home

How Will Obama Spend his $40 Million?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:23:03 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via the Washington Post: What does $40 million buy Obama? In addition to blanketing PA with ads,

In North Carolina, one of the two vital May 6 states, the Obama campaign's office count has risen to 16, including smaller locales like Hickory, Boone and Elizabeth City. Two Obama television ads are airing around the state, at a total cost of $800,000, according to a source familiar with the campaign's media budget. Today alone, an army of organizers and volunteers conducted 22 training and and voter registration sessions, focusing in particular on African Americans, students, and independents and Republicans.

In Indiana, the other May 6 contest, the Obama campaign has so far spent over $1 million on TV and radio ads. The office tally climbed today to 17. The Obama campaign's latest gimmick: a high school-outreach program that targets students who will turn 18 by the Nov. 4 general election, making them eligible as primary voters. Indiana students who register at least 20 of their peers by April 6 will be eligible to play three-on-three basketball with Obama, a big-time hoops fan and reputed aggressor on the court.

Obama has spent $3 million on Pennsylvania ads to date to Hillary's $500k.

< Hillary on Tonight Show with Jay Leno Tonight | Friday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How Will Obama Spend his $40 Million? | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm a believer in campaign reform (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:51:41 PM EST
    One should not be able to buy the nom any more than one could buy the presidency.

    Unless you have can show me differently (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:13:33 AM EST
    Obama raises most of his money the same way Howard Dean did. That is not the same as George Bush's model.

    The Bush GOP model is to raise large sums of money (by bundling maximum contributions) from special interests who expect special treatment in return. That is true buying of the elections. See Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay after the 1994 elections.

    The Howard Dean model is for small donors  contribute to campaigns because they believe in the candidates. In theory at least they become invested in their candidates, more likely to turn out on election day and more likely to work for their candidate. I don't think small donors expect special access for their  $20.00 to $100.00 contributions.

    I don't see this as a bad thing. In fact its the only way the Democratic party will be able to compete without becoming captive to special interest money like the GOP.

    The last thing we should be doing is adopting Republican frames. Buying the elections is what they do. We give voice to the common man.  

    Parent

    I think that is the impression (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    that the Obama campaign wants to make but not necessarily the truth.

    As it appears evident that Obama can win the nomination, people buy in to try to gain access.

    Clearly Obama is getting donations from employees of big law firms, big oil, nuclear, health care, etc.

    Their narrative regarding little donations had some merit to it but the reality is, this is indeed politics as usual and the usual people are contributing.

    I don't mean to diminish his success at obtaining donations but only want to point out that the narrative is only acceptable to uncritical eyes.

    Parent

    Not been to open secrets (none / 0) (#136)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    to verify your hypothesis- until now and it appears 40% of Obama's donors gave $200.00 or less

    By comparison HRC and McCain get just under 25%.

    If you search by selected industries, Obama and HRC are pretty evenly matched in the ones I checked. HRC out performs in at least 2 areas in the selected industries searched. I do not claim to have checked all.

    It appears the biggest difference is in individual donors of $200.00 or less. I have not examined this site exhaustively and I don't claim any expertise. This is what appears to my untrained eye. If I my interpretation is correct, it would seem to validate the Howard Dean fund raising strategy.

    You may have a better take and I would welcome to hear it.

    Which is not to say the bandwagon effect you are talking about hasn't happened.

    Parent

    This is what I hate (none / 0) (#165)
    by AlSmith on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:06:17 PM EST

    Frankly I dont see much difference between this kind of fund raising and what Bev Harris did sending out plea-o-grams saying that they "were just this close" to overturning the election and they just needed your $20.

    The people who are giving money under $200 are the ones least able to afford it. Instead they are hooked into the latest "building a religion" effort and continually bled for donations that the candidate doesnt need and they cant really afford. If its so impossible to run his campaign on less than $40M how come people were able to do so four years ago?

    Frankly, since the nomination isnt locked up by anyone both candidates will be getting free press for months. Do you really think that Clinton and Obama wouldnt be covered on the news and talk shows every night if they both raised just $5M?

    If anything I wish the candidates would prohibit donations under $200 to discourage people who cant afford this kind of emotion based charity. How many times did we see on DU or other sites people saying "well I got a notice about the light bill but I am sending Dean [or Kucinich] another $20."? Huh!?! Feed your family- the country will survive.  When Russert asked Clinton in the last debate where she was getting her money from, I wished she called out Obama on his scamming of poor people who really should not be giving [Cf. when he had a family income of over $200K he spokesman claimed that he couldnt afford to give any more to charity than he was]- especially to a cult.

    Finally, I think that encouraging giving by the poor encourages an unhealthy investment in the outcome. A wealthy couple who are lawyers or own a tile store can give the max to a candidate and if he wins, they are thrilled to get invited to a reception. He loses, no big deal doest effect their lives too much. But with the poor, if something doesnt go their guy's way, if a reporter is too tough in questioning, if a rules interpertation doesnt favor the horse they backed, now it is like they are being defrauded. Now they have money they dont want to loose on the line and  are going feel like they are being ripped off- so how do you ever get to a rational system where adults compromise? The FL/MI issue should have been settled months ago but there are too many people too invested. Do the Yankee and the Red Sox compromise?

    If Obama doesnt get the nomination, or loses when whatever other skeletons in his closet are revealed, he  will be transformed into a modern Charles Parnell and his supports will stay home, unable to support anyone other than their tragic hero into whom they invested too much.

    Parent

    Buying the nomination? (none / 0) (#55)
    by sar75 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:51 AM EST
    Why on earth should Obama be ashamed that his fundraising model has proven more effective than Clinton's and that he is thus able to spend more?  This is the sign of the strength of his campaign, not a weakness.  It's certainly not "unfair" as Jeralyn's post subtly suggests.

    Also, it's still not a lot of money.  More money was spent on advertising during the Superbowl than Obama will spend during his entire primary campaign.

    So enough of this "buying the nomination" silliness.  Campaigns are expensive, and some are more effective than others at raising money. Nothing to be ashamed of.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:36:55 AM EST
    That kind of money is what Republicans always harp about being "good". I think it is obscene. We're in a recession and going down, down, down.  Have a deficit that is historic. Yet this is a gleeful event that the guy has a record amount of millions to spend on a campaign?

    I am for campaign reform.  But I know, that's the "old" way of thinking.  

