Obama Raises 52 Million In June

A good fundraising month for Obama:

Senator Barack Obama raised $52 million in June, his campaign announced on Thursday morning, more than twice the amount he raised one month earlier before claiming the Democratic presidential nomination.

. . . Last week, Senator John McCain announced that he had raised $22 million in June, which was the best fund-raising month of his campaign. So while Mr. Obama’s $52 million haul is significantly higher, he also faces a bigger fund-raising burden because of his decision to not accept public financing. . . . . [Obama] . . . has set a goal of raising $200 to $300 million for their general election effort.

More . . .

Right now Obama has 72 million dollars on hand. The DNC does not seem to have much money, though it did raise 22 million in June and now has 20 million in cash on hand, so Obama will need to at least keep up this fundraising pace (more likely exceed it) as the McCain camp and the RNC combined have around 100 million dollars on hand compared to 90 million for Obama/DNC. In terms of the general election spending, which does not formally commence until after the Conventions, McCain has opted into the public finance system which provides him 85 million dollars for the 2 months after the Convention (on top of the RNC spending). For opting out of public finance to make sense for Obama, he'll need to do better than 52 million as he is soaking up money that could have gone to the DNC.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Rolling Stone Ronnie Wood Enters Rehab | Accountability In The Big Tent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not donating to DNC (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:11:20 AM EST
    this year. As an adjunct to the Obama campaign I would expect he'll see to it's needs. My money is going into local races and my Democratic, albeit bluedoggish, Congressman's coffers. This is JD Hayworth's old district so you can understand that I don't care to have a little JD clone in the House.

    Good for BO BTW. We needs us lots and lots of money to get us a Democratic President.

    my money will be going to CA to defeat (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:34:32 AM EST
    the constitutional ammendment banning marriage equality.

    But, I wouldn't worry about the DNC, because I heard during the primary season that Obama would be GREAT for all the down ballot races.  And, I have heard since that the Obama campaign is doing a real bang-up job of coordinating within the states to help them all out too.

    FISA and fundrasing. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:48 AM EST
    I wonder how much money the FISA vote cost Obama? When prominent people like Kos essentially recommend witholding money then you know that a non-trivial percentage of people feel the same way.

    I know my parents decided to suspend donations for a while and I sent my political donation to Darcy Burner last month.

    So how many million dollars did his FISA vote cost him?

    No way to know of course, but I'm certain that it did.

    I contributed to Trauner (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by rustydude on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    I also contributed to Move-On because contrary to what the Obama camp wants, I really believe 3rd Party progressive advocates need to be heard from in this campaign.  I'm an Obama supporter.  Have been for several months now, but we all need to practice independent judgment.

    that's a great question Faust. (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    The number would probably have been astronomical if not for the FISA flap. I know some of O's most radical supporters have said they would suspend donations and campaigning for him until further notice.

    I hope a lot (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:22:24 AM EST
    I imagine a few million.

    It cost him from me (none / 0) (#94)
    by Belswyn on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    I was planning to max, now I probably won't give.

    He'll get my vote, but that's all.

    What I'm interested in knowing, though, is what the projected differential in presidential funds is for this election compared to other elections. If McCain/RNC and Obama/DNC are about equal, isn't that significantly different from other elections, where the Republicans are usually way ahead in money?


    And Me (none / 0) (#140)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    Although my measly $15.00-$20.00 here and there are probably only registering as one fewer 'small donor'.

    Not the best it could be, but (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Jim J on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    certainly a good bit better than a lot of naysayers here were predicting.

    I'm an Obama skeptic, but I want him to win in November and I take this as encouraging news. I have moved on from the whole HRC/BO kerfluffle and I wish others would, too.

    I, too, have "moved on" (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    from the the HRC/BO kerfluffle" and I still want the dems in power in congress (albeit hopefully better than they are now), but I still think the country deserves alot better than the current presumptive nominee. And so, for me, this has nothing to do with the "kerfluffle" as you call it. It has to do with the candidate himself!

    Make him happy? (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    They should try to find a way to make him happy and get him involved.

    I think that ship has sailed. Bill has made it quite strikingly clear that he has no intention of helping out Obama. (To which I say, good for him.)

    It's not "access" (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    if you have children. Then it's mandated is what I think is meant.

    At the end of May, the DNC moved Obama (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:24:00 PM EST
    to the brink of securing the nomination.  The first week of June, he became the presumptive nominee.  June should have been a record month for fundraising, shouldn't it?  I mean, leaving aside the technicalities of being nominated at the convention, the party had its nominee, and the checkbooks from a combined supporter base should have opened wide and deep.

    Okay, so I guess the argument is that Hillary refused to concede or suspend the night of June 3rd, so it must be her fault that the floodgates did not open right away.  The nerve!

    But even that is cause for concern, isn't it?  If a considerable number of those who should be the most motivated to give - those who have already been interested and involved enough to donate money to a presidential candidate - refuse to do so, this is a problem.  

    June is not vacation month; a lot of kids are still in school, the water's still pretty chilly at the east coast beaches - people are still engaged.  July and August - especially August - are big vacation months, so it should have been extra important to have huge fundraising numbers in June.

    Not only is July a big vacation month, but July is the month Obama sold out on FISA - and a lot of people who were considering opening up their wallets and checkbooks had second thoughts, to the point where a lot of them declared that no money would be given to the campaign.  A lot of them gave up their membership in the party, so disgusted were they with both Obama and the DNC.  That is going to show up in the July numbers.

    It's still a lot of money, and it's more than twice what McCain pulled in, but it seems to show that the more people see of Obama, the less willing they are to contribute to his election.  

    Count me as another one who finds the whole "courting" and wooing" frame to be seriously tone-deaf.  It wrongly assumes that those who have not climbed on the bandwagon are bitter, angry women who feel "jilted" and "betrayed," as opposed to recognizing that those who are not supporting Obama are both men and women, that we are intelligent and informed and made our decisions based on reason and principle.  For too many of us, there was a realization that we were not interested in settling for mediocre, were not willing to lower the bar just for the sake of the (D) behind his name, could not just ignore that on issue after issue, he was selling us out for conservative positions and votes.

    I don't want a candidate to seduce me with sweet talk and roses to get what he wants - I want a candidate who works his butt off to help me get what I want.

    Nailed it (none / 0) (#158)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    I don't want a candidate to seduce me with sweet talk and roses to get what he wants - I want a candidate who works his butt off to help me get what I want.

    On the Other Hand (none / 0) (#204)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    Check out this analysis by Jerome Armstrong.  He thinks Obama deliberately decided not to raise more than this.  Armstrong specifically points to the mere $2 million that was raised for the general election.

