No Hillary As VP Has Financial Consequences For Obama

When Barack Obama decided to forego the public finance system in the general election, it was with the expectation that his campaign's fundraising prowess would give Obama a decided advantage over the McCain campaign, which opted in to the public finance system. McCain received $84 million this month from the public finance system, while continuing to raise funds for the RNC and state GOP parties. And the NYTimes reports Obama's campaign is dissatisfied with its fundraising:

[T]he [Obama] campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

More . . .

The Obama campaign argues that its donors are just now turning to general election donations:

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said the majority of the Obama campaign’s donors during the primary had yet to write checks for the general election. When they do, he said, it will be the equivalent of the large injection of cash the McCain campaign is receiving from the government — about $70 million or $80 million. “We’re confident that we will meet our financial goals, but it’s hard work,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We have a long way to go in the next six weeks.”

Of course, McCain has that money in his bank right now. Obama needs to collect it. My own view is that had Obama chosen Hillary Clinton, that money would be sitting in Obama's bank account right now. Clinton had the second most impressive fundraising operation in politics. Yet another reason to rue Obama's unwillingness to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama Defends Habeas Corpus for Suspected Terrorists | Hillary Asks Voters "Who Is For You?" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No Hilary will be biggest mistake ever made by (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:54:47 AM EST
    any presidential candidate IMO

    They said they didn't need us (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by sj on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    And they said that they definitely didn't need her.  They seemed to think they were going to crush the Clintons.  Instead they will come out of this stronger than ever.

    I know that BTD thought his media darling status would carry him through but The New Best Thing has a hard time lasting for nearly a year.  And now they have a Newer Best Thing and she only has to maintain that shiny glow for two months.

    He was SO not ready for this.  He has no idea how to present himself or build a coalition.  Or even a bridge.

    What a bunch of amateurs.  


    WTH? (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:17:54 AM EST
    Seriously, when did Obama say he didn't need them? Also if he was this rank amateur what does that say about the person he beat in the longest and most strenuous primary in recent times?

    Have you been in outer space... (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by Shainzona on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:21:57 AM EST
    these past 10 months?  Obama clearly said (through his surrogates...but it was him speaking just the same), "We can do this without you."

    So, go ahead and try, BO.


    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 11) (#81)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    announced that the unity train was leaving the staion within days after the primaries ended.  She said at the time that if you weren't on board, we were leaving that station without you and would be able to win without you.

    Now, unless she was using the "royal" we and had made herself queen of the democrats, she was speaking for the party, Obama and his campaign.


    Obama (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    winning the primary has no relation to the general election. He won because of caucuses and superdelegates neither of which are going to be happening in Nov.

    This question exhausts me (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by sj on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    Read the archives.  Start about May 31.

    a loss, if it happens, (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    wouls speak volumes about the super delegates moreso than the candidates or the voters.  They made the ultimate decision.

    Obama may be rethinking (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Lahdee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:57:41 AM EST
    another of his decisions. He may be thinking it's time for the 527s to hit the bricks.  While he can't correct the Clinton situation a resurrection of the two tier approach signified by 527s may bring new urgency and energy to the campaign.

    Y'mean those groups (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:20:21 AM EST
    he declared--with disdain, I might add--to be nothing more than "Washington Insiders" like VoteVets?

    Yeah, VoteVets (5.00 / 13) (#25)
    by joanneleon on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:31:23 AM EST
    the ones who produced the most effective campaign ad of the 2006 elections?  The ones who stuck their necks out by being some of the first new vets to speak out against the war, during a time of war?  You mean some of the people of the highest integrity out there in the campaign world?

    Right, who would need people like that?


    It's an evolving position (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Lahdee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:32:16 AM EST
    and it may be the most hopeful sign we've seen yet from this campaign that it's willing to fight as necessary to win.

    evolving position...right... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:34:14 AM EST
    I got an email from (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:37:53 AM EST
    VoteVets re: leaks to the press (in the news) about the about the location of Palin's son--Track (in Iraq). They want an investigation...

    Whoever's doing that had better stop...immediately.


    Perhaps it was a (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:02:07 AM EST
    bad move to make the most important thing beating Hillary. Because he was raising money like crazy to beat her.  And so he did.  And now the support system is either tapped out or unwilling to give him any cash. I, for one, will definitely vote for him. But I will not give a dime.  

    good point rooge04- (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:09:03 AM EST
    many of the hard core Obama supporters seem to think once they beat Hillary the race was over. They forgot about that little thing called the general election.

    I'd say the same about the Obama campaign N/T (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    How badly are downticket Dems... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Shainzona on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:01:59 AM EST
    doing?  Didn't BO direct all funds to go to him first, then to downticket Dems?

    Not only will the top of the ticket lose, but the important people who might hold McCain in check, too.

    Not a pretty scenario.

    (Oh, wait - that assumes that congressional Dems would actually do something....like, say, pass legislation that Bush threatens to veto and tell him to "Make our day!")


    They've Got To Be Hurting (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by The Maven on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:38:54 AM EST
    Since the Obama campaign has indicated that it needs $125-$150 million just for itself for the fall campaign (more than just the $84 million because of the time and resources that have to be devoted to continued fundraising), that's a whole lot of money that isn't flowing directly to all those downticket races, even if one figures that "only" a third to a half of it would have been donated to some other candidate.