    Parent

    So you think Hillary's 20 million is also gross? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:40:52 AM EST
    I assume?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM EST
    it is all over the top.  I wonder what happened to Obama's support of public financing.  I doubt anything would be done about it even if he got elected.

    Parent
    NOT A LOT OF MONEY! (none / 0) (#158)
    by sar75 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    Is spending $200 million on Superbowl ads gross?  I mean come on - this is NOT a lot of money.  We're electing a president, dammit, for 300 million people. We're a huge country, and 5 billion total for a campaign that lasts 1 1/2 years to elect a Congress and President who each year will be responsible for decisions of war and peace and spending $3000 billion (3 trillion) is NOT a lot of money.  It's absolutely necessary so that politics will rise above the din of popular culture.

    Stop your whining about a few hundred million spent electing the most powerful person in the world.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:15:58 AM EST
    I think he's changing the way campaigns should be run in a good way.  I like that he's getting more young people involved and campaigning hard in red states... Hillary could learn from him.  She's making tons of money herself, and it doesn't seem like she's managing it well at all.

    Parent
    Gimmick?!? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by QuakerInABasement on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:53:40 PM EST
    Registering kids who are coming of voting age is a "gimmick"?

    I'm puzzled by the Post's choice of words there.

    not really puzzling (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:17:18 AM EST
    i think they're tying that with the next sentence--a  basketball match if you register x voters.  in that sense, it is a gimmick/sweepstakes for whoever gets the X people registered (implied: for obama).

    From a more general standpoint, i'd be fine if edwards or someone detail oriented was engaging and registering high school students to participate in the serious process of voting.  Or if the DNC was doing or there was a more meaningful reward.  But obama's basketball match reward accentuates the american idol appeal of his campaign. ahh democracy.

    Parent

    Exactly!! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:48:37 AM EST
    Obama has changed "meaningful reward" to "Obama reward."
    It's all about HIM. Hence, the cult and Koolaid references.

    Parent
    Short-term thinking (none / 0) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:34:48 AM EST
    Somebody, maybe BTD, used the term for the Obama campaign's tactics all along, and this is another example of that, seems to me.  But I can't fault them because it is working for them so far.

    If ONLY Hillary hadn't had such a brain-dead campaign strategy from the get-go!  I can't see her stooping to basketball "gimmicks," but damn, she could have done so much better than she has if she wasn't saddled -- by her own choice -- with that Mark Penn idiot and his 19th century idea of campaigning.

    Parent

    She lost the 17 year old voters in 2005 (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:44:11 AM EST
    with her videogame censorship scheme. No way to put that genie back in the bottle.

    Parent
    Sweet!!! (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:41:44 AM EST
    There is no safer outlet for police-state angst than a good old fashioned GTA rampage:)

    Parent
    It's What You Do With It (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cdalygo on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:16:58 AM EST
    He outspent her in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas but still lost. (Don't even start with the caucus fiasco in Texas.) As someone noted in another thread that doesn't even count the free ride he gets on MSNBC.

    But despite those advantages it has not been enough to close the deal.  

    It's also disheartening that so many of his new supporters don't bother voting down the ticket. That indicates he's building a personality based organization as opposed to strengthening the party.

    What deal are you talking about? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:27:19 AM EST
    Because if you mean the primary, Hillary came in with more cash, more name recognition, a vast network and machine, and she has quite famously and noticeably failed to close the deal.

    (PS, as far as "close the deal," it's a silly phrase more at home in talking points than reality).

    Parent

    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:47:56 AM EST
    Go away.  You want to have a respectful discussion, we're all for it.  You just want to mindlessly respeat Obama talking points and point and jeer, get lost.

    Parent
    Please point me in the direction of the (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:14:55 AM EST
    respectful discussion.  If you read this and think it's anymore the Clintonites ranting then you are just might be one of them.

    Parent
    Please point me in the direction of the (none / 0) (#40)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:19:35 AM EST
    respectful discussion.  If you read this and think its anymore the Clintonites ranting then you are just might be one of them.

    Parent
    I was responding to a talking point... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    Mindlessly repeating talking points, huh?

    I was responding to a talking point, you know, the one wherein just because Obama hasn't wrapped it up completely he's failed to "close the deal." You're just upset because that talking point doesn't work anymore, because it's silly (what deal? This is an election. "Deal" is stupid rhetorically, as I noted) and even if it were appropriate it's far more applicable to Hillary than Obama. Don't project.

    Parent

    Down ticket? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:55:37 AM EST
    I might as well stay home--a dem could maybe get elected to drink poisoned kool-aid here.  The only reason to vote in November is personal satisfaction--but I am coming to the belief that yonder woodpile may contain rodents.

    Parent
    Why Republicans? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:19:54 AM EST
    Does Obama really think that Republicans are crossing over to vote for him because they like him? Is he that arrogant? Or is his campaign aware that Republicans have been crossing over to vote for him since the beginning of the election, both to beat Clinton and to help him win because they believe that he is unlikely to win the general election? Limbaugh threw some gasoline on the fire by suggesting that his supporters should vote for Clinton, but that was a smokescreen. The right is thrilled with the idea of beating Clinton in the primary. They know that Americans aren't going to choose a charismatic inexperienced former drug user again. Look what happened last time.

    Why Not? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:28:15 AM EST
    They did...twice

    Money is not the mother's milk of political campaigns, its the poison injected into discourse.

    Seriously though.  I think that it's fair to say that all his money couldn't buy ONE big-state victory (save IL and if u want to call WI a big state).

    He can win the likes of WY, MT and UT all he wants and spend tons of money there...he ain't gonna take 'em in the GE.

    40 million ain't gonna buy victories in those places.  

    Now ask ME what I would do with 40 mill...

    Parent

    Wisconsin wasn't bought. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:39:26 AM EST
    Sure, it increased Obama's margin, but there was a lot more going for him. For starters, we always get much higher turnout of young voters than anywhere else save Minnesota.

    Parent
    As a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:49:53 AM EST
    I think this is irrelevant and un-called for.

    "former drug user"

    Feh. Ptui.

    Parent

    Not irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:32:51 AM EST
    This is going to matter to a lot of people. There is a reason that Bush never openly admitted to using cocaine. It won't matter to true supporters or to people who grew up during or after the 70's and 80's, but it will matter to a large segment of American's who associate drug use with the addiction and desperation of the "lower" classes. It is not irrelevant. This will become an issue in the election, probably through a 527 or a rumor campaign.

