We Get It. Obama Wants More Money
I received Obama’s excuse for breaking his promise by not taking public financing. Here’s the meat of it:
Even though we stood to receive more than $80 million in taxpayer funding for our campaign, the system has been so gamed and exploited by our opponents that it is effectively broken.
John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and their allies in so-called 527 groups that raise and spend unlimited contributions are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible—and they’ve proven that they’re very good at it.
A top McCain adviser told MSNBC earlier this month, “now that we’re in the general election, the RNC money counts, the DNC money counts. So the truth is today, John McCain has more cash on hand and more money than Barack Obama does.”
In April alone, they raised nearly $45 million. That’s more than our campaign and the Democratic National Committee combined. And that doesn’t include the plans of 527 groups like the one called “Freedom’s Watch,” which has said it will spend as much as $250 million under Karl Rove’s direction to attack and defeat Barack Obama.
In other words… “I broke my word because I want to raise more money.” We get it Obama. It’s pretty transparent.
This is interesting, though:
A previous donor is standing by to match your gift and double your impact. You can even exchange a personal note with them about why you’ve chosen to support Barack.
Declare your independence from our broken system. Make a matching donation today:
Nice way to rope previous donors into giving again. Whoever thought that up was pretty clever.
Why take public money, when George Soros will give Obama all he wants of his in exchange for a cabinet post?
I hate to say this but I think it is a brilliant move on Obamas part for two reasons.
1. It gets the Media something to talk about other than the “Monday Morning Muslim Mistake”
2. It will also let all the special interest groups in the world run attack ads and Obama can say that he had no part in any of them.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 19, 2008 at 2019 hrs
George Soros will spend plenty regardless of what Obama does or doesn’t do. Don’t be naive. Just the same that Republican moenybags will spend freely regardless of what McCain does.
Speaking of McCain, what was the deal with him and his public financing issues? Some people are saying he broke the law.
Anyway, I’m glad Obama’s opting out of it.
Posted by scott on June 19, 2008 at 2047 hrs
Speaking of McCain, what was the deal with him and his public financing issues? Some people are saying he broke the law.
What Public finance issues? I have not heard anything about this. Although I can guess who was crying foul…
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 19, 2008 at 2052 hrs
McCain took out a loan to fund his primary campaign late last fall when he was out of money. The loan was secured by binding him to take the public financing dollars available to him should he be unable to raise the money to repay the loan himself. Basically, although not this explicitly, the agreement with the lender said that if McCain found himself in a position where he was not going to be the nominee, and he didn’t have the cash in his campaign coffers to repay the loan, he would not withdraw from the race until he had secured the public financing dollars he was eligible for to repay the loan. This way he got a loan equal to the money he would have got if he had just taken the public financing in the first place, without having to subject himself to the spending caps taking the public financing would have bound him to at the time.
It is a gray area, and it is hard to say whether he actually broke the law. But he certainly circumvented the campaign finance laws he led the way to rewrite. Of course Obama going back on a statement that he would agree to take public money if his opponent did, is a far bigger deal than a guy exploiting a questionable legal loophole to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law, of the campaign finance reform that was named after him.
I’m sure that is why Owen hasn’t mentioned it on here. Right??? 8^)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2008 at 2100 hrs
Seriously, I’m surprised that you eagle-eyed watchdogs let this slip by you! Here’s a backgrounder.
Posted by scott on June 19, 2008 at 2106 hrs
With links like that, Scott, it’s no wonder Owen missed it.
(Just kidding. I always screw up posting links in the comments here…)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2008 at 2117 hrs
Ha! Sorry. Here
Posted by scott on June 19, 2008 at 2119 hrs
Actually some of us have better things to do than sit around and research McCain Feingold.
Such glamorous things such as watching paint dry or watching the grass grow!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 19, 2008 at 2123 hrs
I really don’t know enough on McCain Feingold to even comment
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 19, 2008 at 2124 hrs
Yeah, who has time to pay attention to campaign funding issues…all of a sudden.
Posted by scott on June 19, 2008 at 2142 hrs
Your rose colored glasses are skewing your view Scott. This is not about campaign funding. It’s about a politician who said he would do one thing and then did another. He lied to you. Sorry.
Posted by Owen on June 19, 2008 at 2153 hrs
This is somewhat disappointing. Not unexpected, but disappointing nonetheless.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2008 at 2200 hrs
Yeah, John McCain would never, ever say one thing and then—gasp—change his mind! And I’m sure none of this is motivated by any petty, opportunistic partisan sniping!