    Taking a pessimistic view of things, it's entirely possible that one of the stories coming out of election day will be the disappointingly minimal gains on the Congressional level.  I'm still hopeful that I'll end up being pleasantly surprised, but I fear that the big financial advantage we'd expected for House and Senate races may dissipate because of the Obama money vacuum.


    No Hillary was a mistake, IMO (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:04:44 AM EST
    but not a fatal one. Obama has to become more focused on the issues, embracing past Democratic achievements and showing how he will continue/resuscitate them, and pounding home the message that McCain = Bush and will not address, let alone cure, any of Bush's disastrous policy choices.  

    Why isn't Obama pounding on the fact that McCain is still being advised by Phil "Whiners" Gramm, the King of Tax Cuts for the wealthy and one of the men who brought us Enron? That's not change. That his foreign policy advisors are hard right neo-cons? That's not change.

    Why isn't he pounding home the fact that he will not raise taxes on working and middle class families?  That's not change. Why isn't he pounding home the fact that he's got the only plan to address the health care crisis? McCain's got nothing.  That's not change.  

    I saw Obama on KO last night, and even with KO's softballs, he wasn't getting many hits.

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    Too many people watch KO anymore since he turned into a bad caricature of Bill O'Reilly.  Even MSNBC realize now what sycophants these two idiots (Tweety & KO) were for Obama and won't be doing anymore political coverage of events.

    KO and Matthews will still be (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:23:20 AM EST
    commentators, they just won't be anchoring.

    And I don't watch Olbermann regularly any more, but I did tune in for the Obama interview. I wouldn't be surprised if others did too.  


    The first decision (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:14:05 AM EST
    Obama had to make that would impact not just him but us and he blew it because of his damn ego.  This is not a man that shows good judgement and is working for anyone but himself and not the man that America needs in the top spot.  Now he needs Hillary to go out and save his ass.  I don't think so.  Let him send Pelosi, Brazille, Oprah and Michelle if he needs women to fight his battles.  He may not win them but he will annoy the hell out of them with that group.

    Where <em> is</em> Pelosi? (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:23:19 AM EST
    I mean I remember her being all over the TV when she was trying to get Hillary out of the race. Leahy, too. Richardson. Brazille. Whatever happened to all of them? Now that the GOP is attacking Obama relentlessly, they are nowhere to be found.  Looks like they didn't realize there was a general election, either.

    She is (none / 0) (#22)
    by hlr on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:28:39 AM EST
    heading up a fundraiser (along w/ Reid) for Hillary's debt next week here in DC.

    That's not what I asked (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:31:15 AM EST
    Where is she with the media? Why is she not passionately defending the ticket. She was, as sitting speaker, willing to go on TV over and over again and denounce Hillary. But now that Obama and Biden are being attacked, she's quiet.  It appears as though a lot of people thought about winning the battle but forgot about the war.

    well, (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by hlr on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:39:09 AM EST
    I find it interesting that the two of them are now involved in trying to reduce Hillary's debt. It tells me that either they are desperate to get Hillary out there full-time on behalf of Obama, or they are making nice, just in case, if the Dem party is to have a future.

    As far as fighting in public on behalf of Obama is concerned -- no, they are cowards, it's just easier for them to get Hillary to do it.


    Last time Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:08:44 AM EST
    went out and spoke about Obama she send he was sent to us by God.  I don't think that did him too much good.

    All this religious fanaticism is (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:15:31 AM EST
    driving me nuts.

    We'll be back to witch burning if this keeps up.


    I have talked to many (2.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:58:12 AM EST
    Who were Hillary supporters and they are not happy with her turning herself into a doormat for Obama.  After what he, his surrogates, his supporters and the DNC did to her and to Bill with the misogyny, the racism and just all the old-fashioned Clinton Hatred she owes these people nothing.  We understand that she has always been a good Democrat but we don't have "good" Democrats anymore, we have "new" Democrats.  She should work for down-ticket Democrats so that we will have a veto-proof majority if possible.  Otherwise, let Obama send Michell out there to wow everyone and see how well that works out for him.  

    As Hillary said.... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:13:48 AM EST
    this election is bigger than Obama and her.

    This election is too important for her to turn her back.   Hillary must fight for the people.


    Not a doormat (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    An article yesterday stated that one of the two conditions for Clinton to get out campaigning was that for each event, they were to hold a fundraiser for her.  I imagine that the strategy is that Clinton will get more votes out in the field and the others time can best be spent fundraising for her.

    She's being paid.  I have no problem with it.


    From what I understand she has been stomping her (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    heart out for downtickets. I'm not really interested in being a "good" Democrat myself anymore(although I don't fault Hill for towing the line as an influential leader who has that expectation thrust upon her). I do like that she told them "pack sand" when it comes to attacking Sarah Palin. It makes me more than uncomfortable that a whole bunch of feminists are out to smear her because they disagree with her. Nothing gets my hackles up more than a smear campaign.

    I completely agree. (none / 0) (#35)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:43:08 AM EST
    They are desperate to have Hillary win this for them now.  And if they do manage to pull it off, they can thank her for it.

    Team Obama (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:18:48 AM EST
    Had a primary strategy but they did not and do not have a General Elections strategy.  Hillary had the inverse.  

