Denver Paper Asks Obama to Chip In for Convention

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
Tags: Democratic National Convention (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Rocky Mountain News today in an editorial calls on Sen. Barack Obama to "take Denver off the hook" and chip in for the August convention.

Make the calls to your donors, Sen. Obama. Send the e-mails. Denver should no longer be on the hook for Democratic National Convention expenses. A few exhortations to your supporters could quickly retire the city's remaining obligations.

After all, Denver is simply providing the venue for Barack Obama's nomination. It's his party. It's only appropriate to ask his contributors to ensure that the celebration is a rousing success.

Obama has raised $265 million so far. He's now opted out of public financing. Why is he not helping out? [More...]

The Obama team could shake the sofa cushions at his headquarters, relatively speaking, and go a long way toward meeting the city's goal. Think about it: Denver's $11 million shortfall might be 2 percent of the money the senator will raise during the campaign.

Moreover, Obama's decision Thursday to reject public financing will let him tap a wider range of donors, large and small. With public financing, Obama could spend a mere $84 million for the general election. Now, thousands of new donors can participate.

Obama says 1/3 of his contributions come from small donors. If they are small donors, they haven't maxed out their $2,300 limit. And those who have maxed out can still contribute to the Denver Host Committee:

Those who have maxed out have another outlet. They can help Denver and guarantee that Obama doesn't take a PR hit for sticking it to his host city.

As for Republicans, the Rocky notes:

By the way, St. Paul, Minn., the Republican National Convention's host city, has its own worries. The Twin Cities' host committee reported Monday it had commitments for $31 million, but some of that included "in-kind" contributions such as phone lines, food and computer services. Denver may be in better shape because its $29 million is all cash.

Bottom line: This is Obama's party. His supporters should want it to be the best it can be. Colorado Democrats have raised $31 million from private and corporate donors. It's time for Obama to step in.

Leaving Denver (or St. Paul) with open tabs would send a clear but unfortunate message to other cities of similar size that might consider hosting a future presidential convention: Forget about it.

< S.C. Inmate Executed in Electric Chair | Why We Fight >

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.

Denver Paper Asks Obama to Chip In for Convention | 144 comments (144 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by indy in sc on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM EST

is supposed to raise money for his GE campaign; raise money for the DNC for down-ballot Dems; raise money to help retire Senator Clinton's debt; and now raise money for the City of Denver too?

the money doesn't go to the city of denver (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST

it goes to costs and expenses of the convention.

Denver taxpayers were promised no tax money would be used.

[ Parent ]

Sounds Like Denver is looking for a handout (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by CoralGables on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:04:45 PM EST

Were Denver tax payers promised no tax dollars would be used by the DNC? Or were they promised no tax dollars would be used by the City of Denver? This was Denver that pledged these funds.

If Denver promised a set amount when they placed their bid and that is why they won the bid to host the event, then Denver is totally responsible and the Rocky Mountain News is out of line looking for a handout.

[ Parent ]

I hope the voters (none / 0) (#36)
by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:08:58 PM EST

in CO don't see this comment.

[ Parent ]

I hope (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST

They do.

[ Parent ]

I hope they do (5.00 / 4) (#49)
by CoralGables on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST

They should see it. Denver promised 40 million and it is why they were given the Convention. Now they say we only have 29 million to give but still
want the party and we want the tourism but we can't pay. Any other city that offered 30 Million and had their bid tossed should be screaming that Denver is pulling a bait and switch. It's an embarrassment to even suggest this is the fault of anyone but the city of Denver.

[ Parent ]

Tone deaf. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST

You guys are politically tone deaf.

[ Parent ]

Maybe it's not too late (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM EST

To hold the convention in a different city!

[ Parent ]

Maybe they should just cancel it since it (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST

appears the DNC has already decided how this is going to play out...

[ Parent ]

Hilarious (none / 0) (#58)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:24:47 PM EST

Denver would come up with a the money in about 10 seconds, if that were put on the table.

[ Parent ]

Make it happen!!! (none / 0) (#60)
by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM EST

New Orleans or bust!!!!

[ Parent ]

missed something (none / 0) (#102)
by DFLer on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM EST

if what were put on the table?

[ Parent ]

This (none / 0) (#103)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST

Maybe it's not too late (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM EST
To hold the convention in a different city!

[ Parent ]

: Aha! -thanks (none / 0) (#113)
by DFLer on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM EST

Why not move it to St. Paul. It will be like two people showering together to save water. How much greener can you get?