    Look, I don't think using drugs is a big deal. I just recognize that a lot of people do, especially older people who vote.

    Parent

    And that position is fair... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:39:58 AM EST
    ...as long as adultery is open game.

     Look, you want to use these things in the primary, that is fine.  But you have to be prepared to deal with the fact that it is a fair question to ask candidates about their sexual fidelity.  Or more importantly (especially with "older" voters) why it is tolerated in a candidate's marital relationship.  

     That seems fair.  If anything, drugs are more "victimless" than adultery.

    Parent

    Did Hillary commit adultery and is it a crime? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:49:20 AM EST
    Honestly.  If you knew anything about the drug trade, you'd realize it is certainly not victimless (Have you ever heard of Colombia?), let alone does mere adultery compare to it.  And one shouldn't get too comfortable with the adultery issue since the Obamas' marriage will come under heavy fire if he's the nominee (Obama made it worse by saying in a CBS News interview that fidelity was critical to whether a candidate should be elected or not).

    Listen, my family works for the GOP in the South and they know full well cocaine use is seen as a legitimate issue for many voters in Middle America.  Obama made it public.  When Bill ran in '92 he was absolutely smeared as a cocaine user so the GOP won't go after it in a racist way (as some might imagine).

    It plays into the personal narrative trap, which is the great worry in an Obama vs. McCain match-up.  Obama still remains a blank slate while McCain's is one of American duty, bravery, and sacrifice.  The only either candidate can beat McCain is to have the election be about policy--the issues.  Since Obama doesn't have a candidacy rooted in experience or much substance,* he's intensely vulnerable.

    *Pointing to his website won't help; rhetoric and image is what sticks.

    Parent

    Coming on to talk left... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:58:29 AM EST
    ...and saying drug use is not a victimless crime is absolutely scandalous!

     Seriously, my point is that both are equally troublesome/irrelevant.  If you attack Obama on drugs (in the primary) you can expect to be attacked on fidelity (in the primary).  I suppose the same logic would extend to the GE if McCain was not himself an adulterer.  

     You seem to imply there is a problem with Obama's fidelity without a shred of evidence.  In the absence of anything concrete, that is worse than speculative.  Obama has a drug "problem," yes, but Clinton has a fidelity problem.  You take your candidates as you find them.

    Parent

    Clinton has a fidelity problem? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:41:35 AM EST
    Could you provide a link to her infidelities, please?

    Parent
    fideltiy (none / 0) (#87)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    good on ya! (And is this blaming the 'victim'?)  In justice, all those congregations which preach no divorce should be giving HRC their backing, not their condemnation.

    Parent
    Policy v narrative (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:13:05 AM EST
    makes Feingold the best VP for Obama.

    Parent
    It isn't about "fair" (none / 0) (#107)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    Politics is certainly not fair. But issues like adultery, drunk driving, petty crimes, and any other past indiscretions are going to come up in today's election cycles, and they will be used to tar candidates. The day's of the media covering up for minor indiscretions are long past. Instead, they blow them up entirely out of proportion.

    Parent
    thanks for the very enlightening article (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:18:56 AM EST
    >>>Obama's glamour also accounts for some of his campaign's other stumbles. Plenty of candidates attract supporters who disagree with them on some issues. Obama is unusual, however. He attracts supporters who not only disagree with his stated positions but assume he does too. They project their own views onto him and figure he is just saying what other, less discerning voters want to hear. So when Obama's chief economic adviser supposedly told a Canadian official that, contrary to campaign rhetoric, the candidate didn't want to revise NAFTA, reporters found the story credible. After all, nobody that thoughtful and sophisticated could really oppose free trade.

    Obama sure bamboozled the media on that NAFTA deal and Obama supporters still believe Hillary was involved.
    It's my understanding this is the most recent comment (a month ago) from the Canadian government: Hillary campaign not involved. They are investigating the incident.
    http://tinyurl.com/39wvzq

    Yet another reason Obama needs Hillary to withdraw NOW. Obama can't be seen as lying and deceiving - and yet the lies keep leaking out....

    Then, follow up questions... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Oje on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    1. When will the Clinton campaign point out to the leaders of the Democratic party that Barack Obama will require 2-3 times the fundraising that she will in order to compete with John McCain in the well-known swing states?

    2. If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how big of a shortfall in fundraising will the DCCC, DSCC, DNC, and individual candidates be forced to endure due to the exorbitant financial needs of an Obama campaign in the general election?

    3. Lastly, how many Senate and House seats - that would otherwise be open and competitive if Hillary Clinton is the nominee - is the Democratic party willing to surrender to Republicans in order to finance Obama's campaign in the hopes that he becomes a viable candidate during the general election?


    the list is quite long... (2.33 / 3) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:49:12 PM EST
    give a little to Richardson, Leehey, Donna, Martin, Kerry, Teddy, Pelosi, Mathews, Oberman, Oprah, Fineman, dKOS, Sharpton, NBC team, ABC, CNN.. college kids (to buy iPhone), .... .. and finally the rest as charity to Trinity !

    Are you really suggesting Leahy's (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:46:31 AM EST
    supporting Obama because he was bribed? Jeralyn, I'm sure you're familiar with the libel laws.

    Parent
    Well - Obama did "donate" about $800K (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:21:46 AM EST
    to super duper delegates compared to Hillary's $200K.
    Just sayin..

    Parent
    Leahy's not sweating re-election (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:27:21 AM EST
    so I doubt he'd be interested. I suspect he's got the very safest seat in the whole Senate.

    Parent
    I don't know who received Obama's donations (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:35:16 AM EST


    Parent
    I didn't say anything of the sort (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:35:56 AM EST
    My meaning is quite simple: He's got more money to buy ads, that's an advantage of having $40 million. I'm not responsible for what commenters write.

    Parent
    Gotcha. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:19 AM EST
    I don't claim expertise in libel law, but it's my understanding site owners' exposure increases when there's content moderation.

    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#101)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    giving money doesn't always mean bribe's .. that might be what Obama supporters are more accoustomed to but that is not the only thing one means when he says will give it to xyz.. {eg. charity, iPhone for better communication.. etc}

    Parent
    well known tactic (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    of his campaign.  whether you believe it or not ,who gives a rat's a#$

    elections are frustrating, but (none / 0) (#141)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    that is not a good reply.

