Obama Raises $32 Million -- In One Month!
The Obama campaign confirms that it raised an astonishing $32 million -- in the month of January alone.
Clearly, the Iowa win on January 3 provided a huge burst of fundraising momentum right on through the South Carolina victory.
To put this number in perspective: In one month, Obama raised more than half the $51 million Howard Dean raised during his entire campaign in 2004, and roughly one-fourth the full sum of $125 million George Bush raised to take the presidency in 2000.
Late Update: A commenter below raises a good point: There's no way of proving that this was actually given to Drudge beyond his claim that it was his "exclusive." So I've removed the reference. Apologies for jumping to conclusions, though in fairness all I did was ask whether this had been leaked to him.
Late Late Update: In another sign of how protracted this race may end up being, it looks as if the Obama campaign is already preparing to advertise on states beyond Feb. 5th.
Obama will reportedly go on the air in all the states with primaries on February 9th, 10th, and 12th. Sizable amounts of money have already been plunked down for ads in just about every Feb. 5th state.
Comments (124)
twirling fartknocker wrote on January 31, 2008 11:34 AM:Nice work. Obama raises a staggering amount of money in a month and you've found a "scandal" angle to push.
Who cares about Drudge?
Jessica wrote on January 31, 2008 11:36 AM:Time Magazine's website "The Page" quoted the same figures but said they came from a "media call" with Obama's campaign manager, Plouffe.
mark from ny wrote on January 31, 2008 11:36 AM:It was on a conference call to reporters, and seconds later every institution blog had it reported.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 31, 2008 11:36 AM:You're missing the big news - in the first poll of the race since Edwards' withdrawal, Rasmussen found the two candidates essentially tied.
We're in the seventh inning here, and Hillary's bullpen is depleted. She already brought in Bill, her ace reliever, who threw enough inside pitches to draw a warning. Now Obama's got the heart of the order coming to the plate ($32 million in a month?!) and Clinton's got nothing left.
You want a practical demonstration of what this means? Hillary and Obama both bought local television time in Massachusetts for the Super Bowl pregame show. But only Obama was willing to shell out $250k for a 30-second spot during the game. That's the difference money makes. And it's going to - heh - pay off.
I'm going to point it out when the campaigns leak to Drudge. Sorry -- it's important. They shouldn't be doing it.
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:37 AM:Hmmmmm........
So what? I'm a liberal progressive, and I have Drudge on my bookmarks.
The $32m piece is the part that counts. I looking forward to seeing how Hillary has done. i would suggest no leaking of numbers to be a very bad sign for her.
upper left wrote on January 31, 2008 11:37 AM:My wife and I are now up to $500 for Obama. We are basic middle-class small business owners. I find it very empowering to participate with hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens in taking back our government.
I don't think these kinds of numbers don't come from fat-cats, they come from average Americans. We are storming the Bastille in $25 increments.
Audacious_One wrote on January 31, 2008 11:38 AM:Yes, lets believe Drudge. The last bastion of truthfulness.
corey wrote on January 31, 2008 11:38 AM:This was announced via conference call. You need to apologize and edit your post.
paDem wrote on January 31, 2008 11:38 AM:First: Dayyuummmm!
Second: is the snark really necessary in the context of such a story?
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:38 AM:Greg-
Why no leaking to Drudge? As I pointed out, I'm a liberal progressive and I read Drudge.
Of course, I also blacklist anyone that advertises on that board (as well as those who advertise on Rush and Fox).
Ok, I get your point.
Chilik wrote on January 31, 2008 11:39 AM:Notwithstanding the continuing discussion of the impropriety of Bill Clinton's support of Kazakh president Nazarbayev as "opening up" his society to political reform, check out this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4744256.stm
Nazarbayev has the opposition killed. And then rules it suicide. A fine way to show commitment to democratic ideals. And how he does it with the endorsement of ex-President Bill Clinton.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 31, 2008 11:39 AM:Greg,
That's fair - but do you have any evidence, other than Drudge's "exclusive" tag, that it was leaked to him - as opposed to announced on the conference call? I'd want more than Drudge's word on this; the man is self-promoting, story-hyping sleaze.
NCSteve wrote on January 31, 2008 11:40 AM:Did Drudge have it up before the conference call mentioned above?
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 11:41 AM:2 sets of rules Greg, catch up. No matter the action, once completed by Obama it is okay. Only Obama makes drowning puppies okay, it is quite a gift.
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:41 AM:Upper Left-
Great metaphor.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 11:41 AM:Gotta keep buying those endorsements. ;)
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 11:41 AM:it's sad... 32 million dollars.... and he's airing ads'.... i thought he promise John Edwards that he would help the poor and those in need.
raise that much and going to waste it because Hillary is still going to win.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 11:42 AM:I'm going to point it out when the campaigns leak to Drudge.
As rightly you should. At the risk of sounding like someone trying to teach his grandmother how to such eggs - don't let the peanut gallery sway you from pointing these things out.
wwjb wrote on January 31, 2008 11:44 AM:There is no "exclusive" evidence, everyone tries to pretend they are special, even when they get info at the same time as everyone else. Regardless, who gives a shit?
$32 million in a month, holy wow.
Bill R. wrote on January 31, 2008 11:45 AM:Do you honestly think any Obama supporters care about leaks to Drudge? Sheesh... Obviously it matters to you. He's well funded and ready for Super Tues and beyond. More contributors than anyone showing there is wave of support.