Yeah, my side does it. But it still doesn’t smell right either way.
Carry on! Red meat is served.
Posted by scott on June 19, 2008 at 2226 hrs
Your rose colored glasses are skewing your view Scott. This is not about campaign funding. It’s about a politician who said he would do one thing and then did another. He lied to you. Sorry.
Owen’s right, Obama messed up here. In hindsight it was dumb to commit to take public financing. At the time however, I can’t imagine he thought it would be an issue. But the only reason it is an issue is because it is one of the few things he’s done out of the standard candidate handbook. When you are behind make a stink about the inequities of the system, and try and get some free press by taking about campaign finance concerns. The good news for Obama is that McCain is the one doing that now.
At the sametime Owen, I’m wondering if you would comment on McCain’s loan? Not a full post, but your opinion, in this thread, on taking out a loan backed by public financing dollars. Basically McCain was only going to take public financing for the primary if it was clear he was going to lose and couldn’t raise anymore money.
Regardless of what you think about public financing of campaigns, the facts are those dollars are available. Shouldn’t candidates who are making an honest effort to win an election be the only ones taking taxpayer dollars for their campaigns?
Both of these are non-stories for the public, but it seems to me that McCain’s actions are much more than going back on your word, it seems that he skirted the law. But the complexity of the issue prevents it from getting reported by the MSM, while the simplicity of Obama’s going back on his word gets front page coverage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 0857 hrs
No argument from me on any of that.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 0905 hrs
Well, this is just one time, scott. There have been a remarkable number of pirouettes recently.
Guns are bad, evil, to be totally banned. Oh wait, that was just my staff’s view, not mine. Ignore my handwriting in that response.
We need to declare Iraq a loss and retreat now! Well, maybe not, maybe we’ll stay a while.
We need to repeal NAFTA, and if one of my staff assures someone differently I’ll fire them! Oh wait, now that I’m the nominee it wasn’t so bad.
We used to call Bill Clinton a weathervane since he could reliably be counted on to follow the polls. Maybe we should call Obama a tornado since he keeps spinning his positions in circles?
So, just what part of Obama is “new politics?” It seems to me he’s got the pandering, message tuning, and especially the hypocracy down just fine. Well, I guess it’s “new politics” if you take Chicago politics national.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 0906 hrs
I wish everyone, both Left and Right, would just pipe down and let Obama be President already. Geez.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 0910 hrs
On the topic. Not sure if you conservatives will love or loathe this David Brooks Op/Ed on the Two Obama’s
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 0911 hrs
Christ you guys are amazing. Flip-flopping just incenses you, right? You’re voting for McCain because he doesn’t flip flop.
As if.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 0954 hrs
sigh…ok, one more time…
Charging ‘hypocrite’ does not equate to actually making an argument.
Posted by Tony Turner on June 20, 2008 at 1016 hrs
why am i not surprised to see you write this headline:
Obama Refuses to Spend Our Tax Dollars on Political Propaganda
I pretty much agree with all Lefty wrote, and even the MSJ editorial today. Yup, Obama messed up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1020 hrs
It is an argument. It’s a separate argument from the one about whether Obama did or did not do something wrong, but it’s an argument nonetheless. He changed his position. He did. My guess is that the only people who feel strongly that this impacts his fitness for office are partisan Republicans, though. And that the only reason they bring it up is because it makes him look bad and increases their chances of winning, rather than out of any non-partisan sense of right and wrong. That is a valid point to make. You want to charge me with trying to make a diversion, I could see that. But what I’m saying is correct.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1022 hrs
Christ you guys are amazing. Flip-flopping just incenses you, right? You’re voting for McCain because he doesn’t flip flop.
Changing an opinion on a matter because the facts have changed does not incense me. Changing an opinion on a matter just because it’s popular or will garner more votes does incense me. I think that’s probably true for all normal and rational adults.
Here’s some examples that incense me. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, public campaign financing, special interest groups, Cuba embargo, guns, NAFTA. They all change depending on the group he’s speaking in front of.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1031 hrs
Ooops, forgot the quote tags.
Christ you guys are amazing. Flip-flopping just incenses you, right? You’re voting for McCain because he doesn’t flip flop.
Changing an opinion on a matter because the facts have changed does not incense me. Changing an opinion on a matter just because it’s popular or will garner more votes does incense me. I think that’s probably true for all normal and rational adults.
Here’s some examples that incense me. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, public campaign financing, special interest groups, Cuba embargo, guns, NAFTA. They all change depending on the group he’s speaking in front of.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1032 hrs
And you’re prepared to argue that each of those are examples of a hardcore, dead-to-rights politically motivated flip flop—and that McCain’s issues were just “evolving positions” or something. Right?
