact information only to send them long diatribes about any ol' subject. Sometimes they're worse than my drunken /. posts.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  31. Re:figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you also prefer women with hairy legs, hairy armpits, and a moustache?

  32. *shrug* by Hasai · · Score: 1

    Looks to me like the spammers think Obama supporters are more gullible than McCain supporters. . . .

    . . . . Either that, or McCain supporters are less apt to have email accounts. . . .

    There; I've been an equal-opportunity insulter, don't you think?

    ];)

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  33. Want to see what the market says about Obama / McC by TechForensics · · Score: 1

    Just have a look at intrade.com. You can buy shares on the probability of Obama vs. McCain winning. The contracts on Obama now are statospheric. Want the best barometer? It is how people bet their money!

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  34. Small problem by Moryath · · Score: 1

    Small problem:

    I NEVER signed up for Obama campaign mail. In fact, after they repeatedly ignored my unsubscribe demands, I called them via voice to demand they remove my name and email from any of their lists (I don't need my work email clogged with their spam, I have enough trouble sorting what comes through that's actually relevant).

    I can guarantee you, I've been receiving the same ones you are. The reply-to address changes names from "Barack Obama", "Michele Obama", "David Plouffe", etc, but the underlying address is always "info@barackobama.com" and it always has their "how to unsubscribe" boilerplate at the bottom that goes directly to a page that CLAIMS it'll remove the address from their lists, but never does.

    1. Re:Small problem by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there some canned spam act that made a place you can complain to about things like that?

      When dealing with spam, the remove me from your list option is generally not a good Idea though. I doubt this applies with the Obaba spam but in general, they know your address is good after asking to take you off the list which makes it more valuable when they sell it to other spammers.

    2. Re:Small problem by Moryath · · Score: 1

      I usually ignore those "take me off your list" things. I figured the Obama campaign would be a different story once I verified that it was actually going to their servers and not elsewhere.

      Silly me - I found out how honest Obama really is (read: not at all) the hard way.

    3. Re:Small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming Obama directly for this would be similar to me blaming jesus when his adherents continue to send me religious spam even after I've asked them not to. Now I'm tempted to sign up and then a day later ask to be taken off to see if it is honestly this hard or you're just looking for a place to bitch.

    4. Re:Small problem by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Blaming Obama directly for this would be similar to me blaming jesus when his adherents continue to send me religious spam even after I've asked them not to.

      Actually, it would be more akin to blaming best buy for when their third party automated mail servers keep sending you their monthly flier after requesting it to stop repeatedly. This isn't a situation where Obama is removed and innocent, he commissioned the acts in the first place, set the wheels in motion so to speak, and is the top person in charge who is actively making decisions over his campaign and people working in his campaign.

      To compare it with Jesus and his followers doing something is like saying that Obama can't manage his own campaign nor can he keep people under his leadership accountable for their actions and doing what he instructs them to do. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but Jesus can use the excuse that he has been dead for over 2 thousand years and doesn't really interact with people on a daily basis. I hope Obama isn't suffering from the same restrictions and inconveniences. Otherwise we are worse off if he gets elected then I imagined.

    5. Re:Small problem by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Im not suprised you have trouble sorting what comes through, if you cant manage a simple delete *@barakobama.com rule with your email client of choice. personally i signed up to his spam service but as soon as i unsubscribed they stopped bothering me .

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    6. Re:Small problem by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      If Obama's followers do this while he's a candidate and he can't stop them, we could expect the same thing if he is president. A religious state is against the constitution, going by what you say, perhaps this should be interpreted to include an Obama adminsistration.

      Either that, or comparing Obama to Jesus means you're a nut.

  35. has anyone looked at that graph by mehemiah · · Score: 1
    the occurances are directly correlating, the graph is almost symetric. That can't be a cooencidence. There must be some metric anomily that is being expressed here. Like perhaps, alphabetic choosing? from Wikipedia, on that day the first spike turned september 21 2008, heres what we get

    # 2008 - Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the two last remaining independent investment banks on Wall Street, become bank holding companies as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis.

    # 2008 - President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa resigns from office, effective September 25.

    # 2008 - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel formally resigns from office, effective as soon as his successor Tzipi Livni has successfully assembled a new government.

    # 2008 - Final baseball game played at Yankee Stadium

  36. X-Spam header? by phorm · · Score: 1

    The header has to be set by the antispam app, which in turn has to identify/tag SPAM. The rules that cause spamassassin and others to weight things as SPAM can be adjusted, and a little manual tweaking can actually help a lot if you get the same SPAM rather redundantly.

  37. The best way to get a fool to click a link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is to get the interest of a fool...and is that not the definition of an Obama supporter?

  38. I'm confused by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the old guy make a better v14gr@ spokesman?

    --
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
  39. But what about the actual McCain spam??? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    After receiving my first unsolicited spam from the McCain campaign I used the unsubscribe link. Sure enough, the next spam arrived a couple weeks later.

    To date I have received four unsolicited mails. I have used the unsubscribe process with each and every one and have even sent an email to the campaign through the contact form all to no avail.

    I can't be the only one out there is experiencing this problem?

  40. This is AWESOME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at this entire thread, including the posts modded into oblivion.

    It's the best example of unintentional irony I've seen in years!

    Sadly, people on both sides (but, this time around, primarily on the McCain side) are suffering from delusions of persecution and grandeur.

    In reality, McCain's too old, Palin's too greedy and vicious, Obama is a wild card who is as likely to be a failure as a success, Biden's always been a drone, and the only difference between the Democrat and Republican parties is which orifice they grease up for the multinational corporations.

    Obama's the best new candidate in years. McCain was a great choice around about 2000. Neither one is likely to be able to fix the Bush Economic Miracle in eight years or less.

    The deliciousness continues! My captcha is "wakeup"!

  41. Re:Want to see what the market says about Obama / by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Vegas stays in business because the majority of people lose more money then they win. I'm not sure that watching people going into debt is a good barometer.

  42. I delete most things I see... by Schmyz · · Score: 1

    that mentions any political geek....Spam just get deleted faster.