    The message (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:21:13 AM EST
    Of that photo is I know you are desperate but "No Thanks".  Unfortunately Obama bought his own hype.

    I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Badtypist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:32:45 AM EST
    if his fundraising shortfall has anything to do with all those Republicans who donated to him in the primaries to beat Clinton not donating to him in the General? HMMM?

    I have to wonder (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by joanneleon on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:40:41 AM EST
    if people really think Obama needs help fundraising, after watching the Democratic convention and the stadium show.  Also, all through the primary, the Obama campaign came out month after month announcing that they'd raised tens of millions of dollars and it seemed effortless.

    I don't see or hear much urgency from the campaign for money.  And it didn't look like they were hurting for anything at the convention.  I think this may have something to do with the lower fund raising numbers.  Plus, it gets harder everyday for people to shell out money for anything other than survival and saving for whatever catastrophe is coming.

    Don't forget the kids (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    Summer is over, school is back, the summer jobs and extra bucks gone. The three month attention span is over.

    Which all adds up to a lot less contributors and a lot less money for Obama.


    True (none / 0) (#108)
    by joanneleon on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    You should see what I've had to spend during the past two weeks for three boys, and I didn't even get them new school clothes.

    The Obama campaign is sure sending (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    me lots of mailers.  I quickly walk past the Obama campaign fundraisers at the baseball park; might regret what I say if I stopped.  

    I think that is exaclty right (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:07:33 AM EST
    Financial consequences (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by barbarajmay on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    I will certainly vote for Obama, but I won't send money.  I told his campaign that I would contribute the maximum the day he added Hillary to his ticket.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who had the same sentiment.  Can you imagine the excitement and buzz if Hillary were onboard right now instead of the senator from MBNA?  In lieu of giving to Obama, I am giving liberally to my Minnesota candidates and I'm working my bottom off for Franken.  Obama made a poor decision to brush off Hillary and her supporters.

    Never a question, for me, (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:42:35 AM EST
    to support Senator Obama. However, I did give pause with regard to sending money.  The FISA vote required that a message be sent and that seemed to be a good way, particularly with the polls then looking so good.   However, that attitude has long gone by the board, my vote for sure, and now  my financial support. He  (we) need both; a McCain/Palin administration is very likely to be even worse that Bush/Cheney.  McCain was always viewed as a dangerous candidate by me, and with his running mate, it is beyond that--both McCain and Palin have little constructive experience.  Moreover, look at their ideology and the Dobsonesque fanatics in their corner.  A McCain/Palin administration will be peopled with  theocrats, end of timers, and  the "life ends with birth" crowd.

    The end portion of your comment is untrue (none / 0) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    If Sarah Palin believed life ended at birth I don't think the group she is a member of would advocate the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Support act that would help with subsidies for college women who choose to give birth nor the Child Enforcemenmt Act.

    If you are going to smear someone be accurate por favor.


    A more careful reading (none / 0) (#130)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    may note that it is suggested that a McCain/Palin administration would be peopled by theocrats, end of timers and the "life ends with birth" crowd.  Neither McCain nor Palin are not necessarily  among any of these, but their administration is likely to see them as these types are among their staunchest supporters.  

    I made a bet to max out for Obama (none / 0) (#50)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:09:35 AM EST
    If he picked Hillary (bet made with a hard core Obama supporter colleague of mine). Unfortunately I had a feeling it was a pretty safe bet.

    It is indeed interesting (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:43:56 AM EST
    to think about what motivates the people who were willing to dig deep into their pockets to defeat Hillary Clinton, but are not willing to do the same to defeat John McCain.

    If you can't trust Andrew Sullivan, who (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    can you trust?

    No organized political party. . . (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    I'm a Democrat.

    Truer words, alas, haven't been spoken.  They've succeeded in purging the party of (in their mind) not-entirely-doctrinally-correct folks and now run a risk (small, I hope) of given us the repellent McCain/Palin Administration.


    Could be a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    reasons why.

    FISA and flip-flopping and a number of issues including but not limited to Iraq and taxes, earmarks, public financing...

    In short Obama has shown people that he is not the Progressive some thought he was. As of late he has shown that he is not the campaigner that they thought he may be and they may be funding a losing campaign. He has shown he is DOA without Clinton in terms of both big money fund raisers and getting a coherent message out.

    When you add those things up and more it is not surprising that people are sitting on their wallets.


    Another interesting thing (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by joanneleon on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    is that the number of those strident voices seems to have decreased.  Where did they go?  Where is their money going?

    iPhones. (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:51:55 AM EST
    Republicans? (none / 0) (#62)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:22:42 AM EST
    Some (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    but Plouffe says "a majority" of the primary donors haven't yet ponied up for the general election.  Suffice it to say that I doubt Republicans comprised a majority of Obama's donors during the primary, although there surely were some.

    I was being humorous Steve (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    I notice when I googled my name I show up in Huffington Post as a over $250 donor with address, map, blue donkey and employer. Could have done without that information easily available.

    I confess (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    I am reluctant to give large amounts to anyone for precisely that reason.  I ought to be able to support a politician without the world knowing.

    do you think (none / 0) (#92)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    lobbyists and corporations should be able to do the same?

    No (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:42:25 AM EST
    I'm not sure I see your point.  Corporations are prohibited from donating to candidates, and we could certainly have a system that makes the donations of federal lobbyists publicly available while maintaining the privacy of everyone else's.