    Kerry vs. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    What's interesting is that in Obama's first month as the presumptive nominee (one could argue it's actually his second or fourth, but whatever), he failed to surpass his record for the contested part of the primary.

    Obama raised $40 million or so in March.  John Kerry raised about $45 million in March 2004.

    Obama raised about $30 million in April.  John Kerry raised about $31 million that month in 2004.

    Obama raised about $22 million in June.  John Kerry raised about $26 million in June 2004.

    Obama raised about $52 million in July.  John Kerry raised about $35 million in July of that month.

    So for all Obama's fundraising prowess, he's only about $10 million or so ahead of John Kerry's 2004 pace for the March-June period.

    June/July --> May/June (none / 0) (#191)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:27:45 PM EST

    They're playing perception games (4.55 / 9) (#5)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    The original goal for June was $100 million. Then, when it became clear they weren't going to pull in anywhere near that, word on a haul of only $30 million got leaked. That deflated expectations, so now, when the actual take of $52 million is released, people will have been led to think they're doing better than expected.

    The Bush Administration plays this sort of game with economic numbers all the time. Underestimate, and then beat the underestimation.

    $52 million is certainly nothing to sneeze at, but the Obama campaign only managed a little better than half their fundraising goals. If I overestimate the expected income from my business by that kind of margin, I'm going to have all sorts of problems, because expenditures and financial commitments are often based on these projections. And if you're operating in a small, fixed time window like the Obama campaign, the problems are going to be compounded, because they're setting up operations based on those projections, there's not the anticipated money for follow-through, and you're consequently going to spread yourself way too thin. There's little breathing room for reevaluation and retrenchment.

    All this highlights another advantage of taking public financing--you have a very strict budget, and you aren't going to make decisions based on fantasies of how much money you're going to have. Obama's people seem to think they can revive the Obamamania of January and February. I don't think they can, and this hubris could ultimately cause their downfall. If McCain weren't such a lame opponent, I'd say it'd definitely bring them down.

    The Obama campaign have never (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:49:16 AM EST
    talked about a $100 million target in June,  a couple of loudmouthed fundraisers might have, never the campaign.

    Nice try though.


    Yeah, yeah (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:03:10 AM EST
    It's all Wade Rantlett's fault.

    I think we all know the Obama campaign's schtick by now. The more outre stuff always get said by proxies, which the campaign is more than happy to let sit out there unless and until the blowback hits. Wade Rantlett, et al, are now no longer the fundraisers they knew.

    Chuck Todd made pretty clear this morning--and he wasn't saying this in the context of a fundrasing discussion--that the Obama campaign is very much like the Bush campaigns in 2000 and 2004. It's very tightly controlled, and loose cannons are not tolerated. Lizza's detailed article in the New Yorker this week bears that out. I have no doubt the $100 million figure, and then the $30 million figure, were released with Obama and Axelrod's complete knowledge and approval.


    the "Obama never SAID that" or (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    an Obama campaign OFFICIAL never SAID that has been standard practice since the beginning of this election cycle.

    The Obama fans have that talking point down so well that they use it even when someone "officially" associated with the campaign says something.  Then they just claim they aren't "really" a part of the campaign.

    They did this with Wes Clark most recently who is an OFFICIAL advisor to the Obama campaign.  They did it as far back as Rev WRight who also held an OFFICIAL post on the campaign.


    Even when Obama says it (3.00 / 2) (#90)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    He didn't say it

    They're So Clever (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Claw on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    Aren't they?  Inventing a strategy that involves surrogates saying things that the candidate might not be able to say, or might want to be distanced from in the future.  If Obama's campaign is similar to Bush's (in terms of winning), great.  I don't care if Obama personally promises a free kitten to everyone who votes for him.  I DO NOT WANT MCCAIN IN THE WHITEHOUSE.
    You seem to be implying--by linking Obama's camp to Bush's--that "loose cannons" are good and tight control over a campaign is bad.
    Say it with me: there's a difference between running a POTUS campaign (especially that of the first black, secret Muslim, elitist), and the way you run your Whitehouse administration.
    Prediction:  This whole getting "proxies" to say what the candidate can't or doesn't want to say is going to catch on.  And I mean in an even bigger way than it did 200 years ago.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST
    I'm not for a moment implying that low tolerance for loose cannons or maintaining tight control over one's operations is a bad thing. All I'm saying is that I seriously doubt Randlett and others were shooting their mouths off about that $100 million expectation without Obama and Axelrod's approval. I think JoeA's claim that this was just a bunch of "loudmouthed fundraisers" talking nonsense independently of the campaign is ridiculous.

    So (none / 0) (#195)
    by Claw on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    The comparison to Bush was just a harmless throwaway?  Obama isn't like Bush except that he's good at message management?  That was your point?  If so, why insert the Bush jab at all?  
    The point remains that Obama's "shtick" is very, very old.  It's been used by every winning candidate since candidates figured out they could get away with it.

    Chill out (none / 0) (#200)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    While I'll grant Bush comparisons are derogatory 99% of the time, sometimes they aren't. In this case it certainly wasn't. I've never heard anyone criticize Dubya's Presidential campaigns for being inefficient and chaotic.

    True (none / 0) (#206)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    But I have heard both of those things said about McCain's campaign.  HRC is a much more gifted politician than McCain and ran a more disciplined and efficient campaign that John McCain could ever dream of running.  And Obama beat her.

    And yes, it is a compliment to compare Obama's campaign to Bush's.

    The real issue is whether it was actually an Obama campaign surrogate who was quoted saying the Obama campaign planned to raise $100 million in June.

    I've heard several idiot MSM anchors refer to Jesse Jackson as an Obama surrogate, which couldn't be further from the truth.  Unless you believe the Obama campaign to be so disciplined and efficient that it deliberately got Jackson to say he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off just because it was a way to give play to Obama's Sistah Soljahing of black men in general.

    Not beyond the realm of possibility, but hard to believe Jackson would deliberately agree to make a fool of himself in public just to help Obama on a trivial point.


    I think you mean (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    just followeed your link and some of the data (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    in it confused me.  There is talk in there that one of Obama's sources of money for the campaign will be from those small donors who may have given only $500 so far in small chunks.

    I thought Obama spent the entire primary trying to convince us that his base of small donors only gave an average in the $87 range.  But, now it appears that he is defining samll donors as a person who gave $500.  Doesn't sound too small to me.  It's not the max of $2300.  But, it isn't the $87 they tried to convince us of either.  If I give $2300, but do it in small chunks of $50 each, does that make me a small doner even though I maxed out?

    Besides, what difference does it make what they gave for the primary.  They can all just give another $2300 now for the general, right?


    The FEC rules are that (none / 0) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    any one donor who gives over $200 in the aggregate has to be reported.  Their name, that is.