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1034 hrs
And you’re prepared to argue that each of those are examples of a hardcore, dead-to-rights politically motivated flip flop
I have my sources as to why I think each of the ones I listed are politically, or audience motivated.
Do you have a list of McCain’s? If so, and they are valid, then I will be just as incensed on each of them as I am on each of Obama’s.
Feel better?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1036 hrs
A little, yes.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1037 hrs
Here’s a good list to get started.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
Source for the list, with links.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1040 hrs
Actually, it’s a bad list if you choose to actually research the supposed flip flops, but then we know how you feel about doing research, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1129 hrs
If you think it’s a bad list, have at it. Explain. Admittedly, some of these are more egregious than others, but there’s some serious flips and flops in there.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1135 hrs
In my opinion, most of what you have listed are not on par with what I have listed for Obama. I do agree these are ones that incense me.
*McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag. (But I do appreciate that he admitted to it and was willing to accept the criticism)
I feel everything else on that list could be explained by external changes, either to the economy, society, or individuals.
So, how do you feel about Obama’s flip flops? Are you incensed by any of them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1219 hrs
The only one I’m aware of really is the public financing one. And no, I’m not incensed by it. I’m disappointed—but most of that stems from the fact that it will be disingenuously used against him by his political adversaries. He should never have said it in the first place.
He’s right, by the way. THe system is broken. Agreeing to these spending limits is a farce, as there are unlimited sources of money going into the election that skirt around them. And Obama—someone who’s money is mostly coming from small donations to his campaign—only stands to lose by agreeing to limits on these while allowing as much party and 527 money as possible.
I would love to see more and more races run publicly financed. But if it’s just going to leave the big spending to interest groups and such, no thanks.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1226 hrs
He’s right, by the way. THe system is broken.
Ok, well if I take those off, that just leaves the Confederate Flag issue, which he has apologized for. So McCain’s list is empty.
Are you serious that you are not upset or disappointed by the other’s in the list, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, NAFTA, Cuba Embargo? I think they’re a window and a spotlight into the man’s true character. Just like I would with McCain’s Confederate Flag statements had he not admitted he was wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1240 hrs
I think they’re a window and a spotlight into the man’s true character.
You believe that because he’s a Democrat and you don’t like his policies or his party’s platform.
McCain’s list is “empty” to you? I think I’ll rest my case now.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1242 hrs
You believe that because he’s a Democrat and you don’t like his policies or his party’s platform.
You are 100% incorrect on this. I said that I believe the same about McCain with his Confederate Flag issue. I value McCain’s apology on it. I haven’t heard Obama explain why he started with “I stand by my reverend” and then do an about face when pressure and questions did not disappear.
McCain’s list is “empty” to you? I think I’ll rest my case now.
I actually agree with your views on public financing and the system being broken, which is why I can now give a pass on the two issues relating to it that I mentioned in #31.
Go ahead, rest your case… you don’t have one. You have dismissed everything I said about Obama, and won’t listen to my reasoning about McCain. You’re the one who’s mind is made up, and will not change… not me, and not any of the other commenters here. Isn’t it about time for you to “Un-Link” from this discussion?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1250 hrs
I think it’s about time that more people start discussing the actual differences between the two candidates positions, resumes and party platforms—instead of trumped up gotcha bullshit.
I believe wholeheartedly that if a Republican candidate did the exact same things Obama has done, it wouldn’t be a big deal to most of y’all—and we certainly wouldn’t be seeing a blog post about it here.
But if you can’t win on issues… I guess you have what you have.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1255 hrs
I think it’s about time that more people start discussing the actual differences between the two candidates positions, resumes and party platforms—instead of trumped up gotcha bullshit.
So, to further taht belief, you come into a conservative blog, accuse the readers and owners, and then expect things to change?
I believe wholeheartedly that if a Republican candidate did the exact same things Obama has done, it wouldn’t be a big deal to most of y’all
I disagree, and your attacks on my character are disgusting.
and we certainly wouldn’t be seeing a blog post about it here.
We’ve been through this many times, you must LOVE repeating yourself and posting in circles. Owen posts what he wants to, and what interests him. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
But if you can’t win on issues… I guess you have what you have.
And you have nothing - ergo…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1259 hrs
In my opinion, most of what you have listed are not on par with what I have listed for Obama.