On another note despite what we know about Hillary's being a pawn of Walmart, the video tapes shown on ABC make for some pretty devasting campaign footage. Especially that statement of how "proud" she is about Walmart policies. Claiming that she didn't know about the sweatshops doesn't really hold much water. As a board member she should have. And as for the union busting, she most certainly did know about that, and has hired a top flight union buster as her campaign strategist, Mark Penn.
Audacious_One wrote on January 31, 2008 11:46 AM:I just put my detective skills to use. On a fairly fast moving message board:
Jan 31, 2008 10:44 Drudge Report has this up:EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA BREAKS FUNDRASING RECORD: $32 MILLION -- 170,000 NEW DONORS FOR JANUARY... DEVELOPING...
By Ben Smith 10:44 AM Campaign manager David Plouffe says he's raised $32 million this month.brewmn wrote on January 31, 2008 11:46 AM:That would be more than $1 million a day.
I guess I missed that "big hit" Hillary took. did it last a full 24 hour news cycle.
Off topic, but the way Josh poo-poohed the Hillary at Wal-Mart story misses the point. If Obama's "sole rationale" for his candidacy is that he was anti-war when it mattered, Hillary's is her (all together now) "35 years of experience."
Those "35 years" have never been examined in any detail. And I'm willing to bet that alot of moderately liberal people did NOT know that she worked for Wal-Mart, in spite of Josh's claim. and, I'm sorry, if she's going to push the 35 years claim, she's going to have to defend it. Those 35 years have not yet been "fully vetted," and they should be.
Her time spent on the board of one of the largest and most virulently anti-union corporations in America should be made common knowledge, as it's hardly "old news." Working class people nationwide should have this information available to them when determining whether her claim to be their champion has any merit.
markg8 wrote on January 31, 2008 11:46 AM:And the month isn't even done! Still have today to chip in if you're a Obama supporter. Hillary's fewer bigger dollar contributors probably can't top this because so many are topped out. Obama supporters let's show the party and Feb 5 voters who has the broadbased financial support to win a landslide mandate for change in the November.
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/main
Michael A wrote on January 31, 2008 11:47 AM:Wow!!! And its predominantly from the people, wow!!! Maybe we can take our government back from the special interests and the super rich.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 11:47 AM:do you have any evidence, other than Drudge's "exclusive" tag, that it was leaked to him - as opposed to announced on the conference call? I'd want more than Drudge's word on this; the man is self-promoting, story-hyping sleaze.
Granted. That said, does Mr Sargent really need more evidence than Drudge's own "exclusive" claim? Mr Sargent did not claim that Obama leaked to Drudge. He simply pointed out that Drudge made out as if Obama had leaked to them. This is a perfectly relevant detail to include in the write up of the news.
Liam wrote on January 31, 2008 11:48 AM:Greg wrote on January 31, 2008 11:37 AM:
I'm going to point it out when the campaigns leak to Drudge. Sorry -- it's important. They shouldn't be doing it.
--------------------------
Since you are the one making the claim that they leaked to Drudge, you need to provide proof to support your assertion. How do you know that the Obama campaign "leaked to Drudge". I notice that you put a question mark after it, on your first surmise, now you appear to have hardened your claim, and are asserting it to be something that you have confirmed. Have you?
re: "I'm going to point it out when the campaigns leak to Drudge."
You don't even know that. You're simply speculating.
Obama is kicking ass. The real question is does he has enough time to pull it off in this early-primary schedule before the door closes. This Drudge non-sense is just a distraction.
rasher wrote on January 31, 2008 11:49 AM:Chilik,
You seem to have gotten lost on the internets. This is a comments threat on a story about Obama fundraising. Why on earth would you comment about the Bill Clinton Kazakhstan story on this thread? Can't you be pro-Obama without being anti-Hillary? Or are you one of those right-wing tools who troll these sites under marching orders from Karl Rove in order to stir up internecine warfare? Just asking...
Beward of anti-Hillary or anti-Obama posters posing as pro-Obama or pro-Hillary supporters. They are not what they claim to be. If you can't support your Democratic candidate without tearing down the Democratic opposition, please go away. We're on to you!
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:49 AM:Greg-
I think A_O got you on this one. Did Drudge really get the leak, or is he claiming to get the leak?
Mark wrote on January 31, 2008 11:49 AM:"Gotta keep buying those endorsements. ;)"
Gotta keep looking desperate.
NCSteve wrote on January 31, 2008 11:50 AM:If he's playing footsie with Drudge, you should point it out. I castigated Hillary for doing it and I don't want Obama's campaign dealing with the destructive toad even if Hillary did it first.
But did Drudge post before the conference call? Just because Drudge says he's got "an exclusive," don't make it so.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 11:50 AM:Dear Audacious One,
Well done. That is a fine piece of work, probably sufficient to drive a stake through the heart of the idea that Obama did leak to Drudge. If both Politico and Drudge had the news at exactly the same time, it is not a "leak" to one source. That said, I still think that Mr Sargent was right to include mention of the matter. It is a reasonable concern.
Greg wrote on January 31, 2008 11:51 AM:You guys are right. I can't prove it. So I've added an update.
Henry in New York wrote on January 31, 2008 11:51 AM:I've given three times in $50 increments just this month alone. Everytime I hear Barack speak, I want to throw money at him.
I suspect there are hundreds of thousands like me who are nowhere near the $2300 max and are prime for coming back to thorughout the primary season. I imagine Hillary as a greater number of maxed out donors and bundlers.
My checkbook will always be open to a candidate who speaks truth to power.
Greg: Do you think your post, with the unconfirmed, rumor-style, dig re a "leak" to Drudge, was about Barack? Or about Drudge? It wasn't. It was about you and how your "news judgment" is increasingly distorted by your ever-more-obvious partisan slant in the Democratic race. If TPM Election Central has morphed into Hillary Election Central Once Removed, fair enough; we can read it (or not) for what it is, and no one has to depend on it for news, or even read it at all if the contents are entirely predictable. Trying to minimize an "astonishing" (your word) story about mass fiscal participation in a primary campaign with such drivel as an unsupported promotional claim by Drudge isn't worth anyone's time, pro Hillary or pro Obama. Ciao.
Gnopple wrote on January 31, 2008 11:52 AM:Seriously...on the Drudge point...HE links to the WashingtonPost for the story. Guy, I understand the need to be balanced. But just because that's where you found the story means very little.
John McCutchen wrote on January 31, 2008 11:53 AM:Hillary's leads vanishing in NY, CT, MA, CA and nationally
32 million in one month! His "Caroline" ad is all over Bay Area TV
O-MENTUM
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 11:53 AM:Script for Edwards voters up on Votebuilder yesterday
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:54 AM:Greg & Greg D-
Just to piggy-back, i think I understand the point of the statement. The "hive-mind" hard at work. That's the point of internet journalism, if I am not mistaken.
Now, back to my earlier statement:
HOLY %$#&!
$32m in 30 days???!?!?!
John McCutchen wrote on January 31, 2008 11:55 AM:Gnopple
AP's got the story...
Greg knows no shame
Thank God Eric's crossing the Rubicon
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 11:55 AM:So does CNN
Melissa wrote on January 31, 2008 11:55 AM:I've given $25 to Obama twice.
Every time I see some sleazy attack on him, I want to help him out more.
The Clintons are really doing a great job of inspiring and galvanizing people -- the opposition that it.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 11:55 AM:I've given three times in $50 increments just this month alone. Everytime I hear Barack speak, I want to throw money at him. I suspect there are hundreds of thousands like me who are nowhere near the $2300 max
I suspect you are right. My wife and I have given $300 in a series of $50 and $25 donations over the last six months. We are certainly no where near the limit and will be only too happy to continue to support Obama. We are also canvassing on Saturday and phone banking Sunday and Monday in the lead up to Tuesday's primary in MO where we live.
Denis wrote on January 31, 2008 11:56 AM:Interestingly, the fundraising numbers first appeared on the Drudge Report as an "exclusive." The Hillary campaign took a big hit when it leaked fundraising numbers to Drudge last year.
Well, we all know that Obama is like Reagan as far as the 'Teflon' image is concerned. As the new darling of CNN, MSNBC, Time Warner and associates and in their (and consequently our) eyes, he can do no wrong.
I am NOT criticizing Obama but I am SERIOUSLY CONCERNED about the media machine behind him. All of this money doesn't come from nowhere? When will the press start acting like the press and asking real questions?
Kevin wrote on January 31, 2008 11:57 AM:Greg,
Do you have a source, on or off the record, that it was leaked before the conference call?
That is, are you "reporting" that it was leaked, or just speculating?
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:57 AM:Greg D-
Keep up the fire. Same here (and pct cpt) in Minnesota.
stemper wrote on January 31, 2008 11:58 AM:Upper Left and Henry in New York --
I'm with you. Just don't anyone tell my wife to check our Visa bill. :-|
I swear, I'm like Opus in those old Bloom County cartoons, sending in orders for any ginsu knife infomercial on late night TV. Every time I get an email from Barack I seem to send in another $25 or $50! Oh well, it worked last November... :-)
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 31, 2008 11:58 AM:Thanks for the edit, Greg. It's nice to have a genuinely interactive discussion.
Let me hype the story of the hour one more time, in the hope it will finally get the attention it deserves. Rasmussen released its daily tracking poll an hour ago. It, like Gallup, now shows a narrow lead - 7 points in its three day sample.
But in last night's sample alone, the first national poll taken since Edwards dropped out of the race, Hillary and Obama are essentially tied. That is the first time any national pollster has written those words. This is huge. It'll take a couple of days to firm up, but it's too big to ignore.
zonk wrote on January 31, 2008 11:58 AM:brewmn wrote on January 31, 2008 11:46 AM: I guess I missed that "big hit" Hillary took. did it last a full 24 hour news cycle.Off topic, but the way Josh poo-poohed the Hillary at Wal-Mart story misses the point. If Obama's "sole rationale" for his candidacy is that he was anti-war when it mattered, Hillary's is her (all together now) "35 years of experience."
Those "35 years" have never been examined in any detail. And I'm willing to bet that alot of moderately liberal people did NOT know that she worked for Wal-Mart, in spite of Josh's claim. and, I'm sorry, if she's going to push the 35 years claim, she's going to have to defend it. Those 35 years have not yet been "fully vetted," and they should be.
Now... Let's be fair - she has never, to the best of my knowledge - said those 35 years were sequential.
.
.
.
.
OK - now ask yourself... Am I partaking in Clintonian parsing? Or Obamanizing snark?
Last question - and maybe the most important - doesn't it say something that you probably had to think about it?
Liam wrote on January 31, 2008 11:59 AM:Never accept what Drudge claims. He was the one who used a trumped up gossip item in Murdoch's London Sun rag, to claim an exclusive on how John Kerry had an affair with a young woman. It was just a right wing dirty trick, so never give Drudge the benefit of the doubt. That slime ball once reported that a senior offical's wife was divorcing him, and it was a total lie.
It is not the Drudge Report. It is the Sludge Report. I never want to see this site ever again give any credence to what that scumbag asserts.
sue wrote on January 31, 2008 11:59 AM:Leaking to Drudge -
Give everyone a break! First of all, we have no proof that any such "leak" occurred - they released the fundraising totals in a press conference call.
