Denver Paper Asks Obama to Chip In for Convention

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.


    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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!

    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...

    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.

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

    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?

    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!

    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?

    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.


    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. . . .


    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.

    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.

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


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


    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.'


    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.


    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...


    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.  


    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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>  


    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.

    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.

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

    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.


    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

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

    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  ;)


    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.

    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.  


    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!~

    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...

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

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

    "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!


    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.


    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 . . .

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.    


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    Looks like he managed his money quite well. (5.00 / 2) (#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.....

    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?

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

    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...


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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!

    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.

    $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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.


    Embarassment? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    Oh dear...not another one.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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?

    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.  

    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?

    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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).


    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.

    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.

    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 ;) )


    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.

    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:



    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.  


    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.

    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 . . .


    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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....


    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.


    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.

    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?


    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!!!!

    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.


    I think that's why. Every time the DNC would (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    call me, I would tell them I'm not giving them any money until they stop putting their thumb on the scale for one candidate and until they seat Michigan and Florida.

    The first time I said that, the woman said she heard that a lot. I said please tell Howard Dean. She said, "he knows."  The last time they called and I said that, the guy just gave a long sigh (like he'd been hearing this a lot) and said "okay, okay" and hung up.

    My question is: they KNEW this was happening and that their attitudes and stances were responsible for them not getting any money from Hillary's supporters, so WHY didn't they address this problem?  They are either utterly stupid, or utterly bought out by the Obamabots. I can't figure out which, but I suspect the latter.

    Your money wasn't wasted (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    I didn't send that much to Clinton, but my husband and I gave several hundred even after it was obvious she wasn't going to win, and even though we're on a bit of a spending slowdown. It was important to us.

    Obama is NOT funded exclusively by small donors. He never was. Before he was the frontrunner, he had much of his money coming in from small donors, but since he hit the big leagues he has been funded by the same fat cats who funded every other election in the last 20 years. They can afford to chip in a bit more for the convention. All he has to do is ask.  

    Obama has more small donors (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    but they aren't the ones where he gets most of his money. He gets it from these people..bundlers. Note the number of lobbyist bundlers. And those homemakers must have really messy houses these days, given the huge amounts they have been raising for him. Heh.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Montague on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM EST
    Not wasted at all.  I gave money to her to make a point to those who were clamoring for her to quit (which was outrageous), and to give her reasons to keep going because I wanted her to fight for her/our campaign and her/our issues.

    Here's An Idea (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    Clinton should get back in the race so Clinton Hating Obama supporters will have a reason to give him money again.

    Once again Edgar hits the nail on the head... (none / 0) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    Silly (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Blue Jean on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    The Democratic party exists for the benefit of Obama, not Obama for the Democratic Party. (/snark)

    past convention funding? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ClareAK on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
     Has this situation occurred in the past?  Are there other times when the host city couldn't come up with the funds it promised?  

      About Obama...everyone keeps hearing about his terrific ability to raise money.  When you come into a lot of money, suddenly you have all kinds of relatives who could use some of it.

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:45:40 PM EST
    Boston was even farther behind at this point in 2004. They made up the difference in last-minute donations.

    $2008.44 (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Emma on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    I like that number!  :)

    ROFL! (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by AX10 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    I don't want to hear one word about how people such as myself "must" chip in to support the city of Denver.  The DNC is fully responsible for this one.  The common folk such as myself and the 18 million that voted for HRC are NOT responsible for this.

    Dumb question coming up .. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by camellia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:32:30 PM EST
    ....  If the party has already chosen its nominee and is busily engaged in electioneering for the GE, then What Is The Point of a convention?  

    (Sorry -- as I have said before, I am a furriner and don't understand things here too well.  Can someone please explain why Denver should spend all this money to have a pep rally for Obama?)

    Well... (none / 0) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:13:25 PM EST
    The only way to explain it is, it's been done this way for quite sometime. In the past it was a way to get free television time and the convention would often be covered in prime time on the major networks.

    Now it's essentially a time for party regulars to get together, wear silly hats, drink a little too much, and hold a pep rally for the candidate.

    Denver wants to host in hopes of a tourism boost at a time of year that Colorado isn't well known for tourism. (summers in Colorado are gorgeous, lots of hot air balloons and mountain biking).

    To answer your questions in a nutshell...Denver because they wanted it, and a convention because it's tradition.


    You know for a Democratic Blog.................. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ultramagnetic on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:15:17 AM EST
    You know for a Democratic Blog..................
    It seems there is an awful lot of hate here. FYI Rev. Lowry isn't being used to juxtapose religion and politics. Rev.l Lowry is one of the few Remaining civil rights leaders who worked with Dr. King. He was King's confidant and adviser. The whole 'too old to wait' phrase stems from the fact that members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried to talk Obama out of running by telling him he is still a young man and can wait for another election to run for president. These CBC members had committed to back Hillary long before they knew he was going to run.

    i'm sure if the divine one (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:38:04 AM EST
    taps his staff on the side of a hill, cash will come pouring out of it.

    you just have to have faith!

    oh, wait, that guy didn't get into the promised land!

    LOL (none / 0) (#147)
    by rnibs on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    With our luck, the chosen one will prolly end up leading the Dems into pointless wandering in the desert for another 40 years.  

    Actually 2012 will be the 40th anniversary of the nominee selection process that started in 1972.  Hopefully the Dems will realize that it's time to give it a tune up.


    Obama's supporters have all broken their (3.66 / 3) (#20)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    piggy banks to get him through the primary coronation process.  I doubt their allowances are large enough to make an impact in the general election much less help out the DNC and Denver.  

    That is a rude and dismissive comment n/t (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by independent voter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    Take a look at who donated to his campaign (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    for the primary and see if you still think this is a dismissive comment.  He just had his lowest month for money.  And it's a fact that many of his donors gave for the first time.  I truly doubt that all these small donations are going to come again for the general election.  And I think there's a case of buyer's remorse for a lot of people so that will affect him also.  Call it whatever you want, but please don't bury your head in the sand.

    Youth vote is on Vacation (none / 0) (#146)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    will be back in the Fall, once all of the swift boat attacks start, their small change will go rolling in.
    Obama gave up Public Finance-that must mean he feels pretty solid. Why shouldn't he help Denver-after all it was choreographed around him (MLK 'n all)

    But the Independence Declaration (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by SamJohnson on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:32:38 PM EST
    that the Obama team is circulating for July 4th has almost 75,000 names. At 2K a pop that's 150 million. To reach that amount on $25 contributions would take 6 million people. 1.8 million is what would be raised if 75,000 people donated $25. Let's not forget that the only Democratic pac that has agreed not to raise money is MoveOn Pac, which has been inactive for at least two years. Just getting that feeling that a lot of people were sold a bill of goods in many ways. Not the way I should be feeling with a presumptive Democratic nominee, now is it?

    He should help (none / 0) (#7)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    This is his party now the convention is being held for him.  

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    his supporters were trying to raise money for the convention. I guess it hasn't been successful.

    Yes but Obama himself could lend a hand (none / 0) (#15)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    It's not enough for supporters to simply go around asking money, a major effort from the candidate will actually help raise the money.  Obama may not want to though as he may want all the money for himself.  Thus far, what we have seen him do is consolidate power quite effectively.  

    Conundrum (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:12:16 PM EST
    for the DNC and host committee.  Everyone was so blinded by dollar signs and thinking that all these younger voters were joining the political process, they forgot to take a bit of a closer look.

    I'm betting we find that most of the small donors were contributing to Obama, period.  Not the Democratic Party, and not the convention.  They were paying for the rock concerts, not to advance political process in America.

    I'm at a bit of a loss to understand all the resentment towards Denver.  Aside from the practical matter that Obama's support for the convention only helps him, what happened to hope and change and unity?  To we're all in this together?

    That may sound sarcastic, but in those comments I hear the echoes of the mean-spirited, selfish mores that the Republicans have so successfully instilled in our national consciousness.  "They deserve it'  'they should suck it up' 'to hell with them, they're leeches on the system.'

    I'm not giving to Obama, the DNC or Denver, but heck, at least I'm following a principle and not just trying to punish Denver for attempting to improve their city, its image, and foster positive party feeling.  Sheesh.


    How will Colorado vote in the GE? (none / 0) (#44)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:14:42 PM EST
    If the dems manage to alienate many of the local taxpayers, will it hurt their chances in any of the races there this November?  Could the CO republicans spin this to discourage voter support for Obama in the state on election day?  The electoral college votes are an all-or-nothing prize, after all.

    Odds are... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    It'll go R.

    2004? CO was supposedly in play....only it wasn't.


    But it kinda was (none / 0) (#142)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:49:50 AM EST
    Dubya only won there 51%-47% with about a 100,000 vote margin.  I think it could be made up.

    Can I just ask (none / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:37:43 PM EST
    Why does a 4  or 5 day convention cost more than 31 million dollars?  

    That just sounds ridiculous to me.

    With current petrol prices (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:49:28 PM EST
    ..rubber balloons are expensive ;-).

    links must be in html format or (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    they skew the site and I have to delete your comment.

    I have been wondering (none / 0) (#143)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:02:28 AM EST
    How exactly do you do that?

    Handy Guide (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    Here. The easiest way is to use brackets [   ]. Type or paste  the text you want to use for your link inside the brackets and then paste the URL to the right of the text. Space between text and URL does not seem to matter.

    [text URL] then preview, check the link and post.