[ Parent ]

Jeeze. You people act as though (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by echinopsia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:33:50 PM EST

We Denver residents weren't sitting right here reading this. This IS a Colorado-based blog, ya know?

Cut Denver some slack, OK? It's been 100 years (exactly) since we hosted the Dem convention. This is historic. The West is important in this election. And it truly is a great city with a lot to show off and a lot to appreciate. Just think - a Democratic convention in fly-over country! How exciting!

And in case you hadn't noticed, the economy is not great and things are expensive. The city promised us the taxpayers would not take the hit on this. And thousands of us have volunteered for the convention - I read somewhere that there were three times as many volunteers as there were volunteer jobs. And that the Republicans aren't getting anything like that kind of response.

I'm volunteering even though I doubt if I'll be a Democrat after the convention. It's really hard to work up any kind of enthusiasm for Obama's coronation, but I figure half the people I'll be driving around will be Hillary supporters.

[ Parent ]

As he is coming off his worst month (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Cream City on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:41:53 AM EST

of fundraising, it may be difficult to ask him to pay the self-coronated leader of the party to pay for the party to make his coronation official.

But, yes, that's the change that he asked for. . . .

[ Parent ]

How does everyone know it's his worst (none / 0) (#25)
by derridog on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST

month of fundraising. Is there a link to the amount? I'm just curious.

[ Parent ]

Google -- it's been reported widely (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Cream City on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:00:36 PM EST

since yesterday, it's in my paper this morning: $22 million for Obama, reported as worst month ever, vs. $21.5 million for McCain, best month ever for him.

[ Parent ]

Here is something off CNN regarding (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST

fundraising...

I found the third article down very interesting too...more race cards perhaps?

[ Parent ]

Obama continues playing the Race Card (3.00 / 2) (#66)
by Josey on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:33:51 PM EST

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) - Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans will "try to make you afraid of me" in remarks he made Friday at a Florida fundraiser.

"The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run," said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. `He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'"

In similar comments at a Chicago fundraiser last Thursday, Obama told supporters that Republicans would try to portray both him and his wife Michelle as "scary."

"They're going to try to make me into a scary guy," he said last week. "They're even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat - 'we're not sure if he's patriotic or not; we're not sure if he is too black.'

[ Parent ]

this angers me (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by ccpup on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:12:55 PM EST

he's hiding behind his race and, in effect, trying to "guilt" voters into voting for him.

If you're a voter who's worried about his nonexistent resume, his inexperience, his waffling, his associations or the simple fact that -- other than Hope and Change -- you have no idea what he's going to DO as President, you still HAVE to vote for him because, if you don't, it must be because he's black and, therefore, you must be racist.

I don't think this is going to work in the GE. In fact, I believe it could backfire big-time and, if he can't hide behind his race, what's he going to use to prop himself up? His resume? His Senate experience?

It's sad that with this historic candidacy, he can't seem to win on the merits alone.

[ Parent ]

hey, wasn't obama the guy that said he (3.66 / 3) (#82)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:26:37 PM EST

wasn't about playing the race card....must have him mixed up with someone else /s

obama has played the race card all along and it was easy for many of his followers to just close their eyes to it. He IS everything he says he isn't...

[ Parent ]

: what baffles me (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by ccpup on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:43:15 PM EST

is that with Obama playing the race card, the Republicans don't need to do it! Of course there are those who will never vote for a black man (or a woman), but Barack playing it will backfire and, conversely, shine more of a spotlight on his inexperience.
All McCain needs to do is stand back and let Obama shoot himself in the foot time and time again. Just be steady, remind people of your service, your military experience and let your Dem opponent flail about trying to make an issue -- to his benefit, he believes -- of his race in order to guilt people into voting for him.
Obama in this early stage of the campaign is making it laughably easy -- using his race, his nifty Seal, his associations (Cass Sustein for God's sake?) -- for McCain to win in November.

[ Parent ]

very smart move (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by tben on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST

its called a "shot across the bow". A way of saying - dont even think of going there, because we are ready to respond.

But gee, let me guess. The very people who have been fear-mongering the loudest about the looming attack machine that will make mincemeat out of Obama, those will be the ones that object to Obama cutting them off at the pass.

[ Parent ]

The GOP doesn't even need to play the (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:28:59 PM EST

face card. They have a thousand page dossier on obama to pull from; and let's not forget how helpful obama has been with his missteps. And lets just wait to see what happens before the gloat fest begins.

[ Parent ]

What baffles me is (none / 0) (#119)
by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:22:53 PM EST

How unable you all are at looking at racism as though it exists. Republicans will use the his race, and have used his race to try to attack him.

Furthermore, it is a genious move. It always sounds bad when one calls out racism or sexism as a reaction to something (see Hillary- regardless of the truth (and I believe it to be true) it is not a strong move to respond because people will claim you are whining. However, if you say the media or person X will try to make me look weak because I am purple with XX chromosomes ahead of the nasty stuff that will come, you will be able to point to it and say see. It doesn't come off as whining, instead it looks as though you predicted what your opponent would do.

[ Parent ]

it's a "genius" move for an Empty Suit (1.00 / 1) (#121)
by Josey on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:37:12 PM EST

McCain doesn't need to play the Race Card. But Obama puts up a strawman, whining that McCain will. I'd rather Obama get out front on the issues, rather than manufacturing a strawman. But playing the Race Card has been a central part of his substanceless campaign and it's not likely to end anytime soon.

[ Parent ]

Obama offers to (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by Grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM EST

help sharpshooter's practice by pulling out the paper target, attaching it to his chest, and daring them to hit it.

Yep! Sounds like a winning strategy to me! </snark>

[ Parent ]

The only people (none / 0) (#122)
by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM EST

That seem to play the race card, are the racists, who talk about the race card.

[ Parent ]

I am sorry (none / 0) (#128)
by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:25:50 PM EST

That was written in anger. I should not have written that.

[ Parent ]

: very true (none / 0) (#155)
by Josey on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:45:03 AM EST

thanks for your apology.

[ Parent ]

it was idiotic (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by ccpup on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:47:27 PM EST

and this "shot across the bow" appeared to be more hiding behind his race than giving people a reason to vote for him.

The Republicans will still beat the heck out of him for his inexperience, his associations, his thin resume regardless of what Obama says now.

And if he plans on running to hide behind his race -- much like MadTV's Bunifa answering those things she doesn't like with "is it because I'm bla-a-a-a-a-ck?" -- every time a 527 slaps him, you better get used to saying President McCain.

[ Parent ]

ABC News (none / 0) (#29)
by waldenpond on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:03:55 PM EST

Obama Has Worst Fundraising Month of 2008

[ Parent ]

: Thanks! (none / 0) (#31)
by derridog on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:05:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Jake Tapper just covered this in (none / 0) (#41)
by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST

his blog yesterday.

[ Parent ]

And they will be asking Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:43:12 AM EST

to help pay for his campaign. Was reading an article this morning that they may ask each others supporters who had reached their limits to send $$$ to the other. So Obama donors send money to Clinton and Clinton's to Obama until GE money/donations can kick in.

But bottom line, they've made it real clear it's his party now. He needs to step up and lead ;)

[ Parent ]

I won't do it (5.00 / 4) (#42)
by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:13:25 PM EST

I will help retire Clinton's debt first.

[ Parent ]

I recently received (5.00 / 3) (#70)
by vigkat on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:41:35 PM EST

my first Obama Campaign solicitation. It was contained in an elegant envelope. The cover letter purportedly was written and signed by Reverend Joseph Lowery (President, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 1977-1997).

The Reverend apparently speaks to a particular demographic. I don't think I am part of it. For one thing, I am not a Christian. For another, I don't think I am "too old." He states he is too old, he cannot wait any longer, he has grown more wise and patient with age.

This is followed by a number of paragraphs that start with the phrase "I'm too old . . ." to do any number of different things. I don't know to whom he thinks he is talking. The implication is that I, too, am too old and must settle now or be forever left behind, etc.

Then there is a letter from Barack, vouching for the Reverend and stating he too is unwilling to wait, even though others have told him he should have waited, etc. I just retrieved these from the trash, so I could adequately convey the message. It missed me by a mile.

[ Parent ]

Seeing as I just got something from (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST

AARP today addressed to ME!, I don't think they want to send that letter here, lol!~

[ Parent ]

Did you tear the letters up and send them (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST

back from whence they came? That sends a message...

[ Parent ]

Not yet (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by vigkat on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM EST

But that is a great idea, now that I have fished it out of the trash. I found it insulting and condescending on a number of different levels, but that may be just me. I never intended to contribute any money to Obama, and this request certainly did not change my mind.

[ Parent ]

I did (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by Emma on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:47:57 PM EST

I sent Sen. Obama's fundraising pitch -- "We are the change we've been waiting for", apparently I'm not "too old" yet -- back in the pre-paid envelope that came with it. Yes, he might just need to manage his money better.

[ Parent ]

Three solicitation letters in about 2 weeks (5.00 / 4) (#126)
by MO Blue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST

Two from Rev. Lowry and one from Obama. A mass mailing from the good Rev. is a mistake IMO. Too many people like me in the Dem party that don't like all this combining religion with politics and too many people who are not Christian.

Sent all three contributions cards back in the stamped envelope they provided me. No money but a message that the NEW Democratic Party did not represent my interests or my values and I am no longer a Democrat. Asked that they remove me from their mailing lists.

[ Parent ]

palomino (none / 0) (#125)
by chupetin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:02:55 PM EST

Tell me, WTF is this supposed to mean? Or are you making Obama's point for him.

[ Parent ]

: Palomino (none / 0) (#153)
by chupetin on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:04:27 PM EST

OK, play dumb.
WTF does he need with Kool-Aid?

[ Parent ]

Asking Clinton's Supporters To Help Pay (5.00 / 5) (#81)
by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST

THAT is not happening in this household.

[ Parent ]

Well, good luck with (5.00 / 4) (#118)
by camellia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:20:43 PM EST

this........

"they may ask each others supporters who had reached their limits to send $$$ to the other. So Obama donors send money to Clinton and Clinton's to Obama"

You think? How many Clinton supporters are going to do this, after the workover we got. AND, how many Obama supporters are going to do this, after their arrogant putdowns of HC's people? The well is poisoned, Barack!

[ Parent ]

Every politician does that (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST

They raise money for themselves, their friends, the party, and any special funds that need funding at the moment. It's part of the game. Those who have, give, and they encourage those who support them to give also. It's a major way of building political capital.

I find it odd that people are so offended by the idea of Obama retiring part of Clinton's campaign debt, even if she is likely to raise 5-10 times that amount of money for him by encouraging her supporter's to donate. Dollar for dollar, it's a sucker's bet.

[ Parent ]

interesting eh? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST

They want her donors, but she can't have any of his . . .

[ Parent ]

I thought he would (none / 0) (#21)
by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM EST

pay off her primary debt, but she would repay him from her general election fund?

[ Parent ]

I don't think she can do that (none / 0) (#34)
by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:06:49 PM EST

For the same reason that she can't simply transfer money from her GE fund to pay off her primary debt. There is a $2300 limit on donations from each contributor for each candidate for each of the primary and the general. Some of the money in Clinton's GE war chest is from people who have already maxed out contributions to Obama for the general election. (A lot of people give to multiple candidates). I'm not sure what happens to Clinton's money. Maybe it gets used for different elections, or given to PAC's for other candidates, or distributed to the DNC. But I don't think she can just give Obama the money. We need a campaign financing wonk around here. I have more questions than answers.

[ Parent ]

I thought I heard that it could roll (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST

into her Senate campaign fund or be refunded.

[ Parent ]

Well, someone here posted (none / 0) (#38)
by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST

that a few weeks ago. Her general election funds could go to him.

Maybe someone else whill chime in today.

[ Parent ]

: it also could be (5.00 / 0) (#68)
by OldCoastie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:36:43 PM EST

that if there are more serious errors in the Obama campaign (like the FISA idiocy), SDs could be changing their minds...
ya never know. Hillary would be wise to NOT give him her GE funds.

[ Parent ]
: My recollection is (none / 0) (#107)
by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:09:02 PM EST

she needs to return the money, or ask the donors if she can place it in her war chest toward her next political race (Senate, Governor, 2012 presidential).
If she were to get permission from the donors to give it to Obama's GE campaign, each donor would have to make sure it, in total with any direct donations they gave him, didn't exceed the total allowable.

[ Parent ]

For a while now (none / 0) (#140)
by Amiss on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:43:58 AM EST

MSM has been announcing that they were holding a joint rally for her to ask her bundlers to donate to his campaign. Then last nite KO announced that HE was holding the rally to ask his contributers to help her retire her debt. I "think" the way it works is HERS give to him and HIS supposedly give to her.

Just MHO. and I dont really care for the way it has been advertised on the MSM.

[ Parent ]

I must agree with indy in sc (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by stxabuela on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST

and I am one of those who would skip the race were the election being held today.

Obama's first priority is raising money for himself in the GE. I would think the second priority would be steering maxed-out donors to down-ticket D candidates in swing states, perhaps a reverse coattails strategy.

I think Obama's biggest mistake was moving the DNC fundraising arm to Chicago. The DNC's biggest mistake was considering Obama to be the Party's personal ATM, with unlimited overdraft protection.

[ Parent ]

: It's not like he can't do both (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM EST

Based on something I read here, 2/3 of his donors are maxed out. The maxed out donors are generally those with money to burn who can afford to give to the primary, the GE, and the DNC, as well as other special projects. All Obama has to do is make a few calls to some of his big donors and have them give a bit more to fund the convention. He doesn't need to call everybody - just the bundlers. A few dozen calls and the job should be done. He won't, and probably can't, simply transfer money from his funds to the convention, but he can gain credibility with the party by showing that he can give them something. He also avoids the inevitable "lack of coattails" discussion that will result from him having a huge war chest while the very public convention is struggling to pay the bils. He needs to show that he is good for the party. This is a step in the right direction.

[ Parent ]
: Yes, but I think he truly likes being considered (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST

the king of all things and didn't discourage not one of these things you mentioned.

[ Parent ]

My question is: (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by crabbydan on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:50:05 PM EST

Why in the hell are we having so much difficulty raising this money?

[ Parent ]

Maybe (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM EST

he should have managed his money better all through the primary. What kind of campaign outspends the opposition by 2, 3 or 4 times only to lose?

I don't think he can afford to pay off Hillary's debts anymore than he can afford to help pay for the convention.

[ Parent ]

Looks like he managed his money quite well. (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by independent voter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:21:55 PM EST

He won the nomination and has over $30 million in the bank starting this month. Do you think it is possible this month will be very, very good for Obama as far as fundraising? All those new CLinton donors.....

[ Parent ]

Wasn't her money considered "connected" (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST

so she was bought and he wasn't? Isn't that how the story line was? But now her big money is good enough for him, eh?

[ Parent ]

: Yep (none / 0) (#65)
by independent voter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:33:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Nope (5.00 / 0) (#76)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:05:59 PM EST

his burn rate was extremely high for what he got in the end. It won't matter that he has 10 million more than McCain on hand right now. At the rate he burns money he's going to have raise at least 30 million a month. Probably even more since he needs to outspend his opponent by at least double.

[ Parent ]

He won (none / 0) (#114)
by Gabriel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST

so it was money well spent.

Once he's president no one will care what his primary burn rate was.

Now if we want to talk about candidates who mismanage a campaign...

[ Parent ]

The topic should not be mismanagement (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by margph on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM EST

He won because he got delegates early in the caucus states. In the end, he was outspending Hillary 2-3-4 times and still losing. So his "well spent money" was evidence of a candidate who was gasping, out of breath, needing a huge boost that the money provided --- just to survive. I don't think "mismanagement" is what should be talked about here.

[ Parent ]

: His Outspending (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST

Was in states where she had a lock. Seems like it forced her to drain her treasure in places she would not have spent so much.
Obama is doing the same with the GE. Putting people in 50 states, normaly unheard of, and forcing McCain to spend money in places where he has a lock, in order to drain his treasure, and maybe pick up some Dem downticket wins.

[ Parent ]
: He won (none / 0) (#150)
by Gabriel on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM EST

and she lost. HRC began this campaign as the clear favorite and with leads among superdelegates even before the primaries started. She managed to squander all that and end with a huge debt. Clearly she has some problems managing large projects, as we saw with her health care fiasco.

[ Parent ]

Hey! But he got a nifty (none / 0) (#130)
by Grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM EST

new seal with part of that money! Vero Possumus!

[ Parent ]

I guess (5.00 / 0) (#77)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:07:07 PM EST

you haven't read about the Clinton fundraisers not supporting Obama either. Many have gone over to McCain.

[ Parent ]

$22 million in May (none / 0) (#115)
by andrys on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM EST

That was his weakest month so far and it's probably because people feel he doesn't have to win more primaries.

McCain raised $21 million in May.

[ Parent ]

And he only took in 22 million in May.... (none / 0) (#43)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:14:04 PM EST

wonder if his corporate money is drying up due to buyer's remorse.

[ Parent ]

That's right, it's his job as (none / 0) (#116)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:34:43 PM EST

the head of the Party. He is supposed to raise money for everyone. Not just himself. That is why he wants people to donate to just his organization. So he can control the outflow of funds by the DNC to downticket candidates. So since he wants control, he can have the responsibility. That's the way the real world works.

[ Parent ]

A Question... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by CoralGables on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST

I'm unfamiliar with the process, but did Denver bid on hosting this convention by guaranteeing money? If that's the case I would suggest Denver needs to step up and meet its own commitment.

It's been doing its best... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:19:40 PM EST

But there are plenty of things that have made it more expensive.

One thing that comes to mind is the fact that the Dems have asked that the convention be completely green...and that the food provided be locally grown.

All fine and good. But the convention's in late August, which is not exactly the most bountiful period in that area's growing season.

IIRC from my time living in Boulder, it tends to be the driest time...

It's not unexpected to want the nominee and the DNC to come forward to help cover the added demands that were probably tacked on after the bid had been accepted.

[ Parent ]

Kwedwyn (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by CoralGables on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST

The problem isn't coming up with money for any added costs, Denver is 11 million short of what they "guaranteed" when they placed their bid. If Denver promised 40 Million and they can't come up with it, then the Rocky Mountain News should be calling out the members of the Denver Host Committee that promised the money... not Barack Obama.

I find the entire attempt to lay blame at the feet of anyone but the Denver Host Committee and the City of Denver an embarrassment.

[ Parent ]

: Embarassment? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST

Oh dear...not another one.

[ Parent ]

I don't think it works that way (none / 0) (#22)
by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:54:41 AM EST

The cities "bids" for the convention the same way a contractor bids for a big construction job. They expect to make a profit, or at the very least break even. The whole point of hosting a convention is to bring in money - hotels, restaurants, local attractions. There is also a certain prestige factor, but cities like Denver don't need publicity so much that they can afford to put up millions for somebody else's show.

[ Parent ]

I believe CoralGables is correct (none / 0) (#109)
by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST

Every city that bid for these conventions made promises in their proposals to win the event, including what they would fund. I'm not surprised they are trying to tap into Obama's money, but he is well within his rights to say no. His fundraising efforts are for his campaign and his donors have a right to say how they expect him to spend it.

[ Parent ]

I took the call from Denver (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by Valhalla on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:50:37 PM EST

to mean they want him to ask people to donate to the convention, not to use money already donated right out of his war chest.

Seems easy enough to do, and if his supporters don't want to send money to the convention all they have to do is not send it.

Esp. since these days I keep seeing references to the Obama campaign possibly raising half a billion dollars by the GE, which is more than 100 mil a month. Any donors maxed out for both primaries and GE could send money to Denver and still be contributing to the 'cause'. The more press about the gazillions he'll raise, the more he looks rather ungenerous to Denver.

I wish he's made a strong call to send support to people affected by the floods (not just a button on his website) -- it would garner thousands in free publicity for him and make him look quite good.

[ Parent ]

: Cash up front? (none / 0) (#136)
by SamJohnson on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:16:09 PM EST

Any convention contributions are tax deductible, therefore they should be unrestricted as to amount. Basically, Denver is kind of asking for an advance that won't necessarily be paid back, but rolled into expenses. They will take in much more money than what they spend on the actual convention, although the big amounts will go to vendors of all types as well as people who will pay taxes on salaries. The host city usually makes out pretty well. The city is probably being very conservative, and hewing to the not spending any taxpayors money investing in a structure to make the city money. They are kind of asking for money to cover their anticipated expenses because they don't want to get stuck with a bill. Am I making any sense?

[ Parent ]

The wsj (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:35:41 AM EST

reported that Obama had lethargic fundraising numbers for May. He probably spend 10 million more than he took in if he had the same burn rate in May that he had in April.

No one has pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST

Just how much of that money he's spent. Yeah, he's raised 265 million. But most of that money has been spent already. In fact he spent more in May than he took in, which is pretty unbelievable.

[ Parent ]

How much is general v. primary? (none / 0) (#18)
by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:47:58 AM EST

There are two funds, one for the primary and one for the general election, and never the twain shall meet. I haven't seen any numbers about how much Obama has raised for the general election. Usually, they raise money for both during the primary. When you have a big donor on the phone, why let them stop at $2300 when you can get another $2300 out of them for the GE?

[ Parent ]

That I don't know (none / 0) (#35)
by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM EST

The numbers out there always seem to vary (much like the polls this year).

I get the feeling that with Obama's small donors, they usually donate $25 at a time and that money goes into the primary fund instead of the general fund. I think when we see the June fundraising numbers, there should be a substantial improvement for Obama.

[ Parent ]

What can she use that 40 mil for? (none / 0) (#73)
by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST

I didn't completely max out to Hillary but I gave more than I've ever given before.

[ Parent ]

Good Question (5.00 / 0) (#83)
by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:26:47 PM EST

If I donate to Hillary now, how do I know that money will go to retire her primary debt and NOT be turned over to Obama?

I was thinking of sending her another contribution. So long as there's a chance my money will wind up in Chicago I will not do that.

[ Parent ]

Yes (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by echinopsia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST

You can still donate to retire her debt.

Hillary campaign

Heidi Li' Potpourri - a blog devoted to retiring the debt.

[ Parent ]

HRC conference call (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Emma on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST

In conference call in Fri., HRC told supporters to please contribute to help her pay her vendors. She's not going to use the money to repay the money she loaned the campaign, that's an "investment" in her words. But she did ask for help to pay vendors.

She also asked for people to help Obama and down-ticket Dems, but that was a separate request.

So, I take that to mean that money donated to her primary campaign will go to retire the debt. I trust her on this. YMMV.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, I think it's quite clear (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Valhalla on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:57:34 PM EST

that money going to Clinton now is to retire her debt, not to contribute to Obama. I've already sent a couple of checks for $20.12.
I would send more if I had it; I'm not near maxed out but am near tapped out.
Even if I was excited about Obama, I'm not sure I'd have money to send at this point. I'm wondering if a lot of those alleged 'small donors' are in my position too, or if there wasn't a lot fewer than the campaign made it seem all along. I know a lot of people who will vote for BO but will absolutly not send money or volunteer for him.
Obama has no choice at this point but to take a lot of big $, esp. if he's really going to advertise during the Olympics. But few people mind using corporate money when it's for their candidate; it's one of the reasons it's so difficult to fight.
Obama has $43 million on hand now, 10 of which is for the GE. In May he took in $22 million and spent $26.6 million. The DNC only has about 5-7 million in the bank (I've seen different numbers), while the RNC has more than 50 million. There have been several optimistic reports that Obama could raise $100 million in June.
We'll see.

[ Parent ]

Make the donation via her web site (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:23:20 PM EST

or mail it to her campaign HQ.

Her GE fund must be returned to the donors (most probably already hit their primary limit and can't allow her to redirect it to her primary debts), or they can permit her to put it in her war chest for the next campaign she runs (Senate, Governor, or the next presidential).

[ Parent ]

She can't give (none / 0) (#91)
by LoisInCo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM EST

your money to Obama. At most she can give refends to those who wish them, so that they may donate to Obama.

[ Parent ]

She can't just turn it over (none / 0) (#123)
by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:42:52 PM EST

Here. It's Wiki, so it's not 100% reliable, but it sounds reasonable.

[ Parent ]

I think (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by Emma on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST

money left over in the GE fund can be rolled over to her Senate campaign. Which, to me, seems good for her as it gives her some breathing room for the 2012 Senate race.

(or ahem presidential race ;) )

[ Parent ]

In fact, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EST

McCain did surprisingly well, raising almost as much money as Obama.

[ Parent ]

Yes - McCain raised same $ in May as Obama (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST

While both raised about $22 million in May, this amount reflects a substantial decrease for Obama from his typical $30 million + per month. In addition, the RNC has outraised the DNC many fold. According to online reports, Obama has also started reaching out to Washington-insider lobbyists. Although numbers for June will not be posted until mid-July, I'm sure Obama's campaign knows how much has come in already. Could the campaign's silence on helping Denver out in funding the convention reflect $ worries?
Articles are here:

and

[ Parent ]

Here's my take on it (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM EST

Obama kinda collapsed into the nomination. Now right now he's got a lead (I don't think it's as big as Newsweek's but he's definetly ahead) because Clinton has endorsed him and more impantly because gas prices are at record highs.

I think that many of his donors might have dropped off. Many maxed out, many got tired of giving, or some simply grew disillusioned with Obama. However, that was in May. Since gaining the nomination, his fundraising for June might have improved substantially.

As for McCain, his campaign is tone deaf but he has been able to improve his fundraising. Now the one bright spot for the Rethugs is that the RNC has far outfundraised the DNC. I get the feeling that the Republicans are basically going to sacrifice the House and the Senate to throw everything they can into protecting the presidency. I think at some level, Obama's decision to move the DNC to Chicago was because of this. He knows there are plenty of people who don't think he can win and will want to spend money on Congressional Races. Obama will have none of that. He wants all the Democratic money to go towards the presidential race.

[ Parent ]

: Too many undecided (none / 0) (#149)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:07:23 AM EST

in my opinion to feel comfortable with any lead in polls at this time.

[ Parent ]

I was hearing some spin that (none / 0) (#16)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:47:28 AM EST

it was the end of the primary/donors limited out etc. Which could be true. It will be interesting to see how much of his June donations come from small donations vs large and pricey fundraisiers.

But there is the matter of donations declining prior to May . . .

[ Parent ]

Declining donations, declining spending (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by Cream City on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:05:59 PM EST

according to an analysis by the U of Wisconsin, which I posted some weeks ago here (also search jsonline.com). After outspending Clinton 5 to 1 in Wisconsin in mid-February, Obama's spending declined to 3 to 1 and then 2 to 1 in subsequent months, when he lost again and again.

That made me wonder why he didn't keep up the 5 to 1 or at least 4 to 1 outspending, since that's what it took to win -- at least pre-Wright debacle (as the Wisconsin win was before that). Does that mean it may take 10 to 1 outspending to win the general election? That could explain his reluctance to help Denver, to help Clinton -- and, of course, his flipflop on public campaign financing. All add up to worrying about money.

[ Parent ]

: I Think That Decision On Public Financing (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST

was a roll of the dice. It's obvious that Obama thinks the money is going to keep rolling in.
He may be in for a really nasty surprise.

[ Parent ]
: Wouldn't his decision on public financing (none / 0) (#37)
by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST

seem to suggest that he feels comfortable enough with the money situation? I think his reluctance to help in Denver and to help Hillary is just pure selfishness on his part.

[ Parent ]

Seems To Me (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM EST

That they should not only be asking Obama, but all the airlines, hotels and other businesses that are going to rake in the dough from the convention.

Wasn't there a reason Denver fought to host the convention? Unless there is something unusual about people from Denver, I am sure prestige took a back seat to profits.

Good point (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by lentinel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST

Who actually fought to have the convention in Denver?
Was it the city itself, or a select number of corporate interests?

The corporate interests that directly profit should contribute...but I think that hotels and local businesses contribute already in the form of whatever state and local sales taxes they collect.

I wonder if the networks that will cover - broadcast - this performance will be paying Denver or the DNC? They will be making oodles of money from their advertisers. I suppose the democrats will consider it necessary free publicity.

Off topic - Conventions used to be a news event. Reporters were covering the goings on and decisions by the participants. Now, it is simply a grand production number - complete with hymns, prayers, singing and dancing. As if we have time for this....

[ Parent ]

: As it sounds now, (5.00 / 0) (#100)
by Molly Pitcher on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:08:32 PM EST

this convention with be of interest only to the cadre of O. supporters.
BTW, saw an article that the nominee usually helps pay campaign debts for the primary loser. Hillary owes $21 mil. I heard; well, they can afford it, but I will contribute my mite.

[ Parent ]

I suspect that they've already (5.00 / 0) (#90)
by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST

done so.

[ Parent ]

Where On Earth (5.00 / 0) (#92)
by creeper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST

do you think airlines are going to get money to kick into this convention? Have you looked at their balance sheets lately? They're bleeding money and every day fuel prices go up it just gets worse.

Do you not understand that the reason cities bid for these things is so that their airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc. can MAKE money...not spend it?

[ Parent ]

Yes of course (none / 0) (#46)
by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST

Impose a convention tax on the businesses that seek to profit from the convention!!!!

[ Parent ]

Well, he's considering this a true (5.00 / 5) (#24)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:55:34 AM EST

public financed campaign {cough}. My problem is that they are hoping to raise 250-500 million ON TOP of the money from the primary. I personally find that a bit obscene. How much money does he think we have?! Not sure about Obama supporters, but some of the Clinton supporters posting on her blog were making sacrifices just to send a small amount. In light of that, I think he should have taken public funds and let the rich folks contribute to 527's etc. People that can afford it can also send money to them or the DNC. But he just put a heck of a burden on people.

: His judgment is showing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:35:40 PM EST

He is ignoring the fact that many Clinton supporters are now sending their "donations" budget to the midwest to help the victims of the floods and tornado's.
Those are tax deductible, unlike political contributions that are not.
Gas prices are eating the rest of our disposable income.

[ Parent ]

I think that