Obama to Announce Re-Election Bid, Hopes to Raise $1 Billion

CNN reports that President Obama will announce his bid for a second term as President as early as Monday. His first fund-raiser will be April 14 in Chicago.

Fund-raising for Obama's re-election is likely to shatter all previous records:

The president is making his campaign official slightly earlier than is typical for an incumbent so he can get a jump on fund-raising in a season that's likely to shatter all records. Obama’s team has been asking campaign bundlers to raise $350,000 each, no easy task since campaign finance laws limit gifts to $2,500 per donor. Two sources tell CNN the campaign team hopes that in total their bundlers will raise $500 million, leaving the campaign to raise another $500 million and amass a record-breaking $1 billion war chest.

Obama raised $745 million for the 2008 election.

CNN says Dems are worried about the amount of money Karl Rove and the Hunt brothers are likely to raise for the eventual Republican nominee. And Donald Trump told ABC News that he's willing to spend $600 million of his own money if he decides to run.

< Saturday Morning OpenThread | Wachovia, Money Laundering and the Cartels >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds like a really spectacular way (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 08:57:28 PM EST
    to spend a billion dollars to me. Assuming you'd want to spend it unproductively, that is.

    The vast majority will go (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    to TV. NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and the other big affiliate groups stand to drink it up.

    He can fund raise (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 09:07:53 PM EST
    all he wants.  It may not make any difference to him, but he's not getting a dime (or any kind of campaigning help, or even a vote) out of me.  I'm voting (and giving) third party.  I've had it.

    That was exactly my thought (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by sj on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    when I saw the headline.  He'll probably get his obscene $11B.  But not a penny of it will be from me.  From me he gets not a penny, not an hour, not a vote.  

    I don't care what kind of hype I hear about Obama's Good Works and Inevitable Re-election.


    Wow (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:33:32 AM EST
    Just re-read my comment.  Obviously I meant "obscene $1B" not "obscene $11B".  But everything else is still true.

    that's very short-sighted (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 12:35:29 AM EST
    If you care about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, who gets appointed Attorney General, health care, medicare, social security and a host of other issues, you would not take a chance that a Republican would be elected President in 2012.

    That's also very short sighted (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Romberry on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 01:49:35 AM EST
    Sorry, but continuing to vote for Dems who govern like Republicans is not the answer. It's pretty apparent that change is not coming from either corporate party. They are in this kabuki dance together, and what you just advocated is exactly the response they want.

    Two corporate parties is what we have. I am done with both. I reserve the right to vote for select Democrats if they actually represent the FDR/New Deal Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. But Obama doesn't represent that wing. Obama is Bush's third term, and he will get zero from me in the way of vote or money. I'm going Kermit and looking to support a party that seems to believe in a lot more of the things I believe in, 'cause the Democratic Party (at the elite level) most certainly believes in something else.

    Basically, Obama and the Democratic elite are still steering a course that travels the Republican road to hell. They want to drive there a little more slowly, but the destination is the same. I'm looking for a different destination, not just the slow road to hell.


    Oh great, another run (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    by the annoying Ralph Nadir under the Green Pty banner?  Or will it be another unknown who talks the self-righteous talk of progressive purity but who's been elected to nothing previously and whose candidacy would probably be quietly backed and funded by the GOP and their corporate cousins?

    Easy to be negative all the time, say no, and find fault.  How about some names of viable alternatives to Obama?  Perhaps someone with a proven track record, rather than just easy political rhetoric from the sidelines.  


    Ralph didn't run Green last round (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    and I believe the candidate last time had been elected previously . . . .

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:18:50 AM EST
    the only valid point I see that you're making there is the supreme court. After all, Obama is for cutting social security, medicare, and in agreement with the GOP on a whole host of issues.

    And even if we had had a GOP president right now there wouldn't be radicals on the supreme court IF the Dems would stand up.


    I wouldn't be too sure (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:04:31 AM EST
    about radicals not being put on the Sup Ct with a Gooper in the WH.  All it takes is a majority, and presumably if they've elected an R as prez, that would normally mean he brings with him some more people to Congress.  

    And all they would need in the senate is a net switch of 3 to have control.  You don't think they'd then nominate another corporatist radical such as Roberts or Alito?  Even if Dems were 100% united against, they wouldn't have enough votes to prevent the Scotus from becoming officially and for nearly every major issue a radical RW Court for years to come.

    SS, Medicare, Head Start, energy subsidies for the poor and other worthy social programs?  Forget it -- they wouldn't be just nibbled at as with the current Congress, they would be destroyed, eliminated if Dems fall for the overheated rhetoric about the equivalency of the two parties.

    Disappointed I am with Obama and many Dems in power, but disappointing leadership is quite different from staying home out of spite and allowing a radical Tea Party-hijacked GOP to take over completely and run things like they have in WI, MI and OH.


    Continual nibbling away at programs (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    for six years will result in them being eliminated. Dems doing it slowly rather than in one fell swoop is designed to minimize the outrage that would occur if it was all done at once.

    The "powers that be" aren't giving Obama a $1 billions for him to spend tax payer money on Main St.



    The difference seems to be (none / 0) (#30)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    that some pols in the Dem Pty see some nibbling as the price to pay for accommodating the opposition while trying to avert a greater evil, as they see it, with a massive budget deficit.

    Whereas many in the GOP see the evil as the social programs themselves, using the budget deficit as a smokescreen to disguise their true intentions.

    I consider that a fair evaluation and a significant difference between the parties.  Again it comes down to a choice of being disappointed with one nibbling group who nevertheless mostly are in agreement with our principles and would likely stand to protect the basic existence and viability of such programs, or being steamrolled by another who would prefer, if they had all the power, to just skip the nibbling process and go right to the wholesale destruction part.

    I'd prefer to deal with the disappointing pols rather than the unreachable destructive one.

    And it's too early in the election cycle to be permanently cutting ties with our party or this president.  But I can understand why some wouldn't want to start writing checks to Obama at this point -- who but the most fervent Obama pom pom wavers would?


    First of all, I did not cut ties with my party; (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    it cut ties with me.  It has shown that it has no interest in the liberal point of view - not even as a jumping-off point for discussion.  It has shown disdain for me as a woman, and for all women who believe they should have the right to make their own health decisions.  It has embarked on a campaign to turn its back on the old, the poor and the sick, which used to be as antithetical to Democratic ideals as it was possible to be, and now is being woven into the fabric of the party.  They have given credibility to a false debts/deficit crisis, and have put the members of their caucus who believe that crap into the driver's seat on the budget.

    At some point, all the nibbling that seems so inconsequential in the moment leads to us holding little but crumbs in our hands.  

    I truly don't see the Democratic Party as being committed any longer to standing up for the average person; being middle class used to mean some level of comfort, some ability to get somewhere in life, but, thanks to all that nibbling in sacrifice to BS policy, those days are pretty much over.  

    Sure, it's bad that the Republicans want to hack away at the social safety net - but it's worse that Dems are right there with their own scissors, right now.

    I don't know any average person who isn't worried about his or her present, or future, and who believes that either of these parties gives a flying f**k about them.

    As for the Supreme Court, I don't know why anyone would think that a president with clear conservative leanings would not, in a lame-duck term, feel empowered to put another conservative on the Court.

    I'm over the whole politics-of-fear-and-guilt as a means to get my money and my vote; if they want to enact and advocate for good policy, stop sucking the life out of the average person, I could get behind them, but I don't think that's going to happen.

    We'll see.


    So if you think there aren't enough liberal (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by mjbarkl on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    Democrats in office, why aren't you running for nomination?  --Mike, Candidate for Congress

    My comment did not refer to the (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 05:42:28 PM EST
    Dems nibbling around the edges of the programs and keeping them mostly intact. My comment stated that the Dems will continue to spend the next 6 years dismantling them a piece at a time. The only difference in the end results is that the Dems will take slightly longer to reach the same goal.

    LAT sees some difference (none / 0) (#32)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:45:30 AM EST

    They write
    "The 2012 budget strategy outlined by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan promises more than $4 trillion in savings over the next 10 years and takes a dramatically different approach from what President Obama has proposed."


    Well, sure ... (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:54:42 AM EST
    ... if you're going to go by what a candidate (or in this case, a potential candidate) says they're going to do while they're trying to win votes.

    You would think people would have learned their lesson after 2008 ...


    $4 trillion (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    IIRC that is the exact amount of Obama's tax cuts.
    $4 B Savings on cuts to domestic - $4 B Reduction of Revenue = zero impact to deficit. But once they "save" $4 B, it will be time to cut corporate and high end taxes even further.  

    The Republican Plan (none / 0) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    Republican plan to pay for (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:46:48 PM EST
    Obama tax cuts. And yes, I've read the Republican plan and it is gawd awful . The compromise position will probably be the position of Obama's Cat Food Commission which cuts SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, further cuts corporate taxes and taxes on the upper brackets to be off set by eliminating things like the Earned Income Credit. It is also gawd awful.

    And this is what is making so many of us (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    just spitting mad: that the set-up is such that we have two grossly unacceptable choices - and it was this president and his Democratic cohorts who established what the opposition position would be.

    It didn't have to be this way - if we had a president who was committed to core Democratic beliefs, but we don't.

    And here we are.  Yeah, let's all send money to keep that dynamic going.  [rolling eyes]


    Perceptive contrast, brodie. (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 12:06:05 PM EST
    And, your reference to the "nadir" movement...perfect pitch.

    Your caution about making permanent election choices out of frustration at this point is important.  But, it is difficult advice to give and even harder to receive in any situation when some seem to be in the throes of venting/despairing/anger
    etc. Maybe we should all have an orchestrated hands-off period of ranting and saying (with minimum restraint) what we feel about the political structure. Nobody will be considered right, nobody will be considered wrong...and, no popularity contests nor ganging up. The full vent, all the way around.

    I second your iteration suggesting people might not want to box themselves in so early.  It may feel good to draw the line in the sand; but, sands almost always shift.


    Why do you insult every time? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by dk on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 12:08:12 PM EST
    Why do you try to ghettoize those who have disagreements with you as being the emotional ones, in contrast to your "rational" point of view.

    You obviously don't have to take this advice, but perhaps try discussing on the merits for a change.


    If the shoe fits... (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    I did not intend to insult with my comment above. The comment stated my agreement with brodie quite clearly; and, also noted that people sometimes need a breather or a true vent.  That is my life experience (and, it is the experience of a lot of people.)

    My "insult" would be the caption here "if the shoe fits...." If, dk, you choose to view my comments in the way you do, that is certainly your prerogative. If I'm getting on your nerves, that reason is quite beyond my control. Like anyone else here, I speak my belief. To be told that it is offensive...well, that's actually a cute compliment. Give & take.


    Meh. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by dk on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    Responding to a discusison of policy by accusations that people are too emotional (the "ranting" stuff) is a lazy, cheap shot, and shows a lack of knowledge of the policies being discussed.  Perhaps I was giving you too much credit for understanding that such a response was insulting.  For giving you that credit I suppose I should apologize, then.

    An interesting technique...truly (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 02:48:23 PM EST
    Do not allow others with whom you disagree to talk & state beliefs that you don't like...then call it an insult...then, add another gratuitous insult demeaning the person's intelligence...and, then (I supposes) "righteously" try to invert an apology.

    People can always trade claims of insult.

    I'd love to talk policy. And, I would start where brodie left off.  Essentially, are we talking names of alternatives or are we bemoaning? What is the playing-field of discussion? That is a problem that has been alluded to from time to time.


    This: (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    Your caution about making permanent election choices out of frustration at this point is important.  But, it is difficult advice to give and even harder to receive in any situation when some seem to be in the throes of venting/despairing/anger
    etc. Maybe we should all have an orchestrated hands-off period of ranting and saying (with minimum restraint) what we feel about the political structure. Nobody will be considered right, nobody will be considered wrong...and, no popularity contests nor ganging up. The full vent, all the way around.

    is not policy, christine; it's a backhanded slap at those who have expressed their intention not to donate and who, interestingly enough, have explained their decisions in quite rational and clear terms.

    The problem with your suggestion that "(N)obody will be considered right, nobody will be considered wrong" is exactly what is wrong with the state of Democratic governance today.  Some things are just plain wrong, christine, and to pretend they are not, in the interest of can't-we-all-just-get-along, is to lend credibility to ideas that those ideas don't deserve - and it does nothing to advance things in a direction most of us would like things to move.

    Spare me the lecture on how government works, please, and try spending some time on thinking about why government - and the Democratic Party - is just not working for the interests of vast, vast numbers of people today.  

    It's.  Not.  Working.

    And from my perspective, giving money to something - or someone - that isn't working for me makes no sense, not as hard as I have to work for what I have.  

    That's not emotion talking, that's not a rant, that's me making a calculated decision based on an almost total failure of leadership by this president, and this Democratic Party, and I'm not going to support a dysfunctional dynamic that doesn't work in my favor.


    And you don't think that you exercise (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:11:05 PM EST
    in put-downs & insult! C'mon, we could all take a breather. You lecture above about "some things are plain wrong, etc....." Yes, there are areas of absolute in life. For me, I reserve that for the spiritual.  Other than that, there is lots of room for dissent. Lot. Of. Room.

    Getting back to brodie's point. While it isn't exactly a matter of "who goes first," what I grew up with and what I worked with was this: When individuals seek change (for whatever reason), at least some burden is on the proponent of something different to offer the practical alternative. We may differ, obviously, about what is practical. But, as brodie and others have suggested here, a pragmatic place to start would be a name or names to replace the one you seek to oust.  Without that, in all honesty, the effect has a very likely outcome of being self-defeating. (And, yes, I recognize that to say that may violate the frustration of feeling corralled into voting for "the lesser of two evils," but the world we live in--not my world, but the world of election results--would seem to call for an alternative name to avoid one of those interesting characters seeking the Republican nomination as the actual President. And, yes #2, the Supreme Court is supremely important to many.)

    p.s. Next time, I promise to have a nicer tone. This time, the spirit was willing but my flesh was weak.


    The truth is that I have wracked my (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:54:02 PM EST
    brain trying to think of someone who isn't just another flavor of corporate, bought-and-paid-for, lapdog-to-Wall-Street-and-the-elite, and it's beyond disheartening not to be able to come up with a viable alternative - other than Bernie Sanders, who isn't interested in the job.

    That I can't come up with a name, or a list of names, at your demand, does not mean that I am not permitted to express my opinions about the issues that concern me, but you constantly set up this all-or-nothing argument, which is designed to allow you to feel better about the choices we have.  And somehow cast those of us who have drawn the line and committed to not continuing to vote for unacceptable candidates as being emotional train wrecks who just need to calm down.

    Change comes from a recognition that the status quo is not acceptable; would you argue that the people of Egypt or Libya or Tunisia or wherever should not have risen up against the status quo unless or until they could offer a specific alternative?  I'm guessing not.  Which is the problem with your approach; you are so mired in process, christine, that you have lost track of substance.  Maybe that's because you have been in government service since the Declaration was signed, but you are allowing process to override substance - and it's substance that most of us are concerned with.

    If we had a different system, one that didn't close out anyone without access to hundreds of millions of dollars, I have no doubt that names would bubble to the surface, that the people would have more representation than they are ever going to get under the current system.

    The truth is that neither party is serving the people anymore, it's just a matter of degree as to how bad they are.  And as bad as it is, "less bad" is just not acceptable to me, and I won't waste my vote enabling that death spiral to continue.


    I appreciate your dilemma, Anne (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 09:24:48 PM EST
    And, I appreciate the reply. Please recognize, tho, that it is not my "demand" or an "all or nothing" set up here to call for an alternative.  It is simply an obvious request that myself and others make from time to time. In no way would I want to set up a "my way or the highway" approach. In fact, my position throughout is that there is no absolute in politics in terms of who is right or wrong...mostly, we deal in degrees, compromises, & inching forward. I accept and adopt that philosophy more readily than you do, IMO. That says nothing about right or wrong; it never has. It only says--as reiterated more than once--that we have different views, and that that is to be expected and that that is an example of diverse opinion. OK?

    You may consider that I am mired in process; and, by the same token, I would contend that your dilemma is purity or demanding that most political actions fit your political philosophy. In short: My approach is characterized--in most instances--by compromise & incremental progress. This has been discussed before. At this point, we can continue to rephrase the positions (and occasionally take pot-shots) or we might want to agree to disagree on a number of things...and respect each other for it.

    If you would like, perhaps there is an issue that those of us with different opinions could try to broach and use our collective intellect to work on together. I'm game.


    I think brodie is only asking (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    folks in this blog to name a candidate of their liking who has proven abilities of electoral success (who can get elected nationwide), who can defeat BHO and a Republican candidate.
    We are listening. Just name your candidates.

    When I see that even in a reliably blue state like New York, a new Democratic Governor who got elected with the kind of margins that BHO can only dream of, go in a totally different direction than most people in this blog would like the country to go and maitain skyhigh ratings, I am not sure whether the general understanding of what people in this country want is totally accurate.
    I can say that I will be more pursuaded if you can name some viable candidates.


    It is O.K. by me if you want (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    to quite ranting and addressing the 2012 elections emotionally rather than discuss the pros and cons of the various issues and parties. Please feel free to step away from the discussions. Take a time-out because everyone is right and no one is wrong.  Please feel free to follow your own suggestions.  

    Meanwhile the rest of us will continue our discussions.  


    i can't believe (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    how unfairly your comment has been received & responded to here

    it's embarrassing really


    What effect will $1BN (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    for Obama have on ability to raise money for Dem Senate candidates -- an enormous number of Dem Senators are up for re-election in 2012 while very few are up among Republicans.  I'm worried that Presidential money-raising will make it difficult for Senators to raise money.

    I see your (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    comment as more of the "well, Dems are so wimpy we have to elect Obama". It's the same thing that was said in 2008. I doubt that Obama will even get to nominate a justice if he does get reelected. Do you know if anyone is going to retire?

    And who says he would nom a lib? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    after 2012, he has no reason to throw crumbs our way. I see the SCOTUS as a safer place for him to lean left now, but not so after he has no skin in the game . . . .

    After 2012 (none / 0) (#56)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:17:24 PM EST
    I think his decision on SCOTUS(if he is re-elected) will be guided by how he wants to be remembered (the legacy thing).

    Saint Ronnie v.2 (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    IMO (none / 0) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 09:51:51 PM EST
    He would like it most if he is bracketed with JFK or Lincoln (inspirational and defining a new course for the country in a changing world). I really do not think he admires Saint Ronnie :-) as much as some people in this blog think.
    Time will tell how he will define his legacy.

    oy. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:57:42 PM EST
    bracketed? and that other similarity . . .

    as far as inspirational and defining a new course, really?! lol!~

    okay, maybe I should give in on, 'how to go right and give more, better than any other Dem' on the charting a new course . . . .

    trickle down baby, or how to steal from the poor and middle class to give to the rich . . .

    I'm sure he'll give a good performance when he actually has to campaign though. As long as those pesky comments when speaking to the rich at fundraisers don't slip out again . . .  

    sorry, been over the KA for awhile now.


    Great comment (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    should be gilded

    I get it, but I will bet you anything... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    ...that if it came time for Obama to have the opportunity to tilt the court back to "the left," by appointing another justice, that you would see a very different nominee.  Obviously I don't know, but everything in me says that when it really came time to change the court, he would balk.  

    here here and count me in (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Bornagaindem on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:52:19 AM EST
    The amount of money needed to run is obscene. Maybe dems are not as stupid as republicans and won't continue to support a party that never does anything for them ( ie constantly talk about repealing abortion laws never do it because then who would support you)

    Obama will have no problem raising $1 billion (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    He just won't be getting what he got from his 2008 small donors. So he'll tap his corporate funders, and cement the rising $take$ we've seen for every successive election in our lifetimes.

    Maybe Exelelon Corp. will even retain its position as Obama's third highest campaign donor.

    Same as it ever was.

    I agree, although ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    ... I never like to bet against the gullibilty of people.  I think he'll do very well as far as fundraising, but $1 billion might be a stretch.

    That being said, the "small donors" line we heard so often, like so many things from Obama's campaign, was largely a myth.


    I agree on the gullible voters angle (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by shoephone on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    And, last I heard, Obama still has 7 million online "fans" (the OFA crowd). But it's doubtful to me that many of the 2008 small indivudual donors will pony up again. I think what's more likely is that people are angry enough to withhold their money, but not their votes. I really, really want to see a primary challenger. I also have a fantasy of Obama holding a town hall in my city, and me standing up to give him hell about his continuation of some of Bush's worst policies. I'll be wearing red.

    Ain't (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 09:14:15 PM EST
    it great to $ee democracy in action.

    Should be exciting.

    A debate between Obama and Trump.
    Or Romney and Palin.

    This is entertainment.

    Forget the wars, the nuclear pollution, the foreclosures and all those bring-downs.

    Get the popcorn, put up yer feet, and watch Wrestlemania at its best. In this corner, Trump the Hair. In this corner, Obama the Glib. In still more corners, Palin the Insufferable, Romney the Dim, Paul the Nut, Huckabee the Flake and possibly, possibly, Hillary the Intimidator - and all vying for the right to represent the identical special interests.

    Meltdowns Schmeltdowns.

    I'm ready to rock and roll.

    What I would like to see is an effort (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 09:34:04 PM EST
    by independent groups to make the case for individuals to contribute their hard-earned dollars to programs and groups that support the (too many) people who are already having trouble keeping their heads above water, and who will surely come closer to slipping over the edge by the time we get to Novemvber, 2012.

    Why?  Because putting one's money to a candidate - be it Obama or some random Republican - or to a party, is no guaranteee of anything.

    My money - what little I have to contribute - will not be going to political candidates, but to programs and causes I believe in; giving it to candidates has proven to be a complete waste of money I work very hard for, so I'm cutting out the middle man.

    The hell with 'em.

    Any donations I make... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:20:35 AM EST
    Any extra cash I can find between the seat cushions will be going to local and state-level candidates. I'm in Milwaukee, currently repped by one of the WI-14. Here's where my money and support will make a difference. Beside that, I'm upping my contributions to Planned Parenthood. They're going to need all the help they can get.

    The amount stated (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Madeline on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    is embarrassing. 1 Billion! They should be embarrassed to even state or make public that a billion dollars is the amount they hope to raise. What a bunch of neophytes to make it public. Do they realize how many people will simply turn away in disgust?

    He won't be getting one cent of my money (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:06:09 AM EST
    Seriously, to be middle class and give him anything would be profoundly stupid in my opinion.  He does not care about me and me giving him anything will not change that.  And every middle class family needs every single dollar they can get their hands on.  I'll give money to Unions and for things like the recall in WI, but nothing to Obama and probably not ever again.  He is only ever going to fight for and feed the rich so let them pay for his inevitable reelection.

    You know what else I would pay for though?  I would pay for a primary challenger.  If for no other reason than to allow him to MAYBE understand that much of the left does not consider him an actual Democrat, just a poser.

    I'm with you. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    The WI Dems deserve money. They have stood up and fought for the middle class. Obama can get money from the wealthy. They're the ones that he works for anyway.

    The only thing Obama can raise from me... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    ...is my ire.  He won't get a penny.  Mabye I'll spit on an empty peanut shell and send it to them.  Dopes.

    I'm sorry for those people (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:13:20 PM EST
    who are having a hard time deciding how they'll vote in 2012. For me it's (regrettably!) easy: I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket, like always. However bad the Dems are (and they are), it's pure fantasyland to pretend that giving the Republicans an opportunity for couldn't wouldn't be leagues worse.

    Well, at least you may get some action* outta (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:44:47 PM EST
    Gillibrand for your straight up D votes . . . .

    *positive action that is :)


    I'm sorry for us, too (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    I've been a Democrat since long before I could actually register to vote.  And I will still vote for Democrats.

    Just as soon as I can find one.


    600 million would buy him about as (none / 0) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 08:46:12 PM EST
    many votes as $60,000 would. What a putz.

    i believe the amount of money, (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    anticipated to be spent on the 2012 election, may be more than the entire GDP of the original 13 colonies, in 1776, even at its present value.

    i'm not certain this is what the founding fathers, mothers, sisters & brothers had in mind.

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 10:46:25 PM EST
    it's not.  They would have been appalled.  

    I guess Rush was right (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    For weeks Rush has been saying that President Obama has just been in campaign mode.

    But so are the Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 11:13:21 PM EST
    And both sides drink from the same trough.

    Politicians are always in ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:17:42 AM EST
    ... "campaign mode".

    Apart from stating the obvious, I don't know what claim Rush was making re: Obama being "in campaign mode", but given his track record, I doubt he was right.


    I would get a CAT scan (none / 0) (#20)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:21:14 AM EST
    to check for damage from chronic exposure to Mr. Limbaugh if I were you.  :-)

    The proper (none / 0) (#23)
    by dead dancer on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:07:13 AM EST
    exam for Limbaugh exposure would be a rectal exam.

    The same exam is required if you keep believing in the Democratic party anymore. The Republicans sold out to corporate america years ago, and the Democrats are now tried and true republicans.

    Let his holiness raise a billion dollars. I could give a fu.. any longer.


    Partially true. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:22:53 AM EST

    ...campaign finance laws limit gifts to $2,500 per donor

    That is a limit on legal gifts.  In 2008 the Obama campaign accepted multiple donations of under $200 from prepaid credit cards with no verification as to who the donor was.  

    Nice touch (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    That is a limit on legal gifts.  In 2008 the Obama campaign accepted multiple donations of under $200 from prepaid credit cards with no verification as to who the donor was.

    Suggesting some type of illegality with absolutely zero evidence.


    do you dispute the fact (none / 0) (#42)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    Well, did Obama's campaign accept donations under 200 from prepaid credit cards or did it not?  

    Not at all (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 05:28:58 PM EST
    What I dispute is the completely evidence-free implication that there was something illegal about it.

    What is not in dispute (none / 0) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:28:03 AM EST

    is that the barn door was left wide open and they, unlike the McSame campaign, took no action to ensure those credit card donations were legal.


    Wrong again (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    took no action to ensure those credit card donations were legal.

    Hard to tell if you're quoting someone (no link), or if that's just your own conclusion, but it's wrong.  

    Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

    The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.


    Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest. "I'm pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you'd find we're doing very well," said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. "I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud.


    Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. "The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it's not, send it back. That's what the statute requires," he said.


    Of course, the same problem (traceability) applies to cash contributions, which the McCain campaign did accept.

    Not good enough for you?

    Call the FEC.


    Surely you can read (none / 0) (#73)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    ... the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.

    They removed basic electronic safeguards on purpose that are essentially free with the credit company and instead went with costly and error prone human review.  Has the light bulb come on yet?

    Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

    So, only those donations that they were certain that were improper were returned.  

    That leaves the question as to the disposition of donations of questionable propriety.  They kept that money.  It is impossible to determine the legality of money from cash cards.  

    So the Obama campaign setup a system that allows anyone including foreign governments to donate unlimited funds via cash cards and you think that is quite OK as long it is not a violation of law.  Gak!


    I can read fine (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:37:05 PM EST
    You, OTOH, seem to be having issues.

    I never said I was fine with the current system and FEC rules, which all candidates to accept untraceable donations (pre-paid credit cards, cash,  etc.).  The issue I had was with your fact-free, baseless implication that there was something illegal about these donations.  Of course, the reason you provided no evidence is ...

    ... you have none.

    BTW - I do like the new implication that foreign governments may have been funding Obama's campaign through these pre-paid credit cards.  You wingers sure do love to dream up some scary scenarios when it comes to "dem furr-en-ners!"

    Always without the slightest bit of evidence, of course.


    Once again... (none / 0) (#41)
    by desertswine on Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    the progressive voter will be put into an untenable position...   having to vote for a schlepp like Obama in order to keep an insane person out of a position of incredible power.

    flashing on (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:43:33 PM EST
    Jay Bullworth's speech in the black church..

    "C'mon, who are going to vote for, the Republican?
     You're not gonna vote Republican.."


    As far as I'm concerned (none / 0) (#76)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    I did vote for a Republican.  He just didn't call himself one.  (It would be interesting, though, to get Obama drunk and see if that would make him really speak his mind in public.)