    Kathy claims to have knowledge of how Obama is gaming the system.

    Her direct Quote: "If you break down the statistics and look at the donor lists, though, the bulk of the money comes from lobbyists and lawyers.  Corporations are bankrolling Obama ..."

    Then you claim, using shorthand for profanity, that it is a "well-known fact" and you don't care whether people "Believe" it. Why should anyone believe something that is asserted?

    The Internet is wonderful at sorting things out, so Talk Left is one of the homes of "All Hillary/All The Time". But that is not necessarily a good thing when people no longer remember that an argument is convincing when it is based on facts rather than beliefs. And that is true even when the belief is in something as obvious as Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    Thank you for resummarizing (none / 0) (#144)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    our positions in such a poignant and clear manner.

    As you seem to be new to this forum, you might want to peruse the archives where many links and threads have been posted discussing these very topics which are, in fact, "well known" to many of us at TL.


    Parent

    And? (none / 0) (#1)
    by bumblebums on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:39:15 PM EST


    And it means (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:34:29 AM EST
    he has quite a financial edge, that's all. No insult intended, just pointing out the disparity in their spending power.

    Parent
    Yeah, I read it a couple times... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:56:29 PM EST
    ...because I thought I was missing some terrible, immoral expenditure. But he's just buying ads and GOTV stuff.

    I think maybe the innate Liberal tendency to "eat the rich" is supposed to come into play here, or something.

    Parent

    No, I think the post is highlighting (none / 0) (#16)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:14:45 AM EST
    in advance what will be absolutely amazing after PA votes: that Obama spent a ridiculous amount of money, many times Hillary, and lost by a good margin.

    Parent
    It won't be amazing... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:22:56 AM EST
    ...it will be demographics. Unless you have a vested interest in "forgetting" it, everyone knows that money can only buy exposure, not votes. So some people like Hillary better, that doesn't mean it's "amazing" that after they saw some ads by Barack Obama they still like Hillary, that just means they like Hillary.

    It's always been weird (and ironic) how people who are behind in the money count unfailingly ascribe this mystical quality to money and treat the cash-laden candidates loss as an amazing, unusual event. It's not.

    Look, Obama has money because his supporters believe in him, he's gonna spend it (if he didn't we'd yell at him), even in a tough state like PA he's gotta try and he's gotta spend the cash we're giving him. But it's not a simple cause-effect relationship between money and votes, and to pretend it is so you can set him up for a fall is inane.

    Parent

    Obama has money (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:49:13 AM EST
    because the media has given him a free ride.
    They've already made him into JRK, MLK,Jr, Reagan, FDR, Lincoln, Jesus - still great corporate money makers after all these years.


    Parent
    No, Obama has money (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:35:05 AM EST
    because 10s of thousands of people like me believe he is the best candidate. We want him to win, so we donate to help him have the ability to compete.
    And please do not insult my intelligence by stating that I support him because of the MSMs favorable treatment of him. I'm a little tired of seeing that POV pushed here regularly. I am perfectly capable of deciding who to support and why without the help of CNN and MSNBC.

    Parent
    Obama's many corporate and lobbyist backers (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:52:33 AM EST
    sure do help a lot, too.

    Unfortunately, that hasn't been translating into the votes he needs to close the deal.  Freakanomics is fully on display here.  There comes a point where all the money in the world is not enough money.

    Parent

    o rly? (none / 0) (#120)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:24:26 AM EST

    speaking of corporate and lobbyist backers... catch a whiff of Mark Penn's recent activities?

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    Saying, "but Clinton did...X" does not redeem Obama.  

    It's rather foolish to think her actions justify his.  It begs the question: if Clinton jumps off a bridge, does that mean it's okay for Obama to jump off a bridge, too?

    Why are his egregious mistakes dismissed because she's made mistakes, too?  This is not a third grade play date.  This is the real world.  

    Parent

    hmm (none / 0) (#129)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    so you're saying it was ok for you to bring up a non-sourced accusation that Obama is awash in support from "many" corporate and lobbyist backers...

    yet, it's not acceptable for me to counter by pointing out a very specific instance in which the man actually running Clinton's campaign is in a foreign country for talks about a trade policy that his candidate purportedly opposes?

    and that, you insinuate, is how grown-ups debate?  

    for your mollification, here is a link to Obama on MTP discussing his position on lobbyists.  IMHO, it's a good, tenable stance... and a few lobbyist advisors aside, i believe he means it.

    Parent

    and most of Obama's supporters (none / 0) (#111)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    aren't aware that Obama is ALSO associated with "The Family" per NBC news.  There were many Obama diaries bashing Hillary for being a "member" - she is not -but no apologies from Obama supporters.

    And Obama supporters aren't aware of the false narrative he wove into speeches about his father's connection to the Kennedy family - cited by the Kennedys and Obama when they endorsed him.
    This untruth was easily refuted by WaPo with tons of available documentation.
    Have you seen any diaries by Obama supporters about his false narrative?

    Parent

    One particular poster here (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    is going to be very disappointed.  That person kept on that issue for several days in several items no matter how many times it was disputed.

    Parent
    Nightly News video 4/3 (none / 0) (#160)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#23943446

    I haven't looked for a transcript.

    Parent

    diary on rec list on "The Family" (none / 0) (#162)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:36:44 PM EST
    but doesn't include an apology on behalf of Obama supporters who bashed Hillary relentlessly - claiming she was a member of the group.
    Now that NBC has placed Obama and other politicians in "The Family" (on some level)- not a peep from Obama supporters.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/4/145233/7447/590/466231

    Parent

    You're right, there isn't a cause-effect element (none / 0) (#117)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:16:39 AM EST
    however, when blogs like HuffPo give giant top page headlines to Obama's cash follow, accompanied by unnecessarily disparaging sub-headlines about Hillary's "bankruptcy" and inability to "pay the bills," it's hard to not imagine that they're using his enormous fundraising wealth as a sign from God that Obama has to be the nominee.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:37:24 AM EST
    is not going to lose PA by very much, I don't think.  Sorry to say.  He knows who his voters are, and he's identifying them, signing them up and getting every last one of them to the polls.