    How good any campaign is at tracking or reporting that properly, who knows?  The Obama campaign was criticized for not updating their reporting by individuals for several months.

    I always had trouble with their average donation numbers because for the longest time the campaign put out that Obama raised 265 million from 1.5 donors.  That is not an avg of $87, obviously.  Without crunching the numbers myself (a task which our journalists should be doing, except we have no real journalism anymore, we just have 'media'), I'm guessing $87 and $68 could be the average of whomever they are calling 'small dollar' donors.

    The interesting numbers will be number of donors and esp. number of new donors.


    I'm guessing that the $68 or $87 or whichever (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:10:49 AM EST
    is actually the average per donation and NOT the average per donor.  I would guess that there are very few, if any, donors who have given $68 or $87 in total.

    That's why they have always reported that figure as the average DONATION.  I had one commenter on a blog come right out and tell me that he considered himself a "small" donor because he regularly gave in "small" amounts.  But, his total donation during the primary was well over $500.


    That commenter may well have been me. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    And it's still true.  Being able to cut a one-time check for $2000+ and needing to give in small increments as one's budget allows are very different things.  Repeated small donations are still small donations, even though they eventually add up.

    then what you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    is that anyone could make themself "appear" as a small donor by just spreading their $2300 out over time.

    And, you may consider yourself a small donor...

    But, the Obama campaign has been trying to make it appear as those the "small" donors have given less  than $100 in total, not in each of several donations


    The campaign spin's not interesting (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    to me.  They'll take the numbers and put the best political face on them, as they should.  Fine.  I think you see the campaign as possibly lying, and I don't, but whatever.  As long as they don't do anything that will get them skewered in the media, I don't care.  I like spin when it benefits Democrats.

    My point is just that people like me (and there are lots out there), who have become de facto "big" donors due to the length of the campaign, are quite a bit different than people attending $2000-a-plate dinners, and it's strange to see people trying to blur that line.


    I believe the campaign is deliberately (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:26:23 AM EST
    distorting the facts.  And, they have used this distortion as part of their defense in deciding to flip / flop on their earlier commitment to take federal funds.

    They have made the claim that since they get so much of their money from "small" donors, they are complying with the "spirit" of campaign finance reform.

    If you look at their data, they get just as much of their money from large donors and bundlers and corporate donors as any other campaign in the past has.


    [shrug] (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    As long as they're not doing anything illegal or anything that McCain can get traction by attacking, I could honestly care less.  A big pile of money is good to have, especially if it's publicly perceived to have come from Main Street instead of Wall Street.

    well that kind of (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    shoots the "change" and "new kind of politics" themes all to hell, doesn't it.  Well, maybe not though because you are still saying it may well still be "perceived" as change and a new kind of politics even though it isn't in reality and the perception is all that matters to you.

    Not really, no. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    In point of fact, they've still taken in an unprecedented number of small donations, from more donors than any campaign in history.  They've taken the Dean model and done some truly amazing things with it, and I think in 20 years this campaign will be seen as having fundamentally changed what's possible in political fundraising.

    Spinning by presenting the numbers in the best possible light doesn't change those facts.  Good try, though.


    i guess we may be (none / 0) (#176)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    talking right passed each other.  I'm not accepting raising a lot of money as being indicative of a "new kind of politics".

    What I'm expressing is that flipping on federal funds and then coming up with some kind of spin of your fund raising to justify it is exactly old style politics.  You've as much as said so by saying it's still good if it is "perceived" as being main street vs wall street.

    Why not, if you are new and change, just come right out and say....  "Hey, i decided i don't want to be held to 85 million when it has become apparent that I can likely raise way more than that on my own.  So, yes, I change my mind."

    To me it's all part and parcel of his recent flip/flops heading toward the center or center/right even though he used the perception that he was far more left or progressive in order to win in the primary.  Again, it just politics as usual.  It's not change or a new kind of politics.


    Good points. (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    My response is that I'm glad to see Obama shedding the "new politics" thing when it's to his advantage.  It really was naive in many respects, and wasn't the reason I got behind him in the first place (FYI, that reason was theory of change stuff, although I'd prefer not to rehash it all now).  If abandoning a primary slogan that was too nebulous to begin with is the price he has to pay for the possibility of a huge fundraising advantage, I think he should pay it.

    except (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    Obama needed the "new kind of politics" message during the primaries to get the nomination.

    So, I'm not sure who is really is.  Is this the real Obama and the one during the primaries was the lie??  Or is this one the lie???  Or, maybe there is yet a third or fourth Obama waiting to emerge.....


    That's probably fair, too. (none / 0) (#193)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    That feeling is IMO the biggest obstacle he has remaining.  I think he's a highly pragmatic guy with genuinely progressive goals, and in the heat of a general election all that pragmatism can get hard to see through.

    well... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    if you win a nomination with lies of being a "new kind of pol".

    Then what have you got left?

    If you are lying when you tell voters you won't lie like all politicians, what's the point?


    maybe what I'm really trying to say here (none / 0) (#178)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    Is that I don't think that Obama's message of "change we can believe in" was intended to define a change in fund raising totals.  It was intended to mean that Obama and his campaign wouldn't be acting like pols and playing politics as usual.  But, they have.

    Spinning IS lying, sport. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    Your p.o.v. doesn't surprise me terribly. The sexism displayed during the primaries was okay because it helped our team to win. Ageism is already becoming okay even on this site.  Whatever it takes, right?

    What I don't understand is how you see yourself as more principled than your opposition.


    Um, spinning's not lying. (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    My mom called it (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    distorting the truth.

    Spin: 2 definitions from WordReference forums (none / 0) (#192)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    Half-truths and lies used to manipulate consumers.

    "Spin" means the bending of words or seeming facts to suit one's commercial or political objectives. Similar to "lying."

    (And I wasn't referring to your post.)


    I like your theory better than mine (none / 0) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    it makes more sense and seems more likely.

    Plouffe said there were 'many new donors' but gave no numbers, so I'm guessing 'many' is really 'not so many'.


    Then they did a good job (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:54:49 AM EST
    Good political work by the Obama campaign.

    Honest to God (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Melchizedek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:00:37 AM EST
    If Hillary had raised 52 million in a month after winning the nomination, this site would have exploded in ecstasy.

    In other news, the I-phone has had "good" sales recently.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST
    52 million is a good, not great, month for Obama.

    You want me to pretend it was a great month? Absurd. I expect Obama will easily surpass that total for July.


    I thought it was great (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:53:55 AM EST
    He had tapered off each month since (I think) January and then bumped back up to that previous level.  I didn't expect his best month ever (I predicted 50 at another site) but to bump back up to that level when it is summer and people aren't paying attention and even on the net people are less motivated right now... I think it is much better than good.

    As long as he keeps creeping up, it's good media.  If he goes down, while McCain goes up... the media has an opportunity to spin it in a negative fashion.


    Obama is concentrating on lots (none / 0) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    of fundraising right now (as opposed to campaigning) so $50 mil is not surprising in light of his previous FR.  He should of course be concentrating on that because come the fall, he won't have as much FR time and he'll need a lot more face time with voters.

    The DNC's $20 mil is pretty anemic, although better than I expected given how little coh they had at the end of the primaries (under $5 mil).  But their really big FR push for themselves didn't start until June.  And the DNC numbers are really important because a lot of SDs and other pols were expecting big help from Obama and the DNC both for downticket races.


    I don't recall... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:10:17 AM EST
    ...Hillary Clinton ever having her proxies out there mouthing off about anticipated fundraising income.

    no, worse.. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ovah on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM EST

    Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the campaign convinced everyone that they raised $10million in a 24hr period following Penn primary when in reality they only raised just over $4million in TWO days.

    So happy we haven't had to listen to his spin lately.


    20M in the red! Woo Hoo (none / 0) (#154)
    by dead dancer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    Probably because Senator Clinton had nothing to mouth off about.

    Much respect for her; but as i recall, not much in the fund raising dept.

    20Million in the Hole! Woo Hoo!

    Just doesn't ring very well does it.


    not much in the fund raising dept? (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    I believe, with the exception of Obama, Clinton raised more money than any other candidate in history.  But, don't let that stop you from making one more derogatory statement in an attempt to achieve some "unity".

    Heh (none / 0) (#155)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:28:40 PM EST
    I'm sure you got a kick out of making that post, but you will surely acknowledge that every political campaign on earth reports fundraising numbers in terms of gross and not net.

    Melchizedek, you're not getting over it (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    and the Obamans' obsessions are tiresome.  Move on.  Lower-case "o," of course.

    Linky-poo? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    The original goal for June was $100 million.

    Here (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:07:01 AM EST
    It's a fair cop. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    Not necessarily the campaign's fundraising goal, but they certainly seem to have been putting the idea of a $100 million June out there.

    here you go (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    Cash on hand is cash on hand (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by rustydude on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    I too have run a small business.  Cash in the bank is exactly what the name implies... cash not spent.

    If all of Obama's plans are based on projections, he would have much, much less cash on hand.

    To me, this implies sort of the opposite of your doom and gloom analysis, that the Obama campaign actually knows fiscal responsibility and are not living beyond the means of what they "actually" raise.


    Not quite. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    COH (Cash on hand) does not mean "cash not spent!"

    Depends on how big the bills owed are and when they come due.

    Much of cash on hand could have been spent on credit and owed for services already rendered.  Think salaries & benefits, for one...and reimbursements for staff travel, meals, etc.


    You must have run a very small business (none / 0) (#185)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    I wouldn't be surprised if it was a one-person operation from the way you're talking.

    The scope of one's operations and the size of one's staff is determined by income projections. If you don't meet them, you have to scale back and downsize. With a short-term operation like a political campaign, that could prove disastrous.


    I'm not believing this numbers... (3.66 / 3) (#119)
    by stefystef on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    but then again, I never really believed them.  A lot of hype, little substance.

    I know that I will never, EVER give a dollar to Obama or the DNC.  After reading the New Yorker article, I realized that Obama is a well-dressed, well-spoken charlatan.  He pretends to be "natural" and "organic", but he's far from it.  This paragraph near the end of the article said it all for me.

    Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.  

    He pretends to be an "everyman", but he's only about himself.  

    Personally, I'm staying home in November.  The "new" coalition can take care of this one.

    there's that claim of UHC again (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    Obama has NEVER promoted a policy of Universal Healthcare.  

    At Best he has proposed Universal ACCESS to insurance if you feel like buying it and don't have children.


    Good month (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    but for Senate and Presidential races, the money raised for Federal accounts really doesn't tell you the full story. Typically, and I'm sure McCain is doing this, the candidate will raise lots of money for key state parties too. For example, I do not believe there is a contribution cap in Pennsylvania, and so that state party alone should be able to raise many millions in soft money. We just don't often see it reported.

    The Boston Globe is reporting (none / 0) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    that the DNC is taking advantage of this as well (I think this is what you are referring to?):

    And the DNC announced today that it has inked a joint fund-raising agreement with the Obama campaign and 18 state Democratic parties: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico,Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    Apparently the initial release was incorrect (none / 0) (#4)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:42:42 AM EST
    and Obama's cash on hand is actually $72 million, so with another $20 million plus coh at the DNC, their total is not too far off the combined $100 million that McCain and the RNC have.


    Smith says (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:48:53 AM EST
    The campaign has recently begun to tap maxed-out large donors for large general-election contributions,
    Recently??? I would be very concerned if they hadn't already made a pitch to their $2,300 donors about this. One of this things that the Clinton campaign got right was to ask for GE money upfront. For many people who can afford to give thousands, the difference between $2,300 and $4,600 is insignificant, but the time a fundraiser has to take to go after the second half is not insubstantial.

    I was always perplexed by that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:56:58 AM EST
    And yet, I assume Obama will have no trouble getting that money from the max donors.

    I still think the issue for Obama is bringing on the much hated Hill-raisers.


    Nancy Pelosi and Obama campaign... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ajain on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    ...must be feeling great right now for having demonized the Hillraisers. Those awful monied people who have sustained the party over the years.

    I hope there is some sort of retribution for their ridiculous behavior during the primaries. But I suspect that  that will happen once Obama is in office for a year or so.


    82+ Million USD (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    Ummm (4.75 / 4) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
    I think you are confused about the value of Euros.  If he actually made that money in Euros (which I am sure he didn't).  It would be worth more than 52 mil in dollars by a good margin.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    They can't win this election without the help of Hillary's big donors, who have to be good for at least $50M just by themselves.

    Oh he will win no matter what (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:09:48 AM EST

    But to hit the fundraising numbers that were part of the no public funding calculus, that needs to get straightened out.


    You made your intrade bet yet? ;-) (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:17:04 AM EST
    Not yet but honestly, can you come up with the scenario where McCain wins? I can't.

    Sure, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    Either the economy looks up a bit and McCain stirs up racial resentment in SW PA and SE OH, or just more of the latter.

    His TV ads are pretty good. In fact, they seem to be the only part of his campaign that's working correctly.


    A Bit? (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    Yea maybe if the euro went to .92 and gas prices went to below a dollar.  

    Sure, a manufactured foreign policy crisis (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    that remind voters of their evaluations of McCain v. Obama as Commander in Chief. Fear is a powerful thing.

    The scenario where McCain wins (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    is called the Republican slime machine.

    They haven't even begun the big push yet.

    I'd say 'the scenario' is history...2000, 2004, etc.

    You think the voters are smarter now?  Hells bells, the DEMOCRATS aren't even smarter now!

    My head hurts.


    I think another scenario that may play out (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    is showing up in recent poll numbers reporting that the "youth" vote age 18 - 29 has dropped 20 points in a couple of months.  Prior reports showed that 66% of this group planned to show up in Nov to vote.  It is now down to 46%.

    Maybe, but the slime machine (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    had better get in-gear soon.   The swiftboat ads came out in August 2004....

    And, I believe that the indepedent groups cannot reference a candidate by name within 60 days of the election (or something like that.)  So, the clock is ticking....


    You actually think (none / 0) (#205)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    that television ads of Rev. Wright g.ding America and showing Michelle Obama being 'proud of her country for the first time yada, yada' need to mention the candidate's name to be effective?

    I think a lot of progressives (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    believe that....But that is a very risky bet--that there is a margin of error....and enough time to focus on McCain...

    if he will win no matter what (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    I hope those big donors take that into account.

    perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    they will feel free to give their money to people fighting for issues.

    No offense (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:55:52 AM EST
    But no where in my post do I discuss the total being 72 million for Obama and the DNC.

    Please discuss my post, not errors committed by others.


    Wow. 52 million smackeroos? I gotta (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:52:11 AM EST
    admit, this fella's fund raising organization is a well-oiled machine. Progressives/America must really be desperate to get these right-wing hacks out of office this time.

    Do you really think all this $$ is coming from (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:00:15 AM EST



    Average contribution is $68... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    ...but maybe all those fatcats are being chintzy.

    Misleading statistic really (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:04:30 AM EST
    What do you think it means that the average donation is 68$?

    Does it not mean (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    that they got what, 700,000-800,000 individual contributions, totaling $52 million?  I haven't looked at the numbers, but that seems believable.

    but it doesn't mean (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM EST
    that those individual contributions came from 700,000 to 800,000 different people.

    Exactly. The term ought to be donations (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    not donors.  It's like counting hits on a website.  

    If I pick up my newspaper three times in a day, I am not three subscribers or even three readers.  


    but, that is exactly (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    what the Obama campaign wants people to believe.

    Obama used that misconception to provide cover for himself on his campaign finance flip/flop.  He claims that his huge number of "small" donors means that he is complying with the intent of campaign finance reform even while he rejects taking part in the federal funds.


    Well, yes, exactly what I was saying. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    Well, I know what you're driving at... (none / 0) (#29)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    ...they tally up the number of donations, and the total amount of money given, then divide the amount of money by the number of donations.  So you could have a bunch of 5 dollar, 25 dollar and 50 dollar donations, and not quite as many 500, 1000 and 2300 dollar donations, and the average would make it look like he was getting most of his money from small donors.

    BUT, having said that, in comparison to McCain (and Clinton, for that matter), Obama has received a larger share of his funding from small donors.  Maxed out donors constitute less than half of the funds he's raised.


    I believe that is correct (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    Yes, all we heard from Feb. on was his amazing number of small donors, but the phrasing was always so 'artful' that it wasn't until folks started to look at actual FEC fillings that reality was a bit different than how the campaign was painting it.

    I'll buy the numbers, esp. the average, when I see the actual filings.  The fact that there's no mention of the number of donors is interesting.  It's all about the data, not the spin.  Or should be.


    That will change quickly (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM EST
    imo IF Obama  is successful in his fundraising goals.

    A better statistic would be the median donation (none / 0) (#31)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    Either the median or the mode. . . (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    and both are going to be closer to $20, I'd imagine.

    Better statistic (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    percentage of total coming from max donors.

    Percentage of (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:35:41 AM EST
    dollars, or percentage of contributions?

    Shrug (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    Pick your statistic.  It's all spin of one variety or another.

    Now that we're in the GE, there's no longer a point to boasting about whether we're running a grassroots campaign or what have you.  I think we can all be confident we'll beat the GOP on that score.


    No, they still need to push the grassroots (none / 0) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:14:42 PM EST
    riff, and will right up until the GE.

    True or not, it plays extremely well with people who haven't been paying much attention yet and/or political naives.  It's cover for a divided party as well as anti-Republican propaganda.  BO needs both.


    Uh...yes. (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:13:35 AM EST
    Some (or maybe a lot) of the money is coming from smart Hillary supporters who want to see her on the ticket.  

    Some, or maybe a LOT of the money (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    is coming from corporate donors who see the writing on the wall and want to make sure they've got a place at the table.

    That's the way politics works in America, business as usual.

    I find it annoying that Obama's surrogates and supporters keep pushing the talking point that the candidate's money is somehow "cleaner", that their big cash flow is surging in from "progressives" and small donors.

    BTD nails it. The key statistic is the % of funds raised from max donors. I'd also like to see the % of funds raised by bundlers. And another useful table is the donors-by-industry.


    "Corporate Donors" (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:07:26 PM EST
    Maybe....But corporations cannot donate to Obama.  If you count individuals within a certain company or industry, then maybe....but they are all subject to the $2,300 max.

    If companies run schemes to just use people's names to make corporate contributions, that is illegal.  And stuff like that does surface.


    But what happens in a $$$$$$$$ a plate lunch (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    or function?  What are the limits of how many plates I can buy for my employees or friends?  And then there are the bundlers.

    Sure, but that is illegal (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    Al Gore, straight arrow that he is, got in trouble with the Buddhist monk contributions over this....

    Bundlers--the nefarious ones strong-arm their own employees....but that can get into the press as well.....A big time Republican "bundler" had his name on the front page of the LA Times years ago--due to disgruntled employees who were quoted as anonymous sources--for demanding that his employees contribute to Republican candidates....

    There are a lot of people watching for this kind of thing.....If Obama is smart he will stay away from any hint of this....So far, so good.


    It was a good month (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:59:25 AM EST
    But not a GREAT month.

    The reality is it was a wash with the GOP.

    Remember McCain is going public funds starting in September. He has 84 million banked for September-October.


    The combined DNC/Obama goal... (none / 0) (#15)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:00:46 AM EST
    ...is 450 million, so they've got about 380 to raise in 4 months.  Obama needs to raise about 60 million this month (plus 25 mil for the DNC), 70 million next month (plus 30 mil for the DNC), and then about 80 million per month in September and October.  Formidable, but not impossible.  The key, I think, is to raise at least enough money that some vendors are willing to float them credit if they fall a little short.  I don't mind if the campaign is 20 million in debt after winning a landslide.

    I'm wondering why (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:04:55 AM EST
    he hasn't been able to pull more in to the DNC faster. His big donors can cut big checks. Honestly, the numbers for the DNC should match the numbers for his campaign.

    I would guess... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM EST
    ... that one problem for the DNC is that Hillary supporters are likely even less happy with Dean & co. than they are with Obama.

    Nailed it. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    In fact, I would guess (none / 0) (#104)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    that Obama could make a couple of million easily if he got Donna Brazile to resign.

    LOL! (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    that is the only chance the DNC has of getting any of my money this year.

    Yup (none / 0) (#109)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    The argument that we have to have a Dem as president is fairly powerful so people will give (and vote) even if they're not thrilled about Obama.  They know we're stuck with him now.  

    But they don't have to give to the DNC.  They can give to issues and specific candidates rather the DNC.  That is the risk when you run on a personality rather than the party.  My guess is it will cause long-term damage to the DNC, even after Dean's long gone, but we'll see what we see.


    What's the comparision? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Panhandle on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    What did the DNC raise in 2004? Anybody know where I can look that up? I'm curious how their totals compare between this year with Dean at the helm, and in 2004 with Terry McAuliffe...

    Good question (none / 0) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    I think that might be available in the FEC database.  I will snuff around the numbers if I get a chance.

    You've got it. The party is corrupt (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    but of course, new leadership could clean up the party and restore faith in it with a series of motions/actions at the convention about the rules and bylaws committee, etc.

    However, the new leader of the party, Obama, is hardly going to do so.  


    They should exceed it really (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:06:37 AM EST
    28.5k limit?

    I think they are still straightening all this out.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:11:23 AM EST
    I hope that the rumors earlier light a fire under them to do better this month.

    The DNC should already have 80M COH.

    Incidentally, Bill Clinton needs to be rehabilitated if they're going to get this right.


    Rehabilitated by whom? (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:15:07 AM EST
    Bill Clinton's approval ratings are pretty darn good.

    Hell, according to the NYTimes poll yesterday, he had a 75% approval rating (with 11% disapproving) with African Americans, who he supposedly alienated.


    Interesting, I missed that. (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM EST
    Let me put it differently, then: Bill can only help them, and reminding people of the 90s seems like a good idea right now. They should try to find a way to make him happy and get him involved.

    I think the key to that is (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    giving him a key role in the Convention. I would have him and Gore speak on the first nigh.

    Hillary and Edwards on night 2.

    The VP on night 3.

    And of course Obama on the big night.


    I still have this idea (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:21:41 AM EST
    that Hillary ought to keynote the convention. A base excitement strategy will work for Dems this year.

    Al Gore should key note it (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    mebbe (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:25:59 AM EST
    Gore as keynoter? (none / 0) (#174)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    Well, your everyday environmental Dems would love it (not to mention everyone still mad about 2000) but congressional Dems are not that thrilled with Al right now re legislation, budgets and oil drilling, etc.

    Kinda hot in DC...cool in Colorado?


    Great idea andgarden but (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    the Dems seem to have a trend of giving the keynote to fast rising pols in the party ranks.

    That trend will end now (4.85 / 7) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    as Obama, who clearly is telling the DNC what to do, clearly does not want anyone else in the spotlight.    

    This campaign is not about the good of the party.


    Heh, you're right, Cream City. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:58:34 AM EST
    And I bet if Obama could figure out some way to give the keynote speech HIMSELF, he would ;)

    MsExPat has it right.... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:23:53 PM EST
    so if not Obama himself, how about MICHELLE?!?

    Ha oldpro! From your mouth (none / 0) (#199)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:43:44 PM EST
    ...to God's ear.

    Hey Cream, btw (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    do you know any up and comers in the Dem party? Maybe they could have Chelsea speak! That would be great! :)

    Who was keynote before (none / 0) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    2004?  I just have no memory of them whatsoever.  Is it really a trend?

    My two favorite keynote speakers (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    have been Ann Richards and Barbara Jordan.

    Barbara Jordan (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    What a great woman!  Here are links to her 1976 and 1992 keynotes.  You'll note that we won both those elections!  Here's a brief excerpt from the intro to her 1992 speech:

    Now, you have heard a lot about change tonight. Every speaker here has said something about change. And I want you to talk with me for a few minutes about change. But I want you to listen to the way I have entitled my remarks -- "Change: From What to What?'' From what to what?

    Hehe.  From what to what, indeed.  As it happens, I liked her answer.


    OMG (none / 0) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    how could I forget?  The were both fabulous.

    But they weren't really up and comers, were they?


    Mario Cuomo (none / 0) (#179)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:27:58 PM EST
    was sensational.

    He wasn't an 'up-and-comer' at the time...he was Governor of New York and many of us wanted him to run for President.  His gift of gab rivaled Bill Clinton's and was far better than Obama's.

    Jordan and Richards were terrific as well.


    Heh (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    Bill Clinton was the 1988 keynote speaker.  By all accounts, he bored the house down :)

    Bill learned his lesson... (none / 0) (#180)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:30:00 PM EST

    But that speech was a disaster!  If I remember, someone went to get the hook and drag him off the stage...


    To do that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:05:44 AM EST
    the Hill raisers need to be on board.

    At some point... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    ...it's not about "he hasn't done enough to court us" so much as it is about "we haven't done enough to get past our issues with the nominee and work to get Democrats elected in November".  I think it's nearing that point already, if not already past it.

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:25:55 AM EST
    It's real easy to talk about how other people are obligated to donate their money, but considering that it actually is their money and not his, it NEVER moves past "he hasn't done enough."

    Alienating potential voters and donors has its price.  It's not written in stone anywhere that regardless of how badly you upset someone, you only have to do X days of penance and all is forgiven.


    The point being... (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    ...that nothing he does will placate them?

    If so, my response to them would be unprintable here.


    Well, I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:40:22 AM EST
    if "nothing he does will placate them" because so far he has done nothing.

    Not true... (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:48:16 AM EST
    ...he's been on the phone with a bunch of them, has spoken to a bunch more of them in person, has asked his donors to help Clinton pay off her debt, has been very complimentary towards Clinton post-primary season, and has not ruled her out as a potential VP.  So I don't think it's true that he has done "nothing", as you assert.  

    Calling someone on the phone (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    and asking her for money is not "doing something". Being "complimentary to Senator Clinton" when she is no longer your rival is not "doing something". When he's on the phone, he makes it clear that he has serious reservations about Clinton as VP. See Valhalla's comment below for what "doing something" means.

    His donors have raised (none / 0) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    something in the neighborhood of $100k for her.  Not 0, but approaching 0 in campaign terms, esp. if you're teh awesome super fundraiser man.

    Hysterical. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by dk on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    Did you even read SteveM's comment?  He said Obama should stop alienating these people.

    Do you know that the Bush administration is trying to have contraceptives redifined as abortion so that health care outlets receiving federal funding would have to certify that their employees could refuse to hand them out if their "conscience" dicatated?  Do you know that Senators Clinton and Patty Murray have already fired off statements and letters to the adminstration about this?  Do you know that there has not yet been any word from Obama about this?

    But hey, if you would rather just insult politically active, well-connected rich people because they are not giving enough of their money to Obama, then be my guest.


    I disagree with that (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    In the month of June, Obama did very little to appeal to even the middle of the road Dem. His center (as well as the media's) is much further to the right than the country is. He continually allowed the Republican's to define the center

    I hope that people held back on donations. It's the only tool we have left.


    No (none / 0) (#74)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:46:03 AM EST
    That is not my point at all, and I don't know where you got that from.

    Is your point "if what Obama has done so far isn't enough, there's nothing he could ever do"?


    My point is... (none / 0) (#76)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    ...who gets to decide when "enough" is "enough"?  Is it only the donors who decide that?  I mean, if they demanded that he concede the nomination to Hillary and he said "no", would it be reasonable for them to say with a straight face, "he hasn't done enough to earn our support?"  

    What exactly are they expecting from him that he hasn't given to them?


    Shrug (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    Let's take a more reasonable hypothetical.  Let's say someone says "I'm not donating unless Hillary is the VP."  Would you see that as reasonable?

    The way I see it, money is power, even if you or I might prefer to live in a more egalitarian universe.  Politics is about applying your leverage, not handing out blank checks and hoping it all works out.  If I had a billion dollars, that gives me the leverage to say "sorry, I'm not giving anything this year because the party disappointed me on ending the war."  Enough big donors do that, the party suddenly rediscovers its priorities!

    Using your financial leverage to push Obama to choose a particular VP, to make universal healthcare part of his campaign, or to do anything else of that sort is how politics works.  If your attitude is more like "I'm on the Dem team, I have an obligation to support the Dems and give them the max and not ask anything in return," then you're selling yourself short to some extent.


    It's reasonable for them... (none / 0) (#143)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    ...to state their criteria for giving.  It's not reasonable for them to expect they can leverage their financial power to get him to do something he doesn't perceive as in his best interest or in the best interests of the party/country. It doesn't mean they don't have any leverage, it just means they can't force the nominee to toe their particular line, and if the nominee declines to do so on principle, they have to decide how important their demand really is to them.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    Well, their very purpose is to make their prospective donations part of the calculus of "his best interest."

    If he makes a different choice, he does it with full knowledge that it will cost him a certain amount of donations.  It's a political choice with political consequences.

    I find your suggestion that there is a "principle" involved here rather silly, by the way.  There are surely issues on which politicians attempt to do the right thing for the country irrespective of political considerations.  Choosing a VP nominee is clearly not one of them.


    Um, it's their money (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:31:48 AM EST
    they don't owe him anything, and he's done d*mn little to earn it so far.

    There's a long, long way to go before anyone needs to start talking about whether he's done 'enough'.

    Your argument assumes some sort of obligation on their part to him.  They have none.  He has to work for it, just like everyone else.


    i thin k many are waiting to see what (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:32:29 AM EST
    actually occurs at the convention and not what someone tells them now will occur at the convention.  Different donors are looking for different things.  Some for a large convention role, some for a roll call vote including Clinton's name, some for Clinton as VP.  But, I can certainly understand donors waiting for what they want to actually happen as opposed to just believing something they are told ahead of time.

    Well, the 'courtship' rhetoric (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    was coming mostly from the Obama campaign, to make it look like her big dollar donors were having a fit of pique rather than legitimate reasons not to support him, so this statement just buys into that.  Same rhetoric used against her small donor and even no $ supporters.

    If I hear Debbie Wasserman talk about 'wooing' one more time I swear I'll find a way to reverse time itself and take back all the support I've given to the Democratic Party over the years.

    In reality, the major donor issues on both sides are much more complicated than painting her supporters as b*tchy women who just "need time to grieve".  The idea that they're waiting around for enough flowers and candy is demeaning.  They want her to have a role in the convention that's respectful and not dismissive; a role in guiding the party platform that incorporates the concerns of her supporters; and (I'm guessing) a little less stfu and give me money attitude.

    They want something for their money, and many I imagine many are holding out until they see the outcome of the convention negotiations with the DNC.  As well they should, because that's the way politics works.

    Many of her big money folks are longtime supporters of both the Clintons and they're under no obligation to give Obama a dime.  It's the idea that the world owes Obama a living that is problematic, not the other way around.

    Can Obama turn it around by August?  Maybe.  The opportunity is there, if Obama is willing to do the work to take it.


    They want her name placed (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    in nomination with a floor roll call vote.

    As, by tradition (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    it should be. It has been done for many men before her with less votes, why not for her? There is no reasonable excuse not to.

    If BTD is correct, then if he's (none / 0) (#77)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:52:41 AM EST
    gonna win anyway, no matter what, then what difference does it make how much he raises, from whom, whether he turns it around by August or not?
    Big donors, small donors, his donors, her donors, one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish...    

    I agree with your point Valhalla but (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    don't you think it might be a little overstated? Wasserman imo didn't mean that in a demeaning way.

    Could you imagine the Obama (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43:05 AM EST
    campaign using the term "wooing" to get money and votes from the NRA?

    Actually they're not wooing the PUMAS anymore (none / 0) (#202)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    Riverdaughter of the Confluence
    Diane at JSND
    Murphy at Puma PAC
    Paula Abeles
    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
    Patsy, Soldier For Hillary
    Sugar from PA
    IP from Puma PAC
    Heidi Li of the Denver Group

    These women have all received DEATH threats.
    (see pumapac.org today)


    The first couple of times she said it (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    were not so bad.  But the last time I saw her (for the life of me I can't even remember what channel I was watching) she had a whole little riff on Clinton's big donors needing to be courted and wooed, and it was the straw that broke this camel's back.

    Obama is right about one thing: words matter.

    Here is an alternate phrasing that does not cast her donors as petulant mistresses waiting for their lovers to pay them enough attention AND is still positive for Obama:

    'Her donors have concerns that need to be addressed.  Sen. Obama is actively working to assure Clinton's donors that he understands their concerns and will work as hard as he can to represent them'

    Instead of 'wooing' and 'need to be courted', they could talk about 'reassuring', 'addressing concerns', or 'resolving their doubts', 'working to represent the interests of all Democrats'.

    It's not just DW.  Her phrasing is not an accident.  All his surrogates use it. With all the millions of English words at their disposal, they've chosen to use the ones that cast her donors (many of whom are women) not as legitimate political players but as bratty wives.  It absolutely parallels the talk about 'grieving' and 'healing' used on Clinton's other supporters to cast them as overly emotional crybabies whose concerns about Obama are not legitimate.

    It's language as a divisive and diminishing tactic, and Obama and the DNC are still using tactics against their own side.


    Absolutely agree, Valhalla (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    and others tone-deaf to the word games being played cannot make us hearing-impaired.  We know the word games, we have heard them played all of our lives.



    Agree totally, Valhalla (1.00 / 0) (#201)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    It's just demeaning and they're so stoooopid-
    but I guess they just plan on cheating some more...

    Odds are... (none / 0) (#79)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    ...Clinton (probably both of them) will get a speaking engagement in prime time at the convention, that her delegates will get to play a major role in shaping the party platform, and that some form of respectful/admiring acknowledgment of both the Clintons and their supporters will occur there.  
    It's my understanding that the convention arrangements are generally pretty much set by the end of this month, so I'd hope this will all get resolved by then.  We don't need another month of this feeding some "Democrats still bitter, divideed" media meme.

    "...role in shaping the party platform" (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    Now you've hit one of my hot buttons.  I have been a member of the my county's platform committee -- a position I very much wanted.  But part of my reason for wanting is because some of the many people who completely ignore it are candidates and office holders.  That's how we get the Salazars, and Liebermans and the Landrieus.  (But don't get me started on Blue Dogs, that's a whole nother rant) I wanted to help find a way to hold a candidate's feet to the fire and actually support it or heck, even acknowledge it. Most of my fellow committee members agreed with with me.  

    Unfortunately circumstances caused my resignation before the process was complete.  Of course the process of making the platform meaningful was going to be a years long process, but whatever.  I'm not part of the committee now although I want to take it up again in the future sometime.

    Anyway the point is, as it stands now, having a part in shaping the party's platform is purely an intellectual exercise.  And respectful/admiring acknowledgement doesn't provide squat to a goals oriented individuals like Senator Clinton who frankly doesn't care who gets the credit.  The RESULT is the point.

    So you know "shaping the party platform" ... big woo.  Unless you're me.


    Partially agree on the importance of platform (none / 0) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    (Your county level observations are v. interesting although depressing by the way).

    The platform matters the same way words matter. If the DNC platform this year suddenly became strongly antiabortion, that would matter big.

    It isn't something the party can be held to, not really, because there aren't consequences for failure to uphold its tenets.

    Getting her and her supporters concerns in the platform won't guarantee anything, but it has at least significant symbolic value towards the DNC and Obama considering her supporters as nothing more than $ machines.

    It's all a bunch of power plays behind the scenes -- the nomination ballot and the platform are just the front end we get to see.


    Words definitely matter (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    I agree with that.  But the basics, the dyed-in-the-wool tenets are going to be there in some form.  Watered down... strengthened... neutral...

    There is control over how it appears in the platform.  I completely agree.  But doing an sudden about-face on one of the basic tenets would not be easy to pull off.  In CO, platform planks start as resolutions at caucus**.  The county committee analyzes ALL of them and comes up with a proposed platform which is submitted to the state committee who does the same analysis at the state level.  (I assume the national committee does the same thing where only granularity changes not the concept, but I can't speak to it from experience, darn it).

    But this is a bigger problem than you think.

    It isn't something the party can be held to, not really, because there aren't consequences for failure to uphold its tenets.

    Believe me I would NOT to use the R's as a model, but there is a part of me that totally gets enforcement of the GOP in Texas.  If it's the same as previous GEs, if the candidate doesn't sign off on the state platform s/he gets no financial support from the party.  

    I know, I know -- the Texas GOP uses their power for evil, but I think at a minimum a candidate/office holder should have to justify where s/he departs from the platform -- and why.  But as it stands right now, it's really very toothless.

    **re caucus:  In my mind this is what a caucus should be used for.


    My bottom line is that (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    she deserves her name being put up for nomination. it's the historic nature of her campaign, the votes and delegates she won as well as precedent. I mean come on, even Howard Dean had his name put up for nomination and he had far less delegates. It is an insult to every Clinton voter, delegate and fundraiser to even think for ONE MOMENT of not placing her name for nomination. I don't care how worried he is.

    People will see it as exactly what it is if it doesn't happen and the poles, I'm sure, will reflect that.


    I think the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:16:42 AM EST
    made a serious miscalculation when they came out so lukewarm to retiring Hillary's debt. If his financial backers had cleared her debt quickly, I think the Hill-raisers would have been more enthusiastic about opening their wallets. It may be too late now to get much from them.

    If true... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    This would explain the lukewarm-edness.  If not true, the rumor in conjunction with lackluster efforts certainly isn't helping BO.

    I agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    on part one but no part 2. If thus is cleared up by August, Obama can get that money.

    My question, exactly -- (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    i.e., how much of this was raised by Clinton.  We'll never know, of course.  

    Think I saw around $550,000 (not sure) (none / 0) (#203)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:45:07 PM EST
    compared to his $100,000 for her.
    PUMA has raised between $6-10million to cancel her debt. Official figure will be out around 20th July.

    NM Money: McCain, Downticket Dems/GOP Update... (none / 0) (#141)
    by SunnyLC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    Here's some info on how McCain and downticket Dems are doing in NM...

    NM Money: McCain Rakes it In; Downticket Money Update; and I Receive My First Democratic Fundraising Call...


    Looks like McCain is succeeding in pulling in big donors here in NM, dispelling some doubts that were voiced earlier...

    Meanwhile, I'm reposting this one in case you missed it from a day or so ago....

    Breaking: Tory Leader David Cameron "Hearts" Obama, Talks about "Progressive Goals" Achieved by "Conservative Means"

    Seems to fit Obama to a "T"....

    Peronal responsibility is... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    This article you link is mostly about Obama's attitude toward deadbeat dads in some black communities. He wants them to take responsibility for their families. How is that Conservative?
    I'm a left liberal and I agree that the family breakdown in some black communites is alarming. Seems more common sense than Conservative.

    Conservatives and common sense... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Marco21 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    just don't belong in the same sentence unless they're separated by "have no f-ing".

    It says it all (none / 0) (#173)
    by Claw on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    Incorrectly.  People in many, many states don't like to give to the DNC because, let's face it, they haven't done a very good job.  Both ACT and MoveON had far more accurate polling in 2004, which is sad.

    that means (none / 0) (#184)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    Obama has a mandate that you have to buy insurance for your children if you have any.  But, even if you have children you still don't have to buy insurance for yourself