The below was posted on PocketFives. An Illinois resident wrote to Senator Obama and this was the reply he got.

I'm interested to see what the legal eagles in this forum think this says about his stance.

Well I think it's a good sign he uses the words 'over-regulate their behavior' concerning this issue. Tho I'm not to sure its his words, I doubt he has time to personally respond to letters like these. Still, if the Obama camp calls the 2006 law 'over-regulating' I think you could atleast say he won't make it worse.

Seems like a normal political mumbo-jumbo to me. An answer that's supposed to satisfy both sides (either if you're against online gambling, or support it), so it doesn't really mean anything...

It seems like every letter starts with "As you know,"

obama said: "At the federal level, the Wire Act prohibits gambling businesses from using interstate or international telecommunications firms to knowingly transmit or receive bets."

i would have much rather have seen sports bets there. somebody should write a letter to his campaign.

I'm from IL and received the exact same prefab response to the letter I sent.
Its just a standard response letter they had prepared

Its better than the Feinstein letter.

Obama is not poker's advocate. Nor is he a poker hater. He does in fact play poker.

He is better only in the sense that if we can get pro-poker legislation passed, he is very, very unlikely to veto it. I don't expect him to propose such legislation, nor speak in favor of it. I do expect him to sign it into law if our Congressional allies (mostly Democrats) can get it passed.

McCain, IMHO, is likely to veto any such legislation as a "payback" to his FOF/Nanaystater supporters. He may not, Al D'Amato thinks he wont, but I think its a very real risk.

Neither candidate as president (or even as a candidate) is likely to take an obvious position here as we have yet to show them that poker players vote and, more importantly, will vote directly on this issue.

Skallagrim

I doubt there will be much difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to signing pro-poker legislation. I think they both will probably sign a bill that has somehow made it through Congress. Also, there is a reasonable chance no bill will even come to the new president's desk to be signed, making any difference between the two likely irrelevant anyways.

I think Obama will probably be better for us because his enforcement agendas will more likely de-prioritize anti-gaming initiatives. I believe that is more likely mainly because of the people that Obama has surrounding him as opposed to the people around McCain.

I do think McCain probably agrees with our position, but he will not likely act on his opinion because he has tethered himself too much to the FoF types.

I also think there is good chance that I have it completely backwards. That's the problem, we just don't know who will be better with any reasonable certainty. All we can do is play the hand with the best chance of holding up. And for me, on this issue, its still Obama, even though the posted letter annoys me.

Although I dislike Obama and will not be voting for him, and though I do think that McCain is better for poker long term because I am more worried about Obama sucking up to the Feinstein nanny staters than I am that McCain will suck up to FOF across the board, I do have to agree with what others have said that Obama's DOJ will be better than McCain's. Mainly because McCain is likely to have some carryover of DoJ bureaucrats.

The best thing we can hope for in this election is that McCain takes a more neutral stance on social issues. This will alienate the religious right, causing them to stay home on election day. This will allow us to gain seats in Congress.

how about reading his book?

You'll get much more about his views on many things as well as specifics about gambling.

There is no "pro-gambling", "pro-poker" candidate this year for President.

Obama said specifically that he is AGAINST the "further expansion of gambling in America" because the "social cost are too high".

Obama's gambling voting record in the state of Illinois was he voted against, every single time, any type of expansion of gambling in the state of Illinois.

Of course, we don't know if he considers poker "gambling" or not.

I get the feeling from reading his books and following his career, he's not going to allow online gambling, of any form, to be allowed under his watch.

Just my opinion.

I agree with this. We don't need an expansion of gambling. I live and work in Las Vegas. We don't need more competition.

Poker is not gambling. Therefore, recognizing that poker is a skill game which can be played responsibly by adults in their own home and the govt has no business prohibiting it is not an expansion of gambling.

As long as I can breathe, I'm saying poker is not a gambling game. Say it with me, brothers and sisters. POKER IS NOT A GAMBLING GAME.

Say it until they hear it.

CJ

Poker is a gambling game, stating otherwise in public will only cause an otherwise reasonable and open minded person to back away slowly wondering "who are these idiots and why should I support them?"

Simply calling a dog a butterfly will not enable it to fly.


Jimbo

Hey, Jimbo, keep believing that Poker is a gambling game. The only reason that I bat the rake and win money playing online poker is that my opponents believe this statement.

Come on, guys. All of us regulars in this forum know that there are different definitions of "gambling" and where or not poker fits into each of them. The varied definitions of the word used in the past few posts have all been clear from context.

We don't need to derail this thread by arguing semantics with each other. Everybody in the world knows that poker is Jimbo's definition of gambling. The point is to enlighten the portion of the public that mistakenly thinks it is also JP's definition of gambling.

He just chose a running mate (Biden) who voted against Sen. Kyl's S 474, which passed 90-10. Good for us.

Typical Obamaspeak. The guy makes my skin crawl. He refers to the vote. He isn't going to do anything. Not on his radar screen. Says nothing in an effort to keep everyone guessing/happy.

Yep, was wanting to hear about Biden's stance.

QFT

You have done enough damage.

You should have read his PM's to me. He is an FOF troll. Ignore him.

I have no doubt. He should be exposed.

In BBV is a thread called "Why I don't tell people I play poker.", although funny, it does somewhat show what random people think of poker. Some quotes:

-U play online poker? isnt that rigged? how do you know their not rigging the cards dealt?
-But how much did you lose?
-Oh, so you're one of those people that contribute to the destroying of families?
-You play poker? I love gambling, I play roulette, I have a strategy, wanna hear it? Ive been 6 times now and I havent lost!
-Im good at poker, I can beat you, its just because im a good liar people can never tell if im bluffing or not.
-Do you count cards?

I think it will just boil down to the fact that if Obama wins he will be much more interested in having his DOJ act on more substantive issues. I expect all the trade deals etc would come to light. Once he pulls back the veil of executive privilege and "national security" I have a feeling the next whitehouse's DOJ as well as many other executively appointed departments might have their hands full with a number of other more important issues.

God loves stupid people. That's why there are so many of them.