    That said, I understand the reasons why we have the current system.  I'm not saying I can propose a better one.  I just don't like the idea that everyone can go on the Internet and find out exactly who I've given to.


    everyone (none / 0) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    who has argued against limits for donations and other campaign finance reforms has always used the argument that "transparency" in knowing who is giving to the candidates is really what we need.  Then we will know who the candidates are "beholden to".  Transparency either applies to everyone or no one.

    Sorry I messed up with the corporations, that should have been corporate PACs.


    Really? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    So we can't have one set of rules for registered lobbyists and corporate PACs, and another set for private individuals?  Was that engraved on those tablets as the 11th Commandment or something?

    I see no argument that there must be disclosure for everyone or else no one, aside from the fact that you say so.


    Although the information yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    that Obama received the most contributions of any candidate from employees of Freddie and Fannie was pretty interesting.

    a corporate pac (none / 0) (#105)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    is limited to the same dollar amount of contribution that you are.  Why should I believe that a corporate pac givind $2300 is more dangerous than an individual giving $2300.

    and, if we stop reporting individual donations, wouldn't the PACs just pretend to be individuals in the future?  They are composed of real individual people, right?


    How can a PAC (none / 0) (#113)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    pretend to be an individual?  They are federally registered entities, by law.

    Look, if you don't think it's relevant to know whether a corporate PAC gave $2300, then fine, let's not have public disclosure of anyone's contributions.

    But there's at least an argument that it's relevant to know whether Halliburton PAC donated money to a candidate.  There is no conceivable public policy reason why anyone needs to know that Jane Doe of 123 Main Street, Anytown USA made a donation.


    a pac can pretend (none / 0) (#119)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    to be a person by just having the person who runs it donate the 2300 individually. I think it should stay like it is and have ALL disclosures.

    Sure (none / 0) (#131)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    if he's willing to commit a federal crime by donating other people's contributions under his own name, I suppose he could do that.

    You don't really seem to be making much of an argument here, sorry.


    Not VP, necessarily. (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    While naming Clinton certainly would have opened the floodgates even a modicum of graciousness in victory would have gone a long way towards soothing raw feelings.

    During the convention, the Times had a story on the ways in which Clinton donors, high rollers, were feeling dissed by the Obama campaign in terms of things like hotel room availability.

    The Obama campaign was in part a campaign against the establishment of the Democratic Party, or at least a certain part of that establishment (the part that actually wins elections) and Obama was always clear that he didn't think folks in that wing of the party would have anywhere else to go if he became the nominee.

    I guess he didn't figure that not having anywhere else to go doesn't preclude the possibility of staying home.

    'Don't need [to see the donors] just their checks' (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Ellie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    (Above was paraphrased as close to verbatim as memory allows)

    This is about as ungracious as it gets:

    Obama didn't want to appear at a PA fundaiser comprised of big donors backing Clinton. Let's just say with as much understatement as is possible without a head implosion, the FU, just send money message on the heels of a p!ss poor showing there was not the way to go.

    Especially not after weeks of a 3-4x burn rate not budging him with voters. (Who'd want to write a huge check for that, with a big a-la-mode of FU on top?)


    He is a very arrogant man (2.00 / 0) (#99)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    And it showed last weekend in his interview on This Week with George S.

    Arrogance doesn't sell well in politics particularly to the swing blue collar workers who will decide this election and several polls are reflecting that.


    I got a fundraising letter from Obama-Biden (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:06:36 AM EST
    yesterday, with a photo and everything.  The interesting thing was that it was officially from and signed by Joe Biden.  Barely mentioned Obama at all.

    Is this how they are trying to get money from those of us who gave to Clinton?

    I truly believe that Obama has all the money he needs to win this election. If I thought money was the problem, maybe I would contribute.

    The DSCC and Harry Reid (none / 0) (#55)
    by Emma on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:14:21 AM EST
    sent a very similar email to me.  From Joe Biden, send money to get a Dem Congress, but with an emphasis on delivering a filibuster proof majority to Obama.  So, there was a good bit about Obama.

    Emma (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    The thing that scares me the most right now is that Obama will win and he will have a huge majority of Democratic sycophants in Congress doing his bidding.  He has no core principles and he will sell out to big business.  This is coming from a life-long Democrat who did not drink the kool-aid.  

    If McCain/Palin win with that same veto-proof Democratic majority we can hold their feet to the fire while at the same time, hopefully ridding our party of Pelosi, Dean, Brazille etc. and getting back to a party that believes in the people and not just "the One".  Hillary can run in 2012 and we can right this horrible wrong.  We survived 8 horrifying years of Bush and will some control we can withstand 4 years of McCain.  And honestly, right now I trust him more than Obama.


    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Emma on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    if I believe either scenario will come to pass:  McCain with a bomb-proof Dem Congress or Obama with a bomb-proof Dem Congress.  I can't read those tea leaves.

    As for Hillary running in 2012, I can't put my hopes on that.

    All I've got is the now:  I cannot endorse with my vote Obama body surfing the tsunami of sexism on his way to the nomination.  I cannot do it.  Maybe I am a bitter dead-ender, but I've stopped worrying about it.


    I'm planning on buying some Obama/Biden (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:09:11 AM EST
    bumper stickers...but I can tell you I already would've had my car swagged out if it were Obama/Clinton.