Also, it's not like Drudge received "dirt" on Hillary - it's Obama's fundraising totals.
Please. That's really grasping at straws.
TheraP wrote on January 31, 2008 12:00 PM:Great News! That's more than a million a day!
and how does that compare to Jan for hill?
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:00 PM:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080131/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_muslims_dc
Where is the money really coming from.
rasher wrote on January 31, 2008 12:01 PM:brewmn,
It may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of "working class people nationwide" shop at WalMart, not because they're anti-union, but because they're poor. And they might not automatically be disinclined to oppose Hillary (or anyone else for that matter) just because they sat on WalMart's board. My very liberal family in northern Minnesota shops at WalMart all the time. They aren't anti-union. They're just struggling to make ends meet.
Michael A wrote on January 31, 2008 12:03 PM:Good job Gregg D, thank you very, very much. I have you penciled in for 2016, you have my vote.
On the drudge thing, why don't we just drop it at this point. Really who cares and the original question wasn't a big deal. Let's move on and hope that moveon.org doesn't endorse a dem candidate by the way.
NCSteve wrote on January 31, 2008 12:03 PM:I'd say Audacious One pretty much put the Drudge matter to bed and conclusively proved that Matt Drudge is a lying, over-hyping, self-promoting sack of elephant dung.
But then, that's hardly a flashing red light exclusive, is it?
Move along, nothing to see here.
But about that 32 million? The time to spend that would be now, I'd think. If I were David Plouffle and I'd hit the pick-5, I'd make some new ads with my surrogates and do some big national cable buys with ads targeted to each channel's demographic. Try to dilute Hillary's prime demographic with some ads on O and Lifetime featuring Caroline Kennedy, poach some open primary indy male votes from McCain with ads on the History Channel, maybe go up on Military Channel with some ads featuring all the generals who've endorsed him.
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 12:03 PM:Ok, ok, ok, people!!
Enough on the Drudge stuff. Points made, everyone wins. Let's move on.
FOTW- I'm listening to everything you preach, now.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 12:04 PM:Totally off-topic, but earlier today I asked that TPM replace the Florida Pollster.com graphs to our right. Well, it seems that I got half of my request - Florida is gone. Now I see SC, IA and NH. Not that I cannot go to Pollster.com all on my own, but I would still submit that it would make more sense to run graphs for up-coming elections (CA, NY, NJ, etc) than for past ones. Just a friendly request. :-)
Liam wrote on January 31, 2008 12:09 PM:Hillary did not stand up for the Unions when she was in the best position to do so.
The only reason she was even on the WalMart board was because it bought them a direct pipeline the Governor of Arkansas. The Clintons always have been willing to sell out the working class, despite all their claims to the contrary. Can you say NAFTA, boys and girls?
PeterB wrote on January 31, 2008 12:12 PM:Obama Rising....Rising, Rising.
Its Obama Rising....Rising, Rising.
Can you feel the Mo out there?
Its real, its a train of hope and change running through this country.
While on the other side in the Clinton camp, the only songe we here is ......
"Welcome, Welcome, Welcome to the MACHINE!"
Oh baby, change is on its way!!!!
marcus wrote on January 31, 2008 12:12 PM:"it's sad... 32 million dollars.... and he's airing ads'.... i thought he promise John Edwards that he would help the poor and those in need."
Lol, Ummm, last time I checked the whole purpose of campaign contributions was to win elections, not to redistribute the money to charities. What the hell do you expect, for Obama to start dropping hundred dollar bills from planes? What an idiot, seriously, do people think before they post on here? No wonder you posted as Anonymous. Do you think Edwards ran around handing out his campaign contributions? Hell no. Really, if you can't think of anything semi-intelligent to say, do you mind just keeping it to yourself?
evie wrote on January 31, 2008 12:16 PM:I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I agree with Greg that no Dem should be leaking information to Drudge. Bloggers shouldn't link to him either. I'm very glad Team Obama didn't give the info to that slime ahead of time.
Gregor wrote on January 31, 2008 12:19 PM:We just got a local radio report in my area that some OBama supporters went to the local Hillary Campaign Office, and were able to peel two HRC workers over to the Obama side. This is in an area with a couple of universities.
Meanwhile, I am blitzing friends and fanily in key states to remind them that in this primary their vote has a huge impact, not often seen in many states that traditionally vote one way or another.
(MSNBC covering the Obama money raising blowout right now)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 12:21 PM:Same here... in Minnesota.
Man, if you are canvassing in Minnesota, my hat is off to you. It was as cold as the devil's own heart when I was going door to door two weeks ago. I am sure that it is even colder in MN. I am surprised that you can get folks to open their doors to talk up there.
Liam wrote on January 31, 2008 12:22 PM:An eye opening figure about the Obama fund raising; This is from CNN.
"A campaign source also tells CNN the Illinois senator received contributions from 170,000 new donors in January."
Think about that! There is a hunger abroad in the land fresh leadership.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 31, 2008 12:23 PM:The $32M figure is totally plausible. With the compressed primary season, the media coverage has turned a political race into somewhat of a sports event. I suspect people are more passionate than ever and both candidates are presented in such a way as to both have a huge public plus to like and a minus to head for the hills (HRC: woman candidate, polarizing force; BO: JFK candidate, green candidate) so the impulse buy of donation is higher.
I would love to see a poll of people who are first time ever donators. I bet BO is bringing in new people with $$ as well as voters.
onceler wrote on January 31, 2008 12:26 PM:did nobody read the Armbinder article in the Atlantic Monthly, 'Teacher and Apprentice'? the Clinton campaign has been leaking info to Drudge for some time now. its on page two, 2nd half of this article. interesting otherwise as well, worth the read.
joececchini wrote on January 31, 2008 12:28 PM:I am a complete broke ass with a low paying job and huge debt, and I gave Obama money this month.
08ama!
Detroit wrote on January 31, 2008 12:29 PM:I've been reading these comments fields since the start of the Democratic nomination and want add just a quick observation --
This story, as all Obama stories on TPM do, has produced a number of responders that continue to suggest that Obama's support is uncritical, unthinking, and somehow a product of a media promoted myth (oh, right, "fairy tale").
Angry Vet, your ability to think critically about your own assumptions, measure the veracity of specific criticisms of candidates/their blog field supporters, is a credit to Obama supporters everywhere, and the candidate himself.
The actual story here is the explosive support for the Obama campaign, as the Vet sez!
steve wrote on January 31, 2008 12:29 PM:Guess it shows there's a sucker born every minute, or 32 million suckers, I guess.
liberal historian wrote on January 31, 2008 12:30 PM:Because it really is worth seeing twice:
Hillary did not stand up for the Unions when she was in the best position to do so.The only reason she was even on the WalMart board was because it bought them a direct pipeline the Governor of Arkansas. The Clintons always have been willing to sell out the working class, despite all their claims to the contrary. Can you say NAFTA, boys and girls?
With focus on the words: DIRECT PIPELINE.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 12:30 PM:This is off topic, but there are no new Edwards stories under which to post it. Did anyone catch these quotes from the NYT today?
Mr. Edwards did not immediately endorse another candidate, but he has long signaled that he favors Mr. Obama. The two have never been particularly close and did not serve together in the Senate, but associates of both said they had developed a cordial relationship during the campaign, and they talked by telephone Tuesday and Wednesday.
And from a separate article on the same day:
DaveP wrote on January 31, 2008 12:34 PM:Before his withdrawal, Mr. Edwards had appeared more closely aligned with Mr. Obama than with Mrs. Clinton, whom he had cast as an agent of the status quo.
He's doing ad buys after Feb. 5? Including for Feb. 9? That's the date of the Nebraska caucus! Yay!
- Guy from Nebraska
mari wrote on January 31, 2008 12:35 PM:Um, Denis, of course this money doesn't come from nowhere, notice he has had 650,000 donors, I have given to him multiple times, especially since the Clintons have started playing dirty. I know many people who have given him money multiple times. This money is coming in from small donations from tens of thousands of people, not from corporations.
Peep wrote on January 31, 2008 12:35 PM:
Hillary is the one running the righteous campaign, what Kennedy Clyburn Kerry and Obama have done is to exploit old identify politics and victimize through what they knew were old group grievance to inflame against not rally for and in so doing they just walked on the graves of the true dead heroes MLK and JFK using their legacy their lives their sacrifice as a weapons a lie against another who Herself has spent a life championing the causes they believed in and it is disgraceful and desperate and wrong. I do not believe for a second either man would be proud to be so violated as pawns in a campaign. Hillary has the honor here; I do not believe for a second that JFK or MLK would be pleased with the manner that they have been used.
SHAME SHAME SHAME
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:37 PM:Money is the lesser issue!
The 170,000 new contributers is the real issue!
Also, how many more who did not and had not previously made contributions now favor Obama?
Kinda, makes ya think!
Daniel wrote on January 31, 2008 12:38 PM:Three Southern polls were released this morning and they have Obama up in Georgia convincingly but trailing in Tennessee.
Gregor wrote on January 31, 2008 12:39 PM:Who was the poster that told the thread more news was coming on the money flowing in to the William J. Clinton Foundation?
Me.
What so we see today coming from the NYT?
BIG, follow-up story to their December piece on the WJC Foundation?
Which poster told you a month ago WHY Bill might be feeling so panicked at the Obama insurgency?
Me.
And my explanation?
Because I think Bill has ALREADY PROMISED donors favors that could be paid back in an HRC administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Watch and learn Hill-Bots
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 12:42 PM:Angry Vet, your ability to think critically about your own assumptions, measure the veracity of specific criticisms of candidates/their blog field supporters, is a credit to Obama supporters everywhere, and the candidate himself.
I will second that. I know when I see an Angry Vet post that it will be worth reading, which is more than I can say for a lot of the comments of late.
Michael wrote on January 31, 2008 12:42 PM:Hey John McCutchen--where in the Bay Area are you? You're a precinct captain, right? I flew out from Florida to volunteer in San Fran, I'm gonna be phone banking in the office on Market & Guerrero all day today and tomorrow afternoon.
Also, are you gonna go to the big rally Saturday morning? There is a "mystery guest" keynote speaker, I'm kinda hoping we'll hear rumors of an endorsement today, get a big endorsement tomorrow, and then have Mr. Mystery Speaker talk Saturday morning. Think it's possible?
Michael A wrote on January 31, 2008 12:43 PM:Based on this astronomical number and the polling trends, is there the making of an actual tidal wave on tsunami tuesday? It is possible and the polls have been way, way off, including sc. The mo for obama is definitely there. It would be awesome for this to be over on 2/5 for the dems so that we can start working on mccain and the general.
Also, it's interesting that Reid, the closet clintons supporter, remember the iran vote and how reid screwed obama and that his kid is working for the clintons. He "needs" them in dc on 2/4 to vote, gee what a shock, not 2/6, 7, 8, 9, 10 . . . . 2/4 the day before the national primary. Now who does this help? The clintons of course.
Detroit wrote on January 31, 2008 12:43 PM:Peep, Clinton's legacy is seriously in danger of being written as the one who shocked the nation with the implication behind that comment on LBJ. She certainly championed a view that that activism for civil rights was not as effective as executive power. Lest we forget, LBJ and JFK were dragged, slowly, toward the doorstep of reparitive civil rights legislation by the continuing horror that was in many states, unconstitutional, racist laws. All the US presidents in the post war period preferred to look the other way on this in fear of losing support of (primarily democratic) southern states. If not MLK, his predecessors and his co-hort, it might be said that JFK, LBJ, and the mulitiple civil rights legislations would not have come to the US as early as it did. So, Peep, Hillary's comment on this subject, read in any number of generous ways, is still a serious and mortifiying slap down of the courage of the activists risking their lives for decades before 1968. I would rather vote for McCain.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 12:48 PM:Detroit writes
This story, as all Obama stories on TPM do, has produced a number of responders that continue to suggest that Obama's support is uncritical, unthinking, and somehow a product of a media promoted myth (oh, right, "fairy tale").
Angry Vet, your ability to think critically about your own assumptions, measure the veracity of specific criticisms of candidates/their blog field supporters, is a credit to Obama supporters everywhere, and the candidate himself.
Detroit, I agree with you and would include a few regular posting Obama supporters like FlyOnTheWall, Greg DeLassus, and John McCutchen (the last two could really use shorter screen names).
But where are the intelligent Clinton posters? I see mostly mindless screeds (see Peep above) and insults (where's frankly0 today?). Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that the Obama supporters are smarter than Clinton supporters or that there aren't plenty of mindless Obama worshippers here. I'm just wondering why there aren't any smart Clinton supporters who regularly post on this blog. I would welcome them, as it would elevate the discussion.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 12:56 PM:I'm just wondering why there aren't any smart Clinton supporters who regularly post on this blog.
Lombard's posts are almost always cogent and worthwhile, and he is a Clinton supporter. Likewise, Wowsas (I think that she is a Clinton supporter, now that Edwards is out of the race).
FlyOnTheWall, Greg DeLassus, and John McCutchen (the last two could really use shorter screen names).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but FlyOnTheWall requires twelve keystrokes while Greg DeLassus requires thirteen. How is it that John McCutchen (fourteen keystrokes) and I need shorter names but FlyOnTheWall does not?
;-)
PeterB wrote on January 31, 2008 1:05 PM:Peep
Your are completely out of touch and off your rocker. To say the Obama has exploited JFK and MLK to his advantage is insanity. He can't help it that his words move people the same way that the Kennedy's and MLK did in the sixties. The comparisons to these great heroes are because people see them in him. Wake up fool.
Thanks for the props, peeps, but I defer to FOTW and Greg D. I'm a little too partisan for my own tastes, as would be noted by any regular viewer on dKos.
And yes, its butt cold up here.
Ahnold speaking right now. I'm surprised he endorsed McCain, still. I haven't seen any real interesting opinions on why here on the left.
In the meantime, the Humphrey Institute (UofM- Public Policy school) published a Minnesota poll today.
HRC: 40%
BHO: 32%
Caveats- It's a poll of registered democrats. It was conducted last week, before SC, FL, and JRE leaving. Minnesota is an open caucus state.
StarTrib and MPR (Minn. Public Radio) are trumpeting it as an HRC lead, however, I question the veracity of the poll, and the power of HRC's ground game here in Minnesota. In my canvassing, and through my network of family/friends, there has been no sighting of HRC volunteers or canvassers.
We'll see how this turns out. The Presidential Preference Ballot in MN is binding on the democrats, but not on the Republicans.... FUn times.
TheraP wrote on January 31, 2008 1:07 PM:
Anyone who imagines that it takes brain damage or being a sucker to be for Obama is simply in willful denial.
I'm a proud supporter with a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology... I'm a pretty good judge of character too... Many successful people in this country began huge corporations in their 20's. (Think of Bill Gates. and others.) Why people are saying that a 46 year old former professor of Constitutional Law who is a Senator (etc) lacks experience or wisdom is beyond me!
But where are the intelligent Clinton posters? I see mostly mindless screeds (see Peep above) and insults (where's frankly0 today?).
He's over at Washington Monthly getting repeatedly pwn3d as he sniffs that literally everyone else on that blog and this one is bereft of "independent thought."
Dude has no self awareness whatsoever. If *everyone* is telling you you're a prime asshole, even Clinton supporters, consider that you might be acting like a prime asshole.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 31, 2008 1:10 PM:Does anyone else see the strong Obama comments from yesterday on HRC as maybe he had advanced knowledge of the NYT piece?
We've even had people comment on here that WJC is really no different than GWHB in post-presidency peddling.
And that's exactly the point!
For those of you who may find this interesting, there's a bit of a difference in the results between early voters and same-day voters in FLorida.
Scroll down to see.
Obamamania caught on in Florida, but a chunk of voters had already voted...
For people who decided within the last 3 days, Clinton and Obama are close. For those who decided before that, not close at all, with Clinton with a big lead:
Same day vs early voter results from Florida
Michael A wrote on January 31, 2008 1:14 PM:This is a good summary of the state of the races. At least someone in the media got straight that the attack and distortion machine was in full throttle before new hampshire, not south carolina.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/dems_want_to_lose_but_gop_does.html
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 1:16 PM:Greg D writes
Not to put too fine a point on it, but FlyOnTheWall requires twelve keystrokes while Greg DeLassus requires thirteen. How is it that John McCutchen (fourteen keystrokes) and I need shorter names but FlyOnTheWall does not?
Flyonthewall is easier to remember/spell. But it could be shorter too.
Thanks for noting the smarter Clinton supporters. I'm not quite regular enough on this site to remember everyone. It doesn't seem that they post as much though, so there are too often one sided discussions between Obama supporters, with intermittent hillbot shouting. Angry Vet even felt the need to post his own devil's advocate Clinton defense the other day.
Surname- Maybe...
This $32m thing is jiving with my Obama theory posted yesterday concerning control of the media since South Carolina. Does anyone doubt that the media narrative right now is almost all Obama positive and HRC negative?
"$32M!!!" Screams the headlines... Another possible funding scandal, though admittedly an oblique attack on HRC from the NYTimes.. What's next?
I'll be convinced with an endorsement in the next two days....
MSNBC is running a tag that says "Barack Obama steps up negative attacks, Hillary Clinton tones it down."
Obama says- "HRC wants to build a bridge to the 20th century."
Kerry: "They always use Bill's record from the Presidency on the trail. Fair attack."
Hmmmm......
It's the Surname, Stupid wrote on January 31, 2008 1:17 PM:AngryVet:
Arnold is endorsing McCain because
a) he is very tight with both McCain and Rudy
and
b) Rudy dropped out of the race
Arnold has publicly stated that he was tight with both and was therefore not going to endorse. That he is endorsing immediately after Rudy drops, pretty much says all. Especially since Rudy endorsed McCain. Arnold can help his pal -- who will probably be the nominee -- without offending anyone.
Andrea Mitchell just beat the hell out of Kerry on TV. How was he our nominee again?
Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 1:19 PM:Surname-
Thanks. i didn't know that, but I should've figured it, due to the moderateness of their social views (well, that's true at least for Ahnold and Giuliani, don't think so with McCain).
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 31, 2008 1:19 PM:TheraP:
The "age" thing is tremendously important to the boomers. First it was don't trust anyone over 30. Now it's don't trust anyone under 50.
They could have gotten it all together with: Don't trust anyone except us! ;-)
CT Voter wrote on January 31, 2008 1:22 PM:Link fixed, sorry.
SAME DAY VS EARLY VOTERS, FLORIDA
Flyonthewall is easier to remember/spell.It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 31, 2008 1:24 PM:Pas de tout. Greg DeLassus is easy to remember. Just think of the famous renaissance composer, Roland DeLassus (whom most scholars consider the father of all modern western music). How could anyone forget Roland DeLassus?!?
;-)
Angry Vet:
I have never been too sure of Arnold's "moderate" social views -- occasionally the Austrian in him comes out.
But he is very shrewd and been around CA long enough to know to keep it in check.
And who knows, maybe the Kennedy's have rubbed off on him. ;-)
PS Arnold was in cahoots with Enron before the recall election. WOOT, but still a fun fact to remember.
oh screw it. I suck at html tags:
http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225974/
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 31, 2008 1:25 PM:CT Voter:
Wow. How to lie with statistics. As it happens, we don't need to use inferrential means of gauging the relative levels of support among early voters and election-day voters in Florida. The exit polls actually asked that question, and included aspecial several-hundred strong sample to get it right.
Among all voters, Hillary led 50-33. And among the quarter of voters who voted early or absentee, she led 50-31.
Now, California is a different state. And early voting there and elsewhere may well play in Hillary's favor. But I doubt it. In general, those who cast their ballots early are among the hard core of a candidate's support - undecideds and more marginal supporters tend to wait for election day. That's what we saw in Florida, and I suspect it will be true elsewhere.
And I also want to thank the several reasoned and reasonable voices who've posted kind words this afternoon. And add this note - FlyOnTheWall may not be short, but you gotta admit, it's catchy.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 31, 2008 1:32 PM:AngryVet:
MSM is looking for ratings these days. I doubt they are pro-Obama as much as "hey, we got us a horserace here!"
There also doesn't appear to be an consistency across the board with the MSM:
NYT endorses HRC and then runs the WJC story.
Mitt uses NYT endorsement of McCain to try to screw McCain.
NY Post endorses Obama.
Rush claims he'd suffer HRC than have McCain destroy the conservative movement. (Is Hell freezing over?)
If you were being very, very cynical, you might think that someone from the other side wants to promote the weaker candidate for a better match-up in the GE.
I know that you know that I know that you know....
Or maybe, must maybe, BO can charm the pants off of the reporters.
In our media driven culture that is critical. If we don't like it, we can change it -- but apparently most people like it because we get the media we deserve.
"Way to lie with statistics"?
What the heck is that supposed to mean? In another thread, I mentioned that CRawford was on MSNBC last night claiming that among early voters, Clinton had a big lead. Among those who had decided in the last three days, there wasn't a big difference (and he even claimed, based on what, I have no idea, that Obama was ahead)...
You know what? I'm sick and tired of the rancor in these discussions, and posters making insinuations about motives, intelligence, ability to think independently, etc.
I posted this link because I thought people might find it interesting.
Shove off, flyonthewall.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 31, 2008 1:34 PM:According to the Obama campaign:
These 224,000 people are giving whatever they can afford. More than ninety percent of our donors this year have given $100 or less.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 1:34 PM:Angry Vet writes
"$32M!!!" Screams the headlines... Another possible funding scandal, though admittedly an oblique attack on HRC from the NYTimes.. What's next?
I'll be convinced with an endorsement in the next two days..
A NYT endorsement? They already endorsed Clinton. I agree with you that media coverage favors Obama, but I wouldn't confuse that with media endorsements. For one thing, the big editors who make the endorsement don't necessary have the same views as reporters and lower level editors. Secondly, much of news media is about telling stories, which involves suspense and excitement. Obama closing in on Clinton is suspenseful and exciting, so it makes for good headlines. You can favor one candidate personally but decide that another candidate's success makes for a better headline.
dan wrote on January 31, 2008 1:46 PM:I AM TIRED OF THE ARROGANCE OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS. There, I said it. If you want to say that Obama supporters are being reflexive and uncritical, fine, but I disagree. But every single comment thread has this we-know-better-than-you meme coming from the Clinton camp. It is unbelievably tiresome; this world-weary seriousness, the certainty that Hillary is tough where Obama is weak, will wilt in the face of Republican attacks, and most of all the belief that you know how the 'real world' works, and all the Obama supporters are a bunch of hoodwinked 22 year olds who still live with their parents. This pose, that you guys all know how the machine works and the rest of us don't, I think fairly accurately reproduces Hillary's main rationale in opposing Obama, and that is why I'm voting for him, not her.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 1:54 PM:Has anyone else started having performance problems with the new TPM? Firefox starts eating up most of my CPU whenever I have a TPM page open.
David wrote on January 31, 2008 1:55 PM:just wondering, if Obama is so inexperienced, how come his campaign is so perfectly organized?
ca-ind wrote on January 31, 2008 2:09 PM:Wow! you Obama guys are obsessive compulsive losers. You are throwing your money down the toilet.
Here is an idea for u idiots: Donate your money for a good cause like an Orphanage, School etc.
"Here is an idea for u idiots: Donate your money for a good cause like an Orphanage, School etc."
I say we send some of the money to "The Douchebag Fund" - tell all of us who to make the check out to.
shoelessjoemccarthy wrote on January 31, 2008 2:24 PM:genghis, yes, I've had similar problems--I keep getting a "stop script" message.
hgnla wrote on January 31, 2008 2:27 PM:I don't understand why TPM just doesn't endorse Obama. TPM holds everyone else to a standard of transparency. Why not themselves? I don't even think the constant boosterism of Obama would bother me if you did so. Right now, it's just an insult to my intelligence.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 2:34 PM:Hey, Taylor Marsh is good for something. I just found out there that Obama is the only candidate on either side who supports the decriminilization of marijuana, I didn't know that! Take that people who keep saying he's running to the right of Hillary! She clearly is not going to take a stand for the stoners! Go Obama!
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 2:35 PM:I don't understand why TPM just doesn't endorse Obama. TPM holds everyone else to a standard of transparency. Why not themselves? I don't even think the constant boosterism of Obama would bother me if you did so. Right now, it's just an insult to my intelligence.
Because it would demonstrate an ethic they don't possess.
3G wrote on January 31, 2008 2:38 PM:I know that the entire 650k group of donors will not contribute to the $2300 limit, but it is theoretically $1,495,000,000!!!
Let's say that again: 1.5 Billion!!
The number of donors is going to continue to grow. So approaching that number is feasible.
170,000 new donors is the really nice part.
I gave $50 last Spring (and I hadn't contributed to a Presidential campaign since I was 8 years old and raided my piggy bank for Gene McCarthy). Gave another $50 a couple of weeks ago when Bill was behaving badly in SC. Made me feel a lot better, and it sounds like I wasn't the only one.
--
Don't expect a tsunami! HRC has a lot of deep support and will win a lot of delegates Tuesday almost no matter what, given how the primaries and caucuses are set up. This may go into May. On the positive side that gives those of us in places that don't usually matter more chances to participate!
The really good news is that the Obama campaign has the resources to compete on an even footing for that long. And an extended campaign is not a bad way to introduce him to the U.S. public.
We need to stay focused and positive and listen to HRC supporters and engage respectfully. The trouble with these forums is they're dominated by bitter-enders. I'd just remind fellow Obama backers that most HRC supporters are great folks.
sue wrote on January 31, 2008 2:41 PM:The new Gallup natonal poll is out - Clinton only leads by 4 points. Clinton is DOWN 5 pts from last week and Obama is UP by 11.
Also, a new fundraising scandal from President Clinton’s past hit the front page of the NYT today and it's featured prominently in the political section of www.MSNBC.com.
Combined with tanking poll numbers, this is NOT the sort of press the Clintons want right now.
LA Weekly has a feature on Obama's fund-raising secrets:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/obamas-gay-gold-mine/18247/
Obama's Gay Gold Mine
Jeremy Bernard and Rufus Gifford are lovers and business partners. They are also the fund-raisers who keep the Barack Obama presidential campaign alive and competitive.
Did u see the details of this poll, it has Edwards on it. All past week's polls are meaningless gibberish.
But of course Obama idiots will hang on to any straw they can get!
Hey, Taylor Marsh is good for something. I just found out there that Obama is the only candidate on either side who supports the decriminilization of marijuana...
You found that out on Taylor March's blog? I found it out over on HuffPo. Good for him. I have never even smoked tobacco, let along marijuana, but it does not seem to me that our prohibitionist approach is working any better with marijuana than it worked with alcohol. Legalizing it is smart public policy.
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 2:57 PM:It is so laughable that Obama supporters trying to use Bill Clinton's story, when just a few days ago they were whining about Tony Rezko story.
He the most whining candidate. He hides behind his Black race when anyone critisizes him. They are talking bad about me becasue I am BLACK.
And he is going to deal with N. Korea and Islamic terrorists!
Any good democrats should vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, I will.
Thank you vh and other Clinton supporters for making a wonderful case for Obama!