How do you feel about McCain’s top two economic advisers lobbying on behalf of interests who want to preserve the Enron loophole? The loophole that created the current oil speculation market that has been estimated to have inflated the current cost of oil anywhere between 25% to 50%?
Or the fact that one of them (Phil Graham) was the author of the bill while he was still a US Senator?
Or that when the Enron loophole was passed McCain spoke out against it on the floor of the Senate, saying we were turning our energy policy over to speculators.
Or that when language was tagged onto the farm bill to close the Enron loophole this session that McCain voted against the bill? (To be fair, he claimed it was due to his disagreements over expenditure levels and “pork” in the farm bill. Impossible for me to dispute and he to prove).
Or that McCain’s campaign says the Senator no longer has a public position on the Enron loophole?
Yes, it is a lot of smoke, and maybe there isn’t a fire. But that interests me a whole lot more than what Obama’s reverend said, or whether while making a smart strategic decision he ended up having to reverse his position on public financing for his campaign.
I don’t mean to make it sound like I think Owen is responsible to post about that stuff on here. As he has said many times it is his blog (and Jed’s) and he will post what he wants and respond to what he wants. But I assume that the comments section is a place where he hopes people will debate his posts, and I believe that the arguments raised by people like me and scott are relevant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1500 hrs
Everyone can go back and forth here and that’s fine. John McCain is hardly perfect. But here’s the point that I think some of the liberal commenters are missing.
The reason some are up in arms about this whole thing is that Obama constantly shits on “politics as usual,” but when you really look at his career, that’s all he’s ever been. I won’t link the NYT Brooks column again (it’s up in #18), but Brooks makes the point well. For a guy who claims to be all about changing the way Washington does business, he’s also the same guy who got elected to the Illinois Senate by getting all his primary opponents bounced off the ballot with signature challenges. He’s the guy that could’ve led in the Illinois Senate by taking on high-profile issues, but instead voted “present” any time that something controversial came along.
Now he’s the guy who wants gloss over his longstanding speechifying about the need for campaign finance reform by raising boatloads of private cash from big donors and pretending that doesn’t matter.
I could care less about any of this as a matter of action. If a guy wants to hire someone with a background in election law to run his opponents off the ballot, fine. Want to opt out of public financing? Fine.
What bothers me, and what bothers a lot of other people, is that Barack Obama is essentially running against the very type of politics he employs. In other words, when it comes to character, he’s a total hypocrite. It’s worse that not doing what you say you’ll do.
Barack Obama goes out on the trail and tells you every day that, basically, his shit doesn’t stink. And instead of actually considering Obama’s record and his past, some of you just want to point fingers at McCain and say “well, his does, so what does it matter about Barack’s?”
Considering your candidate blabbers constantly about representing a different kind of politics, that’s the brutal irony here. Obama is no better than Hillary Clinton or John McCain or George W. Bush. He’s just another politician who will say and do whatever he has to say or do to get elected.
There’s nothing wrong with that. But some of you need to realize that Barack Obama isn’t who you think he is. He’s politics as usual, just like the rest of them.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 20, 2008 at 1755 hrs
I think you overstate the point quite a bit. And by the way, he’s raising money not from a boatload of wealthy donors, but a boatload of small ones.
Posted by scott on June 20, 2008 at 1803 hrs
RS -
I’m not naive to what you are arguing. As I’ve stated on here before I was behind Hillary, and I was the one who linked the Brooks article, so while I’m clearly partisan I’m not walking around with rose colored glasses. But I do agree with Scott, that you are overstating it a bit.
Obama is doing a great deal differently, most notably not getting caught up in the same old political games that dominate elections. He has kept the focus on the issues that he wants to keep them on, and to this point is largely defeating the 24 hour news cycle and the character assasination politics of the last 16 years. I mean a black man in america is up 4 to 5 points nationally against a well know, and previously considered moderate candidate, after his reverend basically said death to whitey. I find that kinda amazing, based just on my campaign experiences in rural Wisconsin.
Will it mean different politics once he’s in the White House? If it does it won’t nearly be to the degree that the Obama lovers want. Does it mean he is too idealistic to take advantgae of campaign laws or political leverage when it is in his favor? Apparently not, and as Brooks stated today that should scare the H-E double tooth picks out of the GOP.
But like Reagan and Clinton (I don’t go back with personal experience past Carter, so I won’t make the JFK, FDR comparisons) he is convincing people that government can be a positive when done right. I think the way he has gone about his business is to be admired, not because I think he’s pure as the driven snow, but because in a short time, he has built a political machine that is on the verge of changing a lot of what we know about how politics is run in this country. It is impressive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 1824 hrs
...in a short time, he has built a political machine that is on the verge of changing a lot of what we know about how politics is run in this country. It is impressive.
From the standpoint of raising lots of dough, yes. With respect to everything else…not so much.
Posted by Tony Turner on June 20, 2008 at 1835 hrs
Sure Scott, Obama doesn’t have any max donors, just a pile of crumpled up ones that old ladies mailed into his office.
You think those donor matches are coming from people writing out five dollar checks? If it’s really about that grassroots support, I’ll back Obama when he announces his refusal to accept more than $100 from any individual.
Obama’s all about the $2300 check, just like everyone else. Sure, a bunch of people send him $5 or $10, but don’t delude yourself about who’s bankrolling that campaign. It’s the same fat-cat donors that bankroll all presidential candidates.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 20, 2008 at 2020 hrs
Obama’s all about the $2300 check, just like everyone else. Sure, a bunch of people send him $5 or $10, but don’t delude yourself about who’s bankrolling that campaign. It’s the same fat-cat donors that bankroll all presidential candidates.
So he built somewhere between a 2 to 1 to 3 to 1 money advantage because the same old fat cats picked him over everyone else? He bankrupt the Clinton campaign because she couldn’t get the same fat cats he got to come and support her?
Don’t be naive yourself RS. Obama has plenty of big ching donors, no doubt. But his advantage is the crazy amount of small first time donors he has.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2008 at 2103 hrs
As of April, Obama had at least 27K donors who were maxed out, according to a WaPo article from that month. Do the math: that’s $62MM right there, minimum. He’s probably found more max donors since then.
Any donor who can afford to pony up $2300 in a primary can/will do it in a general. If you’re giving $2300 to a campaign, you’re not struggling to feed the kids. So there. Straight up, I just raised Obama another $62MM for the general without batting an eye.
Meanwhile, your nickel-and-dime guy hosted another shindig earlier this week that was 28-and-a-half thousand a plate. $2300 to the primary, $2300 to the general, and the rest to the DNC.
Again, hey, it’s great that some granny wants to pony up five bucks for Obama. Swell. But you think you can keep hitting up the $10 and $20 donors when the economy’s in the tank? Nope. And let me remind you that it’s a lot easier to find 27K more max donors for the general than it is to get 6.2 million people to donate ten bucks a head.
If people want to do that, more power to them. But let’s not kid ourselves. The same old political elite are already bankrolling Obama, will continue to bankroll Obama, and will continue to expect - and get - the same things from him that they’ll get from every other politician. And that’s not a bad thing.
Obama’s no different than anyone else - except for the fact that he seems to go out every day and loathe himself on the stump. Don’t kid yourselves into thinking he’s something special. He’s just another politician.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 20, 2008 at 2300 hrs
Lefty’s right. The Smart Guy has more donors right now than the Old Guy, and by a significant factor… and they’re all donating smaller amounts than McSame’s people are. I say let’s just let the market work and whoever gets the most votes wins… unless they’re Al Gore.
[There…. let’s see… 1,2,3, 4, 5… 5 memes. That should hold them. ]
Y’all have to remember that it was the Clinton’s who reprised so well the Republican technique of a few Deep Pockets. The Smart Senator (with 12 years of teaching constitutional law at the university of Chicago) seems, just as Lefty notes, to have caught fire online. So, lots and lots of small donors.
Most of Maverick McSame’s supporters haven’t been able to get their grandchildren to show them how the computer works yet.
... okay, that makes about 8. That’s over my quota. Sorry Owen.
Posted by Mpeterson on June 20, 2008 at 2300 hrs
As of April, Obama had at least 27K donors who were maxed out, according to a WaPo article from that month. Do the math: that’s $62MM right there, minimum. He’s probably found more max donors since then.
As of April 30th Obama had raised $120 million from donors giving less than $200, according to a WaPo article from Thursday.
As I said, he’s not so different that he doesn’t have big time traditional money. But his is so different in that he’s been able to tap into another resource like nobody before him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2008 at 2053 hrs
That’s nice. Most people giving between $100-200 are regular givers to political campaigns. Few people who’ve never given to a candidate send off 200 bucks to a primary candidate.
I’d be curious to know how much Obama’s raised in contributions of $50 or less. After all, that’s where most entry-level, mom-and-pop donors are doing their giving.
The person giving $200 is just a little version of the person giving $2300. They have a lot more in common than either do with the person dropping ten bucks.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 21, 2008 at 2135 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134061
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 08:10 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 119
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 08:15 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).