Anyone interested in the money race should also take a look at http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/

Hillary's financial woes are indicative of something significant:

Why can't you and I run for president?

Well, we need lots of money to do that. So we have 2 choices:

a) be so popular that *lots* of people are willing to fork over something even modest like $25 to you

or

b) be so wealthy that you are in the "wealthy people club" where they will donate the maximum ($2.3K) and you probably have some stash on your own. Problem is that the "wealthy people club" is a lot smaller than the "lots of people club".

Hillary fell into group *b*, not *a*. Think about it:

Only 4M people need to donate $25 to raise $100M.

Now, at this point in the election, you have name recognition and free press to get a message out.

About 5.5M people voted for HRC yesterday (SuperTuesday). She could easily raise 20x the $5M *if she were really popular*.

Obama *clearly* has enthusiastic support. This is truly a broad basis of a representational democracy. This was how Obama was able to raise $32M in a single month -- and $4M last night! Lots of enthusiastic people offering modest amounts of money. And, like Obama points out, without the special interest lobbies (unlike HRC).

Let these numbers speak for themselves. Whether you like it or not, Obama has tapped into something -- an amazing opportunity for the Dems to transform their party for the first time since 1932!

This isn't spin, it's just clear thinking.

I got the Obama email trumpeting this about an hour and a half ago -- contrasting Hillary's dire financial straits with Obama's Midas touch. People must just be throwing money at them. Damn.

Big Mo.

And where did this money come from?

This is another area where it helps that Obama's base is younger and online all day. I'm no spring chicken, but I have absolute confidence transacting online. My mother, not so much. And if this was a snail mail election (say, 1992), I wouldn't be sending in money.

What MNPundit said.

At this rate they'll top $5 million pretty soon. Like tonight.

That really is pretty nuts.

Servers are overwhelmed. Wow.

I gave $100 today -- awesome. This is rad.

If one million small donations are made by one million elite young people, are the elite no longer represented?

Put another way, is NPR populist media simply because it is public media? A candidate can still represent the wealthy and the elite without having to take money from special interests, the traditional, modern donation method of the wealthy and elite. The internet makes solicitation and communication easier than ever before, but the internet is still in the hands of the few instead of the many. If the net elite spend Obama into the presidency, I'm not convinced that the populous, writ large, has won.

I think this is another area where Obama's young base it helping. No problem shooting off $25 or $50 online. I know I never made frequent, small donations like this via snail mail in, say, '92.

What this is doing is not only raising staggering amounts of cash for Obama's ground game in Ohio & Texas, but it is helping prolong the story of Hillary's money woes to continue by making them part of the story.

He owns yet another news cycle, the critical one right after Super Tuesday. If the election didn't give him enough momentum, his supporters will do it for him.

$4.67MM.

Me too. I threw a few more bucks at him tonight too. It wasn't David Plouffle's email talking about the $5,000,000.00 loan that did it. I knew Obama was going to crush that in hours regardless of whether I opened up my wallet. Nope, it was the thought of how demoralizing it would be for Howard Wolfson and that fat sack of union busting, Blackwater-loving monkey dung Mark Penn, and all the rest of the folks at Team Hillary would be when Obama outraised that in 24 hours. I just had to get a little piece of that.

Oh, who am I kidding? I admit it, none of us are giving any of this money to Obama ourselves. Instead, we're all part of a multi-million person conspiracy acting as cutouts for Evil Liberal Mastermind George Soros. He funnels the cash to us in small amounts from his hidden lair and we channel it to Obama in tiny untraceable contributions. Soon, Soros will rule the world. Buahahahaha! (Now let's see how long takes O'Reilly to pick up this information and broadcast it on the Factor.)

The e-mail the Obama campaign sent out calculates the amount raised and changes by the minute.

Everybody is trying to just pore the $$$ in but the servers can't handle it all.

Patience, people. Just keep trying. :)

We had a house party for Obama on Saturday. We asked people under 30 to donate $50 and the rest we asked to donate $100. We raised over 30,000! I would say 75% of the people there had never donated money for a political candidate before. It was amazing. And it made everyone feel vested in the campaign. This is a really unique movement and people really want to be a part of it. I don't think that Hillary could ever engender that desire to participate among people who weren't party regulars.

