It just seems that the McCain campaign is desperately grabbing at straws to make Obama look bad. It just makes them look worse, and I know John McCain is better than this.

False, this makes Obama look worse.

It's all a matter of perspective as to who looks worse.

It's all a matter of opinion, but to me, this smacks of the same desperate straw-grabbing that HRC was doing back in late May/early June. When you're on the losing side of the equation, and you're coming up with obscure things to try to attack your more successful opponent yes, it makes you look pretty bad.

The difference is, I would expect this nonsense from the Clintons, as their unchecked, no-holds barred ambition is common knowledge. Again, I thought McCain was better than this.

Certainly, Obama's task is different because the fundraising is ongoing, but he could have made the same data available that McCain did through the primary season had he wanted to.

At the risk of seeming to want to score cheap points, I will also note that Obama could also have elected to honor his initial pledge to rely on public financing.

I agree with you in doubting these donors are probably actually dangerous somehow. But it does point to a pretty big flaw in the system. And as someone who reported like I was supposed to, even for my small donation, and found myself linked on the internet as a result, it just bugs me that other people are playing games with the system. (The donors, not Obama.)

I'll admit it, I'm a little freaked out by the foreign donors more than anything else. It's been a while since I've known all the fine print of electoral law, but I always thought that foreign donors were supposed to be under much more scrutiny than they currently are.

I'm fairly certain you can't accept any foreign donations from non-citizens. Hence why those guys money was returned when they discovered that "Ga." meant "Gaza" not "Georgia."