    I will vote for Obama/Biden, but won't contribute (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by kempis on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:41:55 AM EST
    but I can't bring myself to put a bumper sticker on my car or a sign in my yard. Nor can I make myself make a donation.

    I will vote for them because they're a better choice for sane policies than McCain/Palin. But I won't give money to a candidate whose campaign and supporters dissed the working class and Appalachian voters.

    I obliged Donna Brazile by leaving the party and becoming an un-affiliated voter. I'll vote for her candidate. But my disgust with the Democrats in general almost equals my disgust with the GOP. Until a new crop of grown-ups comes along to run that party, I don't want to belong to it.


    I keep reading (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:11:11 AM EST
    Things like "I'll definately vote for Obama but won't give him a dime."  My question would be, and I'm serious here, Why?  I've been a registered and active Democrat for 40 years and this is the weakest candidate we've ever had and we got him by manipulation.  I have no idea where he stands on issues (yes, I've been to his website) and when I think I do know where he stands he takes a different position.  Unless he's reading a prepared speech he is an awful candidate and I think his ego, his condescention and his arrogance is wearing pretty thin with voters.  Would you really rather have Obama at the top with his judgement and a Congress full of Democratic lackeys doing his bidding?  I don't trust that.

    Yes, I would (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    Because whatever Obama's weaknesses, I trust John McCain's judgment far less. He's

    • capitulated to the extreme right wing of his party in picking Palin,
    • pledged to continue Bush's disastrous tax and economic policies,
    • is focusing on drilling our way out of our dependence on foreign oil, despite the evidence that it will hardly make a difference in oil prices or our need to import oil even after the oil becomes available years from now, at the expense of actively promoting renewable sources of energy,
    • will stay in Iraq forever until we "win,"
    will expand on Bush's radical extension of executive power,
    • acquiesced to Bush's insistence that he has the power to torture, after having posed as an opponent of torture,
    • will appoint right wing judges who will not only put our privacy and reproductive rights in jeopardy, but will also further other aspects of the right wing agenda,
    • repudiated his own immigration reform bill and embraced the "secure the borders" position of those who thing we can or should deport every undocumented immigrant in America,
    • agrees with Bush's view that American power is best exercised through shows of force rather than diplomacy and practicing what we preach on human rights.

    That's not good judgment to me, no matter how many years of experience he has.

    Litigatormom, (none / 0) (#84)
    by Lena on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:59:12 AM EST
    I absolutely agree with your assessment, but I'm wondering what you think about the impact of an Obama presidency on the Democratic party.

    It seems that if Obama is elected, this will cement the ascendancy of people like Donna Brazille, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc. in the party, which suggests that the status quo of the spineless Dems is preserved. And the status quo doesn't seem to care about health care, nor does it care about pursuing any of the progressive ideas of the Democratic platform. Also, let's face it, the Dems have now shown how shockingly regressive they are towards women.

    This is my problem in voting for Obama. I don't want to give my stamp of approval to a crew who won't pass meaningful health care reform, can't stand up for the Constitution, and views "faith based" expansion as A-ok.

    Assuming we could survive 4 years with McCain, and the Supreme Court can take the blow, could it be better for the party (and, in the long run, for the nation), to just suck it up and try again in 4 years, except this time with a strong candidate who can transform the party into an actual opposition party with guts? (and here I must add that I don't even care whether it's HRC who runs in 2012 or not - all I want is someone with ACTUAL progressive values...)


    I agree, Lena (none / 0) (#89)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    I want my Democratic Party back and I want someone who understands what issues are important for the people and will work for those things.  As far as the Supreme Court, if we have a strong Democratic majority they do not have to approve anyone that is not acceptable.  The Supreme Court has functioned without nine members before and can do it again.  I also believe that somewhere deep inside McCain that maverick does lurk and with the power of the presidency he will govern more moderately.  Again with a strong majority he can be held in check.  

    I will not and cannot give approval to the DNC and the Obama campaign for their actions in the primary.  They cheated the American people out of the opportunity for real change with the smartest and best at the top who understands the issues and would fight for them.  Obama will not IMO.


    Strong Democratic majority? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    I want some of what you are smoking. Seriously. Think about Iran, FISA, and partial birth and then repeat the line we have a strong Democratic majority.

    We have about 22 that will hold up under pressure. The rest of them are as useless as boobs on a bull.


    You've got two big assumptions in there (none / 0) (#126)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    with which I cannot agree. One is that "the Supreme Court could take the hit."  It can't. Ginsburg and Stevens want to retire, and in any case may not survive for another four years. The next president will nominate at least two justices.  McCain has promised to appoint more Scalias and Alitos. Quite apart from reproductive freedom, the Supreme Court is going to continue to have to deal with questions about torture, unwarranted claims of executive privilege, boundless claims of CiC power to violate the Constitution, domestic wire-tapping, etc.  I don't want a court with another Scalia or Alito on the Court deciding those questions.  Counting on the Dems, even with an increased majority in the Senate, to filibuster a series of bad nominations is unrealistic, especially given the continued existence of most of the Gang of 14.
    I don't think the number of Dems in the Senate is going to reach 60 in the next election.

    Second, and more critical, is the assumption that "we could survive 4 years with McCain."  I'm not sure we can.  As Palin's nomination illustrates, McCain is impulsive and unprincipled. He's as much of a believer in the power of bullying as Bush is.  Would he bomb bomb bomb Iran?  Would he stay in Iraq even if the Iraqis tell us to leave?  How long will he keep us there chasing an elusive, undefined "victory"? Would he try to intervene militarily in Georgia?  I don't want to find out.

    I started the season as a Clinton supporter and very much believed that she would have made the better nominee, and a better president. I was extremely disappointed that she didn't get the nomination, and hung on 'til the very end of her campaign. But I no longer have the choice of a Clinton candidacy, and I don't think the country can or should put up with four more years of GOP insanity before a better Democrat can run. Obama isn't my ideal, but he's the best option at the moment.

    I loathe Donna Brazile. I don't like Howard Dean much better. I am giving no money to the DNC.  But as between the DNC and the Republican Party, I would prefer to punish the latter right now.  Punishment for the former can come later.

    BTW, I don't think its true that Obama doesn't care about health care. His plan is clearly inferior to Hillary's, and would be more expensive. But it is vastly superior to McCain's vague "market forces" mumblings.  HE doesn't care about health care. At all.


    Would I rather have Obama at the top (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by akaEloise on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    rather than having a person like John McCain, who's wrong on every single issue, uses racist and sexist pejoratives, and has a vile, hair-trigger temper?  Hell yes.  Obama will be fine.  

    Please bear in mind (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Badtypist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    that many voters see Obama as being guilty of the same things you accuse Mccain of. The fact that he directed, perceived, " racist and sexist pejoratives" at a fellow democrat, flip flopped on FISA, has a terrible health care plan, back tracked on campaign finance, backs faith based initatives, is wishy washy on reproductive rights and has pandered to evangelicals does not in the eyes of many make him stand out from McCain.

    I would suspect that... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:24:12 AM EST
    "this is the weakest candidate we've ever had and we got him by manipulation" is a big part of it.

    And this "no idea where he stands on issues (yes, I've been to his website) and when I think I do know where he stands he takes a different position" might be another part of it.

    In effect, I think you answered your own question.

    Speaking only for me, I can't afford to give tons of money to candidates and causes. So I donate what I can down ticket to folks like Kirsten Gillibrand, who is up for re-election.


    If Obama and his supporters, (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    and I mean the big ones not the $20 internet crowd, had begun fund-raising in earnest to pay down Hillary's debt the day after she suspended her campaign, more of her supporters, including the $20 internet crowd, would be donating money to him. His negative attitude about paying her debt sent a strong message that everyone is still hearing. Although most of her supporters will cast their ballots for him, you don't need a checkbook to vote.

    Where in the world (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by WS on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:36:36 AM EST
    did the Obama people get the idea that the Clinton fundraisers will enthusiastically pony up money to Obama when that their person isn't even on the ticket and the Obama fundraisers didn't help erase Hillary's debt? Hello, they're Hillary supporters for a reason.    

    I agree with litigatormom that it was a mistake but not a fatal one.  A smarter politician wouldn't have done what Obama did.  

    I maxed out for Hillary and probably would have (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by nycvoter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:44:52 AM EST
    gone to a Hillary event if she had been on the ticket and maxed out for the team.  I have also been an annual $1,000 contributor to the DNC.  I am not giving any money this year or attending any events because of the Dem leadership behavior during the primary (Clintons are evil and racist and everyone stays quiet, and pushing HRC out, etc, etc, etc)

    They can do it without me.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    The depressing thing is that all this was (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by jpete on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    perfectly predictable and a number of people here worried about this sort of stuff a long time ago.

    It reminds me of the lead up to the war.  You watch in utter disbelief as almost everyone else jumps on the wrong bandwagon.  And I think it was easier to believe that Saddam had plans to nuke the US than it was to believe that Obama could pull off the national election.  He isn't the gold fish that Palin is, but he doesn't yet know how to swim with the sharks.  

    Oh jpete (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    "Doesn't know how to swim with the sharks".  LOL
    Does Chicago politics ring a bell?  Have you actually studied how he got where he is?  Obama has a history of stepping on opponents, or disappearing them but he has never had to compete with anyone until this election.  And he had the media, the DNC, his supporters, his surrogates, the so-called "progressive" blogs and the Rules Committe destroy Hillary and carry his butt over the finish line in the primary.  He didn't think he would have to compete in the general campaign either.  He thought he would just glide to a win after a nice vacation in Hawaii.  

    Nice point! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jpete on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:26:11 PM EST
    So it is less ignorance than incompetence or at least miscalculation.

    I'll have to think of a new metaphor.  Houw about:  He figure out how to shoot the moose, but didn't realize he'd have to skin it.


    Well, you reap what you sow (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by magesuew on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:37:17 AM EST
    Obama's main problem has always been arrogance. He thought he didn't need Hillary, so he made the calculation and picked Biden. In presidential politics, you pile on, you take EVERY advantage and you add every asset, you don't leave some by the way side figuring you won't need them.

    If Obama had chose Hillary, McCain would not have chosen Palin, and if he had, it wouldn't have made any difference. Obama would have won the election going away. Now, it looks like he will probably lose.

    He deserves to lose, and I can't be bothered to care.

    Hillary/Schweizter '12!

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    From what I understand he would have chose Lieberman......can you imagine how that would have reunited the progressive base? Lieberman couldn't even carry his own state among his own party during the primary.

    His supporters didn't help her. (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by eleanora on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:36:46 AM EST
    I'm trying to keep my happy Unity pony place, but this makes me mad again. Senator Obama's campaign made a big call to his supporters to donate to help Senator Clinton retire her debt, but... let's just say the results weren't that good.

    And the NYT knows it, they reported 8/27 that Clinton donors

    "Indeed, a New York Times analysis of Federal Election Committee records found that Clinton donors contributed roughly $2 million to the Obama campaign in July, similar to what they gave in June. The amount is not insubstantial, but it appears to fall short of targets originally envisioned by Obama fund-raisers.

    ....Another sore point remains Clinton fund-raisers' contentions that Mr. Obama has not done enough to help Mrs. Clinton retire her debt. The analysis by The Times found that Obama donors gave $300,000 to Mrs. Clinton in July and $135,000 in June."

    So $4 million from our side vs. $435,000 from theirs? I'm finally almost maxed out to help with HRC's debt, then my money goes to Planned Parenthood.

    Obama supporters kept saying if we really believed in Hillary, why didn't she have as much money as he did? And the media drooled over his "unstoppable financial advantage." Apparently the most money doesn't mean the best candidate now.

    I knew that $3 would come in handy someday (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:30:45 PM EST
    I've been checking off that little box exer since I started filing my taxes.  I'm very pleased that one of our candidates decided to use that chunk o'cash.  
    Especially because he didn't renege on his promise to do so.  

    ha (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    Hey, another negative story. Great job!

    So, (none / 0) (#3)
    by hlr on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:58:40 AM EST
    My own view is that had Obama chosen Hillary Clinton, that money would be sitting in Obama's bank account right now.

    should the Dem ticket not prevail, who will get the blame? Team Obama, for choosing Biden, or Team Hillary, for not filling the coffers?

    In my opinion, it's all on Obama. (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:04:21 AM EST
    He's done very little of what was available to him to appeal to Hillary backers. Obviously, taking her as his running mate would have been the biggest step, but he hasn't really done all that he could aside from that, either.

    I don't know whether Hillary is privately doing everything she can for Obama's fundraising, but she has publicly done all that could be expected of her to help Obama get votes.


    She's still trying to retire her own debt (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:06:07 AM EST
    And Obama supporters haven't coughed up much cash for that. I'm going to participate in a fundraiser for Obama later this month, but my only checks since the primaries were over to date have been to Clinton.

    I'm feeling a shift in mood (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:06:56 AM EST
    Now that Obama is the official candidate and the media isn't talking about the Clintons anymore, people seem less inclined to blame Clinton.  We'll always have the incurable CDSers, but the less emotionally invested understand that Clinton isn't some beast of burden that Obama can ride into the White House and that perception would be counterproductive.

    Personally I think all the SDs with their superior judgment ought to be out there raising cold hard cash for the candidate they chose.  Time to walk the walk.


    No need to blame Clinton anymore... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:23:29 AM EST
    Now that Clinton is out of the race, she is no longer a threat to the puppet masters who just about own the country.   Clinton was their worst nightmare.  She could have saved the Democracy.

    The take over of the country by the super rich is  about complete.


    Team Obama (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by joanneleon on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:31:58 AM EST
    Hands down.

    I did read an article suggesting (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton wasn't pressuring some of her big donors enough to give to Obama campaign.  Not that she hadn't asked them, you understand.  I guess she is supposed to badger them until they say "uncle."

    The What If Scenario (none / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:05:03 AM EST
    I know this is a wild idea and probably does not have a chance in hell but what if Biden somehow decided to bow out for the sake of the unification of the party and to slam dunk the win with the condition that Hilary would replace her.  Of course this would have to be done before the 25 th of Sept since early voting in some states start around then.  I know it's a crazy idea but it would be the only desperate thing to do if McCain keeps gaining ground and Obama becomes a fizzle.

      What say you?

    I think its too late (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:08:13 AM EST
    and would look desperate. He should have done it before.

    To the extent that picking Hillary would have been embracing the "old" politics, how is Biden new politics?  He's okay for me, but I don't see what he brought to the party that Hillary wouldn't have brought.

    But as I said above, it's all academic at this point. Obama is ceding all the media coverage to McCain/Palin.  He's got to get the focus back on to the issues.


    remember when the big issue (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    was that if Obama picks Clinton, the media would be all about Clinton and that would be bad?

    well, now the media is all about Palin instead.  Is that working out any better?


    No, it isn't (none / 0) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    I agree it was a mistake, it's just not a mistake that can be cured at this point.  He's got to focus on taking McCain apart on the issues and on his phony "change" mantra.

    Obama's change mantra (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    doesn't look that much better from where I am sitting. Health care off the table. Marriage between man and a women and stumping during the primaries with some nutball who says gay is a disease. Biden out there saying life begins at conception. Social security in "crisis." I could go on and on. The difference between the two parties at this point is so blurry that I can't even begin to distinguish between the two.

    How is health care off the table? (none / 0) (#128)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:12:00 PM EST
    He's got a health care plan. It's not as good as Clinton's was, but it's better than the current mess, and could eventually evolve into truly universal healthcare.

    I don't care what Biden's private religious beliefs are. I don't care what anyone's private religious beliefs are, so long as they don't try to legislate them or pack the Supreme Court with justices who will impose them on me. Think that life begins with conception all you want; just don't tell me that the law must embody your beliefs at the expense of mine, or at the expense of my control over my own body.


    bad idea (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by elmey on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:15:14 AM EST
    looking weak and desparate doesn't sell.
    Biden isn't Hillary but he'll do.  The campaign has to start punching McCain on bread and butter issues.

    Probably not possible (none / 0) (#11)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:08:40 AM EST
    I would imagine that the names for the ballots would have had to be submitted by now in states where there is early voting.

    No turning back now.

    On another note, this also hurts him because he is going to have to spend TIME fundraising, while McCain is virtually freed of that duty and can use that time campaigning.


    In order for it to be successful (none / 0) (#14)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    it would have to be extremely carefully choreographed.

    It would have to be a unityUnityUNITY! event with every notable Democrat firmly and publicly in support of it.  No reservations.  No snide remarks.  No quibbling or wiggle room or waffling.  If Hillary could lead the vote by acclamation at the convention, Obama could do the same for her.


    It's good that mccain picked palin. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:12:55 AM EST
    It shows that his decision making about a VP is even stupider than Obama's dumb mistake in not picking Hillary.

    So far Jake (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    That scenario only seems to be playing out in your head.  Joe MBNA did nothing, zip, nada for Obama.  Palin seems to have been a huge success for the McCain campaign.  

    Where did I say (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:52:36 AM EST
    that Obama did a good thing by picking Joe. My post was just the opposite.

    Reading a post with care would help before you snark.


    Jake Left (none / 0) (#87)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    The way I read your post is that McCains pick of Palin is even more stupid than Obama's pick of Biden.  

    That doesn't seem to be the case.  Biden was a bad pick any way you look at it if you consider what a good pick Hillary would have been.

    Palin was a good pick for McCain and made the Obama pick look even worse IMO.


    I can see (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    your reading of it. My contention is that both of them failed the decision making test. Neither will be a very good VP. Obama made a strategic error. mccain (rove) made a decision that would cripple our country.

    You HAVE noticed... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by sj on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    ... that it seems to be working for him, right?

    Read both posts. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    Do you think Blue Sage is saying that Joe Biden was a good choice. I said it was a bad choice. If he believes my post is wrong, then he must like that Obama chose Biden rather than Hillary. Is that your position also.

    I think that selecting Biden instead of Hillary may be the deciding factor in costing us the election.


    Jake Left (none / 0) (#88)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    That would be "she" when speaking about Bluesage.

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    I'm not disagreeing with you on the poor decision to have Biden instead of Clinton.  On that we are in accord.

    I'm disagreeing with you that Palin was a bad decision for McCain.  Deplorable for us.  Good for him.  So, in my view it was definitely not "stupider".

    Re Bluesage:  Agree with her on both points


    Okay, (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    We agree that Biden was a poor political choice, hence an example of poor political judgement on Obama's part.

    palin may be a smart political choice (probably rove) but is such a monumentally bad choice for that office that I believe it is an example of mccain's lack of principal.


    That photo (none / 0) (#17)
    by hlr on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:17:08 AM EST
    What is the message?

    1. Panhandling for politicians is hard work.
    2. People on the Upper West Side aren't good Dems.
    3. Campaign is desperate/people don't care.

     Incidentally, we have a fleet of DNC/Obama canvassers in DC as well.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Nike on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:31:40 AM EST
    Maybe what the picture says is: well-heeled Hillary supporters are brushing off cool, hip Obama supporters when they have their hands out....

    Canvassing IS (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:50:04 AM EST
    hard work.  Especially street canvassing.

    I used to wear that same t-shirt in 2006...


    It seems (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    that Obama's campaign is now depending on magical donors along with magical voters?

    What evidence does Plouffe have that these people are going to donate money? I certainly don't see any in that quote.

    evidence (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by hlr on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    They told him "Check's in the mail!"

    sorry, couldn't resist.


    I guess he'll just have to (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    reevaluate the 'no DC lobbyists' money rule which always was laughable.  Haven't heard that one lately...time for the WORM to turn.

    Time for the candidate to wake up and take a hint from Willie Sutton.  When the FBI asked Willie why he robbed banks, he replied "Because that's where the money is!"

    Many on K Street will want to cover their McCain bets...'just in case.'  Most lobbyists and corporate people, before Tom DeLay, believed in political insurance.  They still do.

    I'll bet Mrs. Daschle has found a way to donate to Obama.

    good for those Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#116)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    So he foregoes public financing, a major democratic principle as far as I am concerned, and his plan was to make Hillary voters give money to him. That was his plan??? and you want him to the leader of the free world? Could they not tell when they were not winning those races at the end even when it was "over" that there might be a problem. Or were they so mesmerized by the messiah complex that they couldn't predict this?

    The stupidity of the Obama campaign just continues to amaze me. Can we finally lay to rest the meme that Hillary lost because she ran such a bad campaign in the primary. Has the Obama campaign finally made enough missteps that it is apparent that they aren' the awesome machine that every one pretended they were.

    on Public FINANCING.  But heh, Barry thinks he can do or say anything and gifts will still surround him. (ha ha)

    Here's the LA Times on where the money (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    is going and the EV vote strategies of each campaign: