Yesterday I wrote about the wealthy donor fundraisers Obama attended in San Francisco last week.

Here's the Washington Post:

[T]hose with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

What's it mean?

[T]he work of bundlers... will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite....The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers.

Several of these top bundlers previously supported Republicans. Some have agendas markedly different from Obama's platform. Take Ken Griffith: [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

Previous installment here. The new Time PA poll says Clinton by 8. But let's put it through our poll analysis system. More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Brad Delong writes:

The best -- what I think is actually the only -- "electability" argument for Hillary Clinton was made by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo . . .

Well, Prof DeLong, I am sure it was inadvertent of Marshall to do this. Bob Somerby points out that in fact what Marshall was doing was forwarding David Sirota's "Hillary Is Evil And Deliberately Appealing To Racists" meme. But it is worth examining what DeLong makes of the theory. More . . .

It's not necessary to end the primary race in order to look past it. Democratic groups are forming to launch critiques of John McCain in the general election.

Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist.

The planned campaign is the product of a shakeup in the top ranks of the struggling independent Democratic groups. Brock, now best known as the ex-conservative founder of the liberal group Media Matters, last month quietly assumed the chairmanship of what's expected to be the main vehicle for independent Democratic attacks on McCain, now called Progressive Media USA.

The group aims to fill the gap left by the press corp's failure to accurately report on McCain. [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

There are some interesting developments in Puerto Rico, One of which is a poll Jeralyn writes about. But I think more interesting is the shifting alignments on the island. The most significant development was the endorsement of Barack Obama by Pedro Pierluisi, the Statehood Party's (PNP) candidate for Resident Commissioner in the upcoming November election in Puerto Rico. This could be quite a coup for Obama.

Why does this endorsement matter? I think the endorsement COULD be decisive in Puerto Rico if it signals that the Statehood Party machinery will be mobilized in favor of Obama. At the least, it is clear that it likely will not be completely mobilized for Hillary Clinton. And that is certainly a blow to her.

More . . .

A new Puerto Rico poll has Hillary Clinton 13 points ahead of Barack Obama. The news article is in Spanish, but from my (admittedly not fluent) translation skills, it says:

The poll was done by Research & Reasearch.

Those polled identified themselves as Democrats. They endorsed Hillary by 50% and Obama by 37%. 13% were undecided.

For Francisco Domenech, a superdelegate supporting Hillary, the poll should not surprise anyone "because Hillary knows Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico knows Hillary".

An Obama backer says the result reflects the same tendency that has manifested elsewhere where Clinton always starts at the front due to the recognition factor and then recedes. He predicts that will happen in Puerto Rico as well.

The margin of error is 4.4%. Puerto Rico's primary is June 1.

Once again, Obama takes a cue from Hillary Clinton.

Last Wednesday, April 2: Obama says he's conflicted on Olympics

"I am of two minds about this, ...On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China's support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem." Still, Obama said, "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."

Monday, April 7, Hillary Clinton calls for Bush not to attend the opening ceremonies.

I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

This Wednesday, April 9: Obama says to put boycott of Olympic opening ceremonies on the table.

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies.

Comments now closed.

The New Insider Advantage PA poll out today (results here , pdf) has Hillary at 48 and Obama at 38. It concludes she is gaining ground.

InsiderAdvantage’s Matt Towery: “Sen. Clinton has made progress among both men and among all white voters. Her support among women also appears to be consolidating.

“My guess is that whatever damage she might have sustained by recent gaffs and media missteps have been largely discounted by the public. The race in Pennsylvania is clearly still fluid. But, at least for now, it’s tending back towards the result that was originally anticipated by most – a Clinton lead.

Pittsburgh's mayor, Luke Ravenstahl, is 28 years old. He's the youngest mayor of a big city in the country. The Washington Post has an interesting profile of him, including his unwavering support for Hillary Clinton.

At 28, the youngest big-city mayor in modern U.S. history has become one of Clinton's key backers in Pennsylvania, her top surrogate in its second-largest city and an effective rejoinder to the idea that Sen. Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, has a lock on young voters in the state.

He's very popular:

During his 18 months in office, Ravenstahl has persuaded Pittsburgh's professional hockey team not to leave town, balanced the budget, cut city spending and helped promote new housing developments downtown. He was elected to retain office by 63 percent of voters in 2007. He recently announced an ambitious plan to make Pittsburgh more efficient by combining city and county governments -- an agenda that, if executed, would ultimately eliminate his job.

Pittsburgh has been hit by hard times. Hillary has a plan for it. [More..]

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

In one of the more revealing moments of this campaign regarding how simply awful the Media is, NPR's Michelle Norris asked Hillary Clinton this question:

"Senator, I want you to react to something that I keep hearing among voters, and increasingly among people who cover the campaign -- both those who are reporters and those who speak about the campaign on television, on radio -- the statement that the only way that Hillary Clinton can win is if she’s willing to win ugly[.]"

(Emphasis supplied.) What is really amazing is not the classic "some people say" formulation, but that Norris including a "some REPORTERS say" formulation. My, it is good to know they can be objective after saying that. Hillary's reaction was predictable and right: "I understand that there has been, throughout this campaign, something of a double standard. I accept it; I live with it." but after asking that incredible question, Michelle Norris proves how biased she really is - she is so biased she does not even know when she is being obviously biased:

The New York Times reports kids are pestering their parents to vote for Obama, and it's working.

Here's one example:

Megan Simpson, a Penn State senior, had not been able to budge her father, a Republican. But the day before the deadline for registering for the coming Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, she handed him the forms and threw in a deal-sweetener as well. “I said, ‘Dad, if you change your party affiliation in time to vote for Obama,’ ” recalled Ms. Simpson, 22, an Obama campus volunteer, “ ‘I will get you the paperwork the day after the primary if you want to switch back to being a Republican.’ ”

Thus did Ralph E. Simpson Jr., 50, construction company owner, become a newly minted Democrat. “I probably will switch my affiliation back,” Mr. Simpson said, “but I haven’t decided who I will vote for in the general election. If Meg keeps working on me, who knows?”

More...

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Discussing the seemingly NOT departed Mark Penn (did the Clinton campaign get rid of him or not? Apparently it was a demotion, not a firing. Bad move by the Clinton camp.), Ezra Klein wrote:

[quoting Mark Schmitt] "[T]he ambitions of the early Clinton years were abandoned for safe, symbolic gestures appealing to the middle-class swing voters -- 'soccer moms' -- in a few swing states." An argument can be made that that was the only viable strategy in 1996. I'm not adept enough with counterfactuals to really know. But there's no argument that that's all that can be hoped for in 2008. Penn might have once been necessary, but he's never been desirable. Now, however, he's neither.

Indeed, 1990s style triangulation is not desirable, necessary or effective now. But someone needs to tell that to Senator Barack Obama, whose campaign has been a case study in the fine art of Bill Clinton-like 1990s triangulaton. Has no one noticed this? Ezra Klein is a foremost health care blogger, who endorsed the Edwards health care plan. The one most like Hillary's. That Obama has ATTACKED that plan with "Harry and Louise" ads seems to not have entered Klein's thinking in that post.