    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#3)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:46:44 PM EST
    That's what he's supposed to do with the money he raises.  Sounds like all good things for his campaign.  Trust me, I am a die-hard Clinton fan.  But I don't bemoan the campaign/candidate utilizing his resources to win....even if Oprah DID give it to him.  <snark>

    At this stage... (none / 0) (#9)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:54:11 PM EST
    the combatants are well known and the money is less of an issue UNLESS, one decides to bury the other with a bunch of negative ads.

    seems like - (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:29:12 AM EST
    Obama operates with the belief that issues are less (important) than the money generated to elect him.
    For some reason, I keep having thoughts about the "Music Man"....


    Parent
    Could you give me (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:14:56 AM EST
    concrete examples where Obama has united or inspired any one governing body toward positive change?  And I don't mean co-inspired, I mean completely on his own.


    Parent
    You just choose to ignore (none / 0) (#93)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:25:38 AM EST
    the fact that he has inspired all his DONORS, and many of them get out and campaign for him too. If he can inspire the American public he can accomplish great things. You will not change hearts and minds by constantly cutting him down, and refusing to acknowledge he has done anything well.

    Parent
    ah, yes (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:29:35 AM EST
    Soaring rhetoric, but no concrete examples.  If only we were all judged on what we could do rather than what we have actually done.  That would be audacious indeed.

    Parent
    One concrete example is his (none / 0) (#98)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:32:22 AM EST
    fundraising prowess. THAT is taking inspiration and changing it into something tangible.

    Parent
    Inspirational change (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    would be telling those stadium audiences to do something meaningful: volunteer to help the homeless, work in a soup kitchen, drive less, protest against torture, protest against the raping of the Constitution, protest against FISA abuses...these are concrete actions Obama could call for, but all he ever does is ask people to buy buttons and vote for him.  Mr. Change and Unity can't even change and unite the democratic party.

    As for fundraising prowess, the last time I checked (this was in Jan) his numbers for the entire election season were within ten million of hers.  So, if you want to talk about having the ability to raise large funds as a sign of prowess, then surely you must also give Clinton credit.

    Parent

    strawman (none / 0) (#94)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:27:37 AM EST

    can you prove to me that FDR never feared anything but fear itself?

    as for Obama... inspiring 1.3 million individual contributions to his campaign is a good start toward  "unity."

    Parent

    I can point you to a long (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:32:14 AM EST
    historical record of where FDR accomplished many, many things, brought a state together, a country together and inspired a nation with ACTIONS as well as words.  It's called experience, and it's what America needed from their leader during a time of extreme poverty and war.

    Though, what would be the point, really?  People see what they want to see where Obama is concerned.

    Parent

    What is that? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    Operate in the world that is in order to make it into the world that should be.

    People do that everyday.  People live their lives by that philosophy.  This isn't new, this isn't Obama.

    Here's the question... what exactly does that mean to Obama, what policy does he have that reflects that, and how is he going to implement it?

    I also would like an example of how he has gotten people together to accomplish legislative change.  That is what govt is for... legislative change.  I have the info that says Emil Jones helped him pad his resume in Illinois and quotes from those people that he has taken credit for their work.  His record in Illinois seems to revolve around community organizing to get out the vote and work on the dealth penalty.  Everyone knows he tried to take credit for the immigration work in the senate and Frank/Dodd legislation.

    I would like to know 3 things he is committed to achieving legislately if he gets elected.  I listen to him debate.  In original interviews and debates, he hadn't yet developed policies. (He was running for President, and had no policies.) I watch him on c-span.  I haven't seen any real drive or commitment yet.

    Parent

    What's the vision thing again? (none / 0) (#145)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    I understand it to be "we are all one" or something like that? That is absolutely magical thinking.

    Or are you implying that he wants to change Bush policies in re; the economy, etc, etc, etc, then you are saying that HE is the only one who wants to do it and no one else is capable of change? No other American can do what he implies he will do?

    Is that your "vision" perception?

    Parent

    Tiffany's (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:01:04 AM EST
    And Super-D campaign funds.

    Heh... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:09:31 AM EST
    ...at least the campaign staff member actually paid their bill at Tiffany's (money has been refunded to the campaign, of course), as opposed to some other campaigns and some other bills at some smaller businesses than Tiffany's.

    Shorter: don't bring up puffed up, BS financial malfeasance when you've got piles of puffed up, BS financial malfeasance on your side. It's a tactical boomerang.

    Parent

    maybe you are new here (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:53:53 AM EST
    but "Look at what Clinton did!" does not usually sway us away from what Obama actually did.

    If she is, as some Obamites believe, a monster, and he does something bad and your defense is that she did something bad, too, then that makes him a monster as well.  Logic 101.

    Parent

    Haha. Good try "old timer!" (none / 0) (#124)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    I'm not looking to "sway" anyone. I'm saying that bringing up something about one candidate when your candidate has done the same thing isn't a good tactic at all.

    Parent
    What you don't understand is (none / 0) (#151)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    Most Hillary supporters, or at least the ones who frequent this site, are aware of these things.  We know her very well - the good and the bad, but we strongly feel that the good outweighs the bad.  All of this "Well Hillary does it too!" is absolutely ridiculous.  We KNOW who Hillary is.  We do NOT KNOW who Obama is.  But what we DO know is that he is giving off a perception that isn't consistent with the reality.  And when we strip away the Hope and Change message we don't see much there.

    Now, you may see something there.  There's nothing wrong with that.  In fact, if Hillary doesn't get the nom, I'd gladly vote for Obama just to see what he can do.  I like him.  But don't come in here and act like we're being disingenuous when we criticize Obama.  It's not a sin to not support him.  The questions that we have about him are legitimate questions.  Get over yourselves.

    Parent

    They both buy ads, they both GOTV... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:05:37 AM EST
    So you think Hillary should stop spending money on ads and GOTV, or what? Of course you don't. No reasonable person dismisses good fundraising or tries to make it into a negative. It's inane, it's hypocritical, and it makes you and your candidate look weak. Hillary's supporters should hope she uses her more meager funds wisely rather than ridiculously pretend Barack is trying to "buy" people's votes.

    The money he spent per vote is almost 300% ofwhat (none / 0) (#103)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    Hillary spent.. yes he is a candidate for change

    Parent
    Obama spends his money (none / 0) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    at Clinton events.  Yesterday it was reported that he had sports tickets passed out outside of a venue where Bill Clinton was speaking to lure them outside to stand in line.

    The young man who won the tickets, had been leaning Obama, the tickets sealed the deal.

    I have no problem with the gimmicks.  I don't donate to the gimmick drives because I personally think it's commercialization of the political process, but it was sleazy.  It's just so old style bullying politics to me.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    Are you one of those people who hate success, or what? They both buy ads in proportion to the amount of money their supporters give them. Obama's supporters give him more money.

    Parent
    If he spends $40 million as efficiently (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:11:04 AM EST
    as I spent the $662.26 outlay on my 2006 Primary run vs Herb Kohl for the US Senate, he'll get another 3,520,000,000 votes.

    Rezko's not going to get us into a war (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:48:09 AM EST
    with Venezuela.

    and neither will Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:52:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Gee, remember when... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:01:23 AM EST
    ...all of those Ohio free traders flocked to Senator Clinton..oh wait.

     Let's see how many posters on this site have double standards.  "Mark Penn doesn't represent this campaign and it is unfair for Barack Obama to suggest..."

     Ugh. So much for the Ohio Myth.

    I just read some posts on this blog from just few (none / 0) (#52)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:04:54 AM EST
    months ago, and I admit this site has went down hill.  I think this campaign has gone on to long and to many people are bitter.  What will Obama's 40 million do, well hopefully make sure a democrat is elected as President of the US.  The thread implies he will try and buy the campaign.  Well their are millions of people out their donating money and I believe the purpose was to support his campaign. Or is it un-democratic to have millions of donors so behind a candidate that they are willing to give them financial support.  

    I don't see the thread implying (none / 0) (#63)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:07:56 AM EST
    Obama will try and buy the campaign; or at least not Jeralyn's original post. It seemed matter-of-fact, a conversation starter. I do agree a lot of bitterness has grown which is surprising. A lot of it comes from the Florida/Michigan situation; each camp has it's own narrative, it's own interpretation of events, and the principals on both sides, "enfranchising people" and "playing by the rules", are fundamental enough it gets people hot under the collar. The primary season won't go on forever though.

    Parent
    One thing I read is that (none / 0) (#65)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:16:57 AM EST
    Obama is raising more money because in the long run having a large number of people giving you smaller donations works better given spending limits than a smaller base of bigger donors. A lot of Hillary's donor's have reached the limit and can't give more until after the primaries, while Obama's donors who've given $50 maybe once or twice are continuing to give.

    Looking beyond this particular election, this seems like a positive development. At least it seams a party with more smaller donors is going to be less beholden to the interests of companies or rich individuals than one that depends on large donors in the long run.

    Parent

    "gone" down hill, you mean. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:56:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Has anyone looked at his 'new donor' lists? (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:40 AM EST
    I've heard a couple dif numbers today, and was just wondering if there is anywhere to see the donor lists.

    It will be filed with the SEC by the April 20th (none / 0) (#57)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:21:27 AM EST
    I'm sure if you can get a copy or it will be posted on some website.  These papers are heavilly scrutinized as they are seen as instant ammunition if questionairy donors are found.  

    Parent
    I really want to know (none / 0) (#72)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:30:42 AM EST
    how he raises that kind of money.  You don't raise $40 million in a month from $20 donations from college kids.  


    Parent
    If I read correctly, (none / 0) (#110)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    the average donation was $96 and change.

    Parent
    Even so (none / 0) (#115)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    It seems like an awful lot of money from small donations.  Admittedly, though, math is not my strong point.

    Parent
    Here is the trick (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    You go to an Obamavent, you buy a five dollar button, you are a small donor.  Historically, campaigns have given away buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.  Obama's folks charge for them.  That is how they make their money.

    If you break down the statistics and look at the donor lists, though, the bulk of the money comes from lobbyists and lawyers.  Corporations are bankrolling Obama just like they bankroll every other candidate.

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's how it is right now, and to think otherwise is very naive.

    Parent

    opensecrets (none / 0) (#121)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    tracks money and companies.  I'm not sure where to get donor lists though.

    Parent
    Name recognition... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:08:28 AM EST
    ...is important, yes?  Senator Clinton has a clear advantage in this department.  It really should be more surprising that she didn't win by larger percentages.  

     As Clinton supporters are fond of noting, Obama only came into the national limelight in 2004.  She has been a national figure since 1992.  With over twelve years of name recognition, and her early fundraising advantage, she should have been a sure thing.

     Why wasn't she?

    I call it Ralph Naderism (none / 0) (#79)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:40:03 AM EST
    I am an Edwards supporter. I support the nominee. Period.

    I am a yellow dog Democrat and have been since the election of 1980. I supported Ted in the primaries. I learned my lesson then. It was a hugh mistake. Jimmy Carter was no liberal, but he was infinitely better than Reagan.

    I have Republican friends who tell me they supported Perot or Buchanan in 1992. They tell me never again. They seem to learn from their mistakes. (yes I point out to them the exit polls show the Perot supporters split evenly in 1992).

    Parent

    Looking forward to the Clinton's tax returns as (none / 0) (#58)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:22:11 AM EST
    promised today.  Something tells me 40 million might be low ball guess.

    And how will the exploitation of her (none / 0) (#148)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    tax return help the Dem Party or the Country how many children will receive health care with that knowledge.  It's just cheap political theater  It was so nice to learn for example thanks to Obama's demand that she release her First schedules that she was in the White House the day Bill got his wind job.  I guess a fart joke can now be inserted here as well which is where this race is heading.

    Parent
    No, money does not... (none / 0) (#59)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:26:05 AM EST
    ...guarantee victories in elections.  Just ask Mittens Romney.  But if you're running against a candidate who is the wife of a successful former president, who carries universal name recognition, who starts with 15-30 point leads in most locations (even more if you go back to last spring, summer or even fall) having money certainly helps close the gap.
    And for your cherry picking of states that prove money doesn't matter, I've got a longer list that can be used to prove the opposite.  Without his fundraising capacity, there's no way he runs the 50 state strategy as successfully as he has.
    She's still going to carry PA unless lightning strikes, but it's a product of demographics as much as anything.  Same reason he's going to carry NC by as much if not more.  But they're both democrats and both infinitely better than McCain.  Agreed?
    (I know, you're going to hit me with 'more like a 48 state strategy instead of 50' but let's just agree to disagree)

    Not at all... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:49:53 AM EST
    ...I have been consistent on supporting the Democratic nominee.  I've said I am not interested in campaigning for her because I don't want to work with her surrogates, but I will not vote Republican because I didn't get the candidate I wanted in the primaries.  And in all honesty, when I say I am not interested in campaigning for her, that doesn't mean I won't participate in the coordinated campaign in November.  I'll just attach myself to a different candidate.  The effect, I suspect, based on past practices, will be the same. Her surrogates have just turned me off.  C'est la vie (as we latte drinkers like to say).

    Parent
    Not productive - tlh lib (none / 0) (#68)
    by DionysianLogic on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:00:26 AM EST
    Ok, I'm an Obama supporter and have been for over a year now, but

    A)  dismissing the notion that Senator Clinton can't win with "there is no serious thinker that puts forth any other scenario." is rude (ESPECIALLY on a Pro-Clinton blog), divisive, and not at all helpful to anyone.  All you're doing is pissing people off.  

    B)  I may agree that I think Obama has the better chance right now (don't want to debate this, my opinion), but Senator Clinton is not out of the race.  She still has a chance of regaining the lead, and until enough super-delegates pick a side that one of them breaks that magic number, calling for her to drop out is in my opinion a little silly.

    As I said, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by DionysianLogic on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:32:47 AM EST
       I do not think it is a likely situation, but that doesn't make it impossible.  Do I think she will win the rest of the states by a 20% margin?  No.  But neither you or I can definitively 100% guarantee it won't happen.  

       Just as one year ago it would have been seen as very unlikely that he would have won the Georgia or Virginia primaries by 30%-35%, it happened.  As I said, it is possible, but unlikely (unless an illegitimate white baby turns up - that's a joke).

       My problem with your post was that you were dismissing offhandedly those on this blog who are hoping and working for that chance for their candidate.  They believe in their candidate just as you and I believe in ours, and as long as we can remain civil, there  is no reason I see why we should need to end the race until both candidates feel they have gotten their fair shake.  

       We all hold most of the same political values, and will need to come together in a couple months in preparation for November, and being dismissive of people in my opinion is counter-productive towards that end.        

                        -DionysianLogic

    Parent

    Have you read the comment policy? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:25:30 AM EST
    JM tries to keep it work friendly.

    Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Censor software employed by law firms and businesses has blocked TalkLeft in the past for these types of violations. It is far easier for us to ban an offending commenter than to get reinstated by the software censors.



    Parent
    indeed (none / 0) (#88)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:03:54 AM EST

    but it's perfectly ok for anti-Obama commenters to trot out goodies like "former drug user," "bribery, "liar," "cult and koolaid" with no repurcussions whatsoever.

    yet, someone points out that the math of a Clinton win is next to impossible, and everyone blows their tops.

    golf clap.

    Parent

    Not sure your point (none / 0) (#89)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:14:25 AM EST
    If your point is both candidates have uncivil partisans, I totally agree. I've reached the point where I mainly reply to the "if my preferred candidate is not the nominee then I won't..." and uncivilly call them Ralph. I am neither pro HRC or Obama. I am pro the nominee and anti-GOP.  

    My point was what I highlighted.

    Parent

    Cheers (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by DionysianLogic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:21:32 AM EST
    that's it.

    Parent
    Obama is the sun? (none / 0) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    I knew he was the light that was going to heal the soul of the nation, but wow, he's the sun.  Here's one for you... how many Obama's does it take to screw in a light bulb?  One.  One to hold it in place and then the world revolves around him. :)   :)   :)

    Sorry, you gave the opening and it was too good to pass up.  Seriously, some a#$ went after Obama just the other day and I requested the person be banned and several people gave that person 1s.

    Wait.... actually, you can ignore this whole post.  I looked at your prior comments.  This is your usual style and tone.

    Parent

    OK here you go (none / 0) (#105)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:15:16 AM EST
    Here is a treatment of a plausible scenario for Hillary with the popular vote.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/no_really_hillary_has_a_decent.html

    You have to scroll down a bit as it has lots of maps that threw off the formating of the page. It looks blank on the top.

    There is no need to match rude comments with more rude comments. I think Obama supporters should model the "reach across divisions" rhetoric and be more mature than their opponents don't you?

    Do you really want to feed the division in the democratic party?

    Parent

    interesting analysis (none / 0) (#112)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:00:05 AM EST

    obviously an optimistic, but not entirely unrealistic, scenario for Hillary... with one exception:

    it has her pulling in 65% in NC.  that's just not going to happen.  and plugging in a more realistic number, even one that still highly favors Clinton, more than eliminates that 100k vote advantage he estimates in his conclusion.

    so this scenario has, IMHO, a vanishingly small chance of coming to fruition.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#156)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:50:36 PM EST
    But it's the most plausible one I've seen overall.

    What I find most intersting is the appalacia stuff. I mean the correspondence between the hills and the votes on some of those maps is amazing.

    Parent

    th lib has been banned (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    for profanity and insults. All 45 comments have been erased.

    Parent
    Thank you for starting off my day with a laugh! nt (none / 0) (#78)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:10 AM EST


    It would be a lot simpler (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:45:27 AM EST

    if you simply repeated the Clinton Campaign talking points verbatim rather than use open ended observations to lead the reader to the same conclusion.

    Let me help.  Here's Wolfson yesterday....

    Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, said: "Pennsylvania, absent the resource differential, ought to be a fair fight for the two candidates." He noted that Pennsylvania is a swing state in a general election and, in some senses, a microcosm of the country. For Obama, he said, failure to win it would raise renewed questions about the Illinois senator's ability to win big states and to close the deal with voters.

    "Sen. Obama ought to be able to win. I think they expect to win," Wolfson said. "If they fail to win there, they will have failed in Pennsylvania."

    In other words, now that "the Obama campaign is now fully engaged in the fight for Pennsylvania," as Wolfson put it, Clinton shouldn't be held to any margin-of-victory standard on April 22. Said Wolfson for those who might not have gotten the point: "I believe that a win is a win."

    So now Obama isn't fighting fair because he raised more money and has run a more disciplined campaigned.  It is simply mind boggling that the campaign that has raised the 2nd most amount of money for any campaign EVER in American history is complaining that is unfair that the guy who has raised the most has, in fact, raised the most.

    I wonder what the color of the sky is Wolfson's World?

    </lurk>

    It isn't a talking pt (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    for just the Clinton campaign.  It's a media talking pt I imagine will be brought up by the Repubs in the GE.   Also, how do you think the Obama campaign views the losses in the states where he outspends the other candidate 2/3 and now it looks like 4 to 1 and doesn't pull out a win?  I agree that if he wins in PN, it's over, but a big win for Clinton means it goes on, a big win over Obama who will outspend her 4 to 1, is bigger.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    Can you guys read a quote, any quote at all?  Nowhere did he say that Obama wasn't fighting fair.  It's like you just make up a meaning for every single statement from the Clinton campaign and fly into an outrage.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:21:41 AM EST
    What exactly does "Pennsylvania, absent the resource differential, ought to be a fair fight for the two candidates." mean to you?  Using plain English is sure seems to suggest that PA would be a fair fight if it wasn't for the money differential.  What exactly do you infer this to mean?

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:30:51 AM EST
    The point of the quote is that Pennsylvania is a fair fight, and therefore there should be no "expectation" that Obama will lose by a certain margin.

    Read it again.  He's saying there's no intrinsic reason why Pennsylvania shouldn't be winnable for Obama.

    I wouldn't be so crabby except it seems every day goes like this.

    Parent

    the "outrage" at every little thing (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    does get awfully boring over time.  

    Parent
    Uhh (none / 0) (#154)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    I think he's saying -- despite the fact that we've raised less money, this should still be a fair fight.

    When he said "absent the resource differential" he was saying that it won't be a factor in the success of either campaign.  He's trying to put both candidates on even playing fields.  There's nothing negative said about Obama in the sentence.  It's just hopeful thinking from him, really.

    Parent

    SMEARS?????? (none / 0) (#92)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:21:45 AM EST
    I have been coming here for only a month or so (daily) and have yet to see a "smear" on Obama, if you want true smear go to kos or americablog or randi rhodes and see what they are doing to Hillary. Sounds just like rush.

    Ha Ha Ha (none / 0) (#96)
    by DodgeIND on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:30:19 AM EST
    Nice one.

    Purchasing the Presidency (none / 0) (#102)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    It is naive of anyone to think the White House can't be bought.

    I was the Manager of Purchasing & In-House Printing for the New York corporate offices of Fuller & Smith & Ross in 1968 when department heads were assembled and told we'd secured the 21 million dollar advertising account of Richard M. Nixon for president of the United States.

    Think about that.

    The amount Hillary raised in February of 2008 equals the entire advertising budget for Nixon in 1968.

    Since we earned a commission on the dollars spent, our mission was simple. Spend it all.

    The media plan was to blitz the television networks with so many ads for Nixon that his opponent couldn't obtain air space to counterattack because we'd already bought it all up.

    Fair?

    Grow up.

    In advertising, selling a president to the people is like selling a hamburger. You doctor up the perception of the product in each case.

    Maybe this is still being done so watch for it:

    Late nights at the editing studio, our techs would review the video and audio tapes of all Nixon's campaign Q & A sessions from the previous day.Then they'd grab any footage shot of him answering a question shot from his profile, or back of his head. If the answer he gave wasn't up to par, Nixon would do a voice over tape of a better answer. Then our techs would splice it in. And that's what the television audiences would see in an on air ad. Perfection.

    It soured me on politics for 20 years thereafter.

    So, don't think the person with the most money can't still buy the most coveted office in the world.

    And before you counter -- yeah, but if Bobby Kennedy had lived -- think about what I've said.

    It was 1968.

    There were only 3 networks. No cable, no computers, no internet, no cellphones. Nixon owned the airwaves by March. A done deal.

    It soured me on politics for 20 years.

    So, why even try? What makes this campaign different?

    Just two things.

    (1) Women.

    (2) Hillary Clinton.

    Remember, this is a good old boys game, year 232.

    Barack may be black, but he's still a man running for the White House.

    That's what makes Hillary Clinton so remarkable. What makes her successes against all odds so remarkable.

    And that's why Obama knows he has to win at all costs.

    It's not just that he doesn't want to be beaten at this game of all games.

    Honey, he doesn't want to be beaten by a woman.

    yep, sen. obama has (none / 0) (#116)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    a lot of money, which may or may not help him win the dem. nomination. should he do so, he will be torched in the GE. all those states he didn't win in the primaries/caucuses? he won't win them in the GE either. most of the states he did win in the primaries/caucuses? he won't win them either in the GE.

    simply put (and you can argue till your face turns blue, it makes no difference to reality.), the "liberal media" will instantly turn on him, should he be the dem. nominee. the republican/right-wingnut smear machine will shred him, taking their cues and talking points from the "liberal media".

    now sen. obama will take the AA vote, no question, probably by 99%, pretty much across the country. unfortunately, the AA vote only represents 12-13% of the total. 99% of 12-13% is nice, but not a winning hand. as well, a good 75% of that vote is concentrated in states that he will lose, the deep south. in fairness, sen. clinton would lose them too.

    the facts are that all of sen. obama's great fundraising haven't actually done him much good, his cost-per-vote is 2-3 times that of clinton's. not a good sign for the GE.

    the bottom line: i have no idea what he should do with the 40 mill., unless he can somehow change his own history, it'll do him no good in the long run.

    Very interesting (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by carrienae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST
    It doesn't matter how much money Obama has. He can't even go way ahead of Clinton? It only means that Clinton is more effective than Obama as a candidate.
    People talks about how important fundraising is for the campaign. Fundraising symbolizes leadership... blah,blah,blah. Yes, I agree but to a certain extent. Obama can have so much funds but his campaign runs an empty campaign. His money is useless. He can't even win the big states. What does that tell you?????
    Pundits talking about if Clinton doesn't run a great campaign, some delegates will switch to Obama. Hillary is running a great campaign in spite of small funds. My God, where has all the sense in this world has come to????????

    Parent
    This money is a boon for Hillary, (none / 0) (#147)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    Obama's campaign strategist truly do not understand the concepts of excess, narcissism or typical and that works for her.  My predictions she wins by 13 points.

    yes: buy low, sell high. (none / 0) (#153)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    Do you do stock predictions as well?

    ty, ty, please be nice to your waitress. i'll be here all week folks.

    How Will Obama Spend his $40 Million? | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment