Obama Bags $25 Million

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:22:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A lot of money collected by Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama raised at least $25 million dollars during the first quarter for his presidential campaign, a total surprisingly close to the $26 million collected by his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . . Obama raised $6.9 million—more than a quarter of his total—over the Internet from more than 50,000 online donors, the Illinois Democrat's campaign said from Chicago this morning. Overall, Obama received contributions from more than 100,000 individuals, his campaign said.

The question is this for me - Obama, the political rock star, raised alot of money. Obama the wishy washy pol, the one we have seen on Iraq, will he remain as popular? Will he raise as much money? We'll see.

< Obama Wins the Ignatius Primary By Getting Punked On Iraq | Alberto Gonzales Resignation Contest: Free Ice Cream >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Bags $25 Million | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If he brings up the rear (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:03:41 AM EST

and the Dems are successful in bringing Bush's legacy of blood and destruction to a close I don't think he will remain popular. I don't believe that he should remain popular either. Of all of the "hard work" a President of the United States will face, dealing with the issue of America at war and ALL THAT THAT ENTAILS is probably the hardest work. If a candidate isn't up for that sort of work he should not be our President.

He's got to lead IN THE SENATE. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Ben Masel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:09:14 AM EST

If not on Iraq, then PATRIOT, or scaling back the most egregious aspects of the DrugWar (Mandatory Minimums.)

Kos' point (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by magster on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:26:49 PM EST

I thought Kos' most recent post was interesting enough to bring to this thread, namely: the real story is how the Dems combined are trouncing the GOP's combined fundraising.

We haven't picked the messenger, but the overall Dem message is bringing in the $$.

: Hmmm (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:13:55 PM EST

Interesting... Got an actual total/by candidate??

His following will continue to grow. So many... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by cal11 voter on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:59:28 PM EST

are just beginning to ask who is Barack Obama, and what does he stand for? I may just send him an online contribution.

Beyond money and talk, Obama needs to do something (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by hellskitchen on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:32:38 PM EST

Specifically, given the desire of the majority of the citizens of the US to extricate ourselves from Iraq, Obama needs to do something like co-sponsor the Feingold bill to prove that he's a doer and not a talker.

However, the problem I have with this, is why do we have to twist his arm to do anything? If he's really a doer, why doesn't he just do?

Buddy, can you spare a dime?? (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:24:00 PM EST

Obama $25M

Hillary $26M

Total: $51M

Ah, the Demos. The party of the working class...

That is so, So, SO weak (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:35:16 PM EST

Wow, I'm floored, I can't believe you're the first person in the country to realize party politics, national politics, almost all politics in general in this country are about money. As if we don't live in a capitalist nation. As if capital isn't money. Egad. Next you'll be announcing that you've discovered ATM machines require an ATM card to use.


We can't really spare a dime (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:50:39 PM EST

because we have to fight the party of the corporate greed soulless rich. Maybe next time ;)


: Can't help, eh? (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:17:19 PM EST

Glad I found out about you before combat.
;-)

The working class has no party..... (none / 0) (#29)
by kdog on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:00:30 PM EST

dontcha know?

Democrat/Republican....parties for the powerful...there are 2 because even the powerful vary on social issues.


Actually. . . (none / 0) (#37)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:34:26 PM EST

Obama's results are stunning in that regard -- the number of individual donors is higher than any other candidate and the average contribution lower which means he's barely fathomed the well.

Historically, of course, the Republicans have been much better at small-donor raising. Not any more.


What are the options (none / 0) (#2)
by HeadScratcher on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:07:29 AM EST

In the real world, the options at this point seem to be Hillary, Obama, and maybe Gore (if he decides to run). Assuming Gore doesn't run, then the progressive community has a choice between Obama and Hillary. Hillary is an insincere cynic who voted to authorize the war, is an opportunist, and whose husband (with her by his side) signed the Defense of Marriage Act, Welfare Reform, let a mentally retarded man be executed for political gain, and signed NAFTA.

Obama, on the other hand, may be wishy-washy (and what politician can't be described this way?), but he is more in line with progressive values than Hillary.

The race still has a long way to go (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:09:37 AM EST

hard to say what could shake out by fall.


Wishy Washy or Opportunism? (none / 0) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:24:16 AM EST

Obama strikes me as playing it safe right now. Sort of like Edwards 2004. Is this being wishy washy or is it opportunusm? Does it matter? IMO all politicans are opportunistic. This is not necessairly bad.

: Molly B (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:29:47 PM EST

This is not necessairly bad.
Depends on if they have any actually worthwhile traits.

We're ALL wishy-washy (none / 0) (#25)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:22:13 PM EST

And thus should not be trying to separate politicians from the rest of "us" in a democracy.


: I don't know..... (none / 0) (#30)
by kdog on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:03:49 PM EST

I see average joes being wishy-washy on where to go out for dinner...not big stuff.
Politicians can turn torture into a wish-wash...or habeus corpus, or occupying foreign lands.

Why do you write Edwards off... (none / 0) (#38)
by Demi Moaned on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:20:52 PM EST

so early in the game?


Obama is NOT wishy-washy. (none / 0) (#6)
by lilybart on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:30:57 AM EST

From telling FOX they can stuff their "debate" to:

"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. "I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer."

"This is NOT how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism," thundered Senator Barack Obama last week on the floor of the US Senate, after it passed Bush Administration-supported S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved US torture of detainees and stripped Constitutional rights away from detainees.
"And the sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary," Senator Obama continued.

Money flowing (none / 0) (#7)
by wlgriffi on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:12:50 PM EST

is obscene.

"The question is this for me - Obama, the political rock star, raised alot of money."