Steven wrote:
If one million small donations are made by one million elite young people, are the elite no longer represented?

Just because he is raising this cash on line, is that why you assume his donations come from elite young people? To what do you make this assertion? Certainly he is appealing to young people and this kind of spontaneous giving is a result of young folks social networking, but since when are the 20 somethings elite?

The $2300 donors who give in one shot are the elite where I come from.

And as for the internet being in the hands of the few, maybe 10 years ago, but not today. Access is now over 75% That is a heck of a lot of elites.

Hill sent out email today asking her supporters to help her raise $3m in 3 days. Kinda sad...

PS, small doner here, three times, Dec/right after NH, and last night.

Yes WE can...

The internet makes solicitation and communication easier than ever before, but the internet is still in the hands of the few instead of the many. If the net elite spend Obama into the presidency, I'm not convinced that the populous, writ large, has won.

"The net elite?" You own a computer, a modem and an ATM card and that makes you part of an elite? Riiight.

Dude, contrary to the belief of many Clinton supporters, the 90s are over. Its 2008. There are 215 million internet users in the U.S. out of a population of 301 million.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats14.htm

That's not "the few" and its most certainly not an "elite." That's the over-frikking-whelming majority of the people in the country.

$4,810,000

♪♫♬

Meanwhile, Hillary:〽

Zell: Yeah, I guess that makes sense. (Great pic by the way, I'd forgoten all about that guy!)

Formerly NC Steve,

That is where i got my stats from. You and I had a vulcan mind meld there!! Sweet.

What is happening is that Obama supporters have seen an opening with Hillary's loan news and her $3 million in 3 days and have decided to magnify that story, thereby creating yet another bad news cycle for Hillary.

The figure is going to go well over $5 million by midnight on the west coast. Tomorrow's story has written itself.

When he said that we are the change we have been waiting for last night, I'm not sure he meant this, but I bet he'll take it.

There may be 215 million internet users in the USA, but I wonder what percentage use their connection for anything besides chatting and social networking.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the internet has greatly changed the way that campaigns are run and has greatly empowered those internet users interested in the campaign process. Mostly younger folks, I am guessing.

To me, entering geezerhood, Obama's attraction of so many young folks into the process is his greatest recommendation.

I also wonder how many of Clinton's older demographic are plugged in.

$4.589 million 9:32 EST

Wow

Sorry - If you can't tell that there's a difference between 1 million people donating 25 dollars and 25 people donating 1 million dollars you're missing something.

Whether Obama or politics in general are 100% pure isn't the issue - they aren't. But there's a huge difference between the Pre-Chosen One starting out with all the money from the fatcats and a guy who came out of nowhere possibly wresting the title away with the support of tons of people donating small amounts. The Queen is running out of cash; the Upstart looks like he's just getting started.

I donated $25 last month, did it again today and I'll do it again in the future. And the last time I looked in my bank account no one was calling me elite. But in case you haven't noticed, his numbers are rising rapidly. Which means a lot more people who have never donated will do so for the first time.

I can't guarantee where it's going - but nothing like has happened before in my 50 years.

Does anyone know exactly what it means for Clinton to "loan" her campaign $5 million?

It means the campaign gives her a promissory note for the amount lent at some interest rate of the campaign and the "lender's" choosing.

When does she (uhhh, I mean "her campaign") have to repay it? What interest rates?

Whenever it can. Its not like Bill and Hill are going to send a collection agency after themselves or file a lawsuit. Often, campaigns will raise money for years after the campaign is over to retire campaign debt. In practical terms, it means that after the election, or they'll shake down the donors they're ashamed to include include in their FEC reports while the election is ongoing. (And, remember, the Clintons' shame threshold is pretty high.) The note will likely have a nice long maturity date so they'll have plenty of time to do that.

The banks McCain borrowed from are, of course, not going to be as lenient, incidentally.

What if her campaign doesn't raise enough to pay it back?

Hill and Bill? Please. The possibility does not exist. If they win, they'll pay all the campaign debts off within a year and a half. If not, it could take them three to five years. Come to think of it, though, it could be problematic.

She's clearly sitting on cash for the general; would she be able to pay this back via that cash? If so, how is that not a violation (or at least a flagrant skirting) of the law against using general donations for the primary?

I am almost certain people would go to jail if that happened.

I made my donation in the wee hours