The question for me is where is this bottomless well. The "service economy" must be paying employees really super wages. The internet contributors certainly aren't those in Rudy Valle's circle of "Brother Can You Spare A Dime".

it helps ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Sailor on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:19:28 PM EST

... when 100,000+ people donate it.


$250. each??? (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:15:25 PM EST

Seems very, very high for a grass roots thing.

My guess is 80% of it came from fat cats.


Your guess, as always, would be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Sailor on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:14:33 PM EST

The Obama campaign raised $6.9 million over the Internet from more than 50,000 donors.

If 100,000 thousand 'fat cats' (funny, ppj never condemned all those 'fat cats' that illegally shunted money to bush) had donated there would be even more money.

Hell, if wrongwing morons can give TL more than $250 (thereby exempting themselves of TL's rules) imagine what folks who are desperate to make this country back into one they can be proud of will do.


sailor, poor sailor (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:39:25 PM EST

Well, 20% of $25M is $5M...leaving 80%... my guess..

Actual, if we can trust sailor was $6.9M, a little over 25% leavin 75%..

Not a bad swag if I do say so myself...

BTW - Does the fact that you have zero proof for the following statement even embarass you?

funny, ppj never condemned all those 'fat cats' that illegally shunted money to bush) had donated there would be even more money.

: wrong as always (none / 0) (#41)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:09:19 AM EST

show us where you condemned such acts.
BTW 90 percent of Obama's donors contributed $100 or less

Sailor (none / 0) (#35)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:06:46 PM EST

seems to have a thing for PPJ.


: Yes ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:10:25 AM EST

... I've always thought that liars should be confronted and proved wrong rather than allow their lies to go unchallenged.

: Yes, doesn't he...... (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:26:04 PM EST

And frankly I don't know if I should be insulted or charmed..
But actually the Dark Avenger is beating his time...
;-)

I think the best way to explain it (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:35:24 PM EST

is that what is left of the middle class is voting Democrat. I remember four years ago that when surveyed those with the highest educations and highest I.Q.s tended to lean voting Democrat. They haven't starved us out yet, we still have enough cash left over at the end of the day to put towards a better government and a better future. Down here in the South though I am startled at how many impoverished are so proud to vote Republican. It's like they are rooting for a football team but they don't understand that when their team wins it is supposed to help maintain or enrich all of our lives.


a question (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:26:52 PM EST

You seem to specialize in knowing the "improvished" down "here in the south."

Are there no country clubs where you live, or do you consider it your duty to educate all those you consider dummies you live around??


No, there is a country club where I live (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:48:41 PM EST

There are more poor though than country club members by far. I'm from Colorado. Born and a large portion of my life raised and I never knew what real poor looked like until we moved here. Sadly after so many generations of poverty it seems that many people here have become comforted by their poverty.


Speaking of poverty (1.00 / 2) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:11:30 PM EST

Having lived for 17 years in Denver, I can tell you have never visited the 5 Points area, or some of the SW mountain towns....

But rather than get into a who has seen the poorest places contest, let me guess that your problem with where you're at is your huge superiority complex that can immediately be picked up by the the locals..

Like it or not, their culture holds things dear that your culture does not. An overbearing atmosphere calling them stupid won't work.


: OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Sailor on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:54:44 PM EST

The adults were talking about Obama's fundraising, try to stay on topic.

: 5 points has had a huge (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 12:12:22 AM EST

refurbishing during Denver's housing boom. I have a first cousin who lives there now.

...those with... (none / 0) (#19)
by desertswine on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:33:09 PM EST

...the highest educations and highest I.Q.s tended to lean voting Democrat.

Then, by inference, the stupidest...


: I believe that many without (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:43:03 PM EST

the benefit of education and the prosperity potential that that brings don't vote. It seems to eat up an enormous amount of their time and energy just keeping themselves and their families afloat. I don't understand why they don't fight back down here and fight for what is rightfully theirs. They have settled for something and I'm not sure they even know they have.

Karl Rove's quip (none / 0) (#39)
by Demi Moaned on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:25:49 PM EST

From a New Yorker profile several years back. He was talking about the 'natural base' of the Republican party and how it was expanding.

The author asked him who were the Democrats' natural base. His reply:

People with PhD's

I think it says a lot about perceived elitism as an issue in party branding.


Perhaps Obama is raising big bucks (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:23:43 PM EST

from the anybody-but-Hillary folks, who I really hope pay attention to what the candidates are actually saying.

Obama will only get stronger. (none / 0) (#17)
by cal11 voter on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:56:43 PM EST

He has a unifying personality, if only people would get to know him.

A strong Obama makes a Gore launch less likely IMHO. And I'd like to see Gore run.

For me (ABC), all I can say is I'm happy (none / 0) (#27)
by mentaldebris on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:00:52 PM EST

to see Ms. Inevitable might be just a little less inevitable after all. The closer their race, the better.

Not a big fan of Obama's, but I'm for anyone who's last name is not Clinton or Bush in the White House for '08 and the rest of my damn life for that matter. Enough with the political dynasties already.

On the policy side, no one is thrilling me at this moment. But there's time. Time to shine, time to screw up. I suspect we'll see a bit of both from all of them until the primary.

One thing for certain..... (none / 0) (#31)
by kdog on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:13:02 PM EST

with all this money rolling into the various campaigns, you'd think there would be some appealing candidates.

The most appealing I've seen is Steve Kubby, and he ain't raising nowhere near this kind of cash.

Clinton didn't do so well (none / 0) (#43)
by diogenes on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:36:01 PM EST

Wasn't ten million of her money simply rolled over from her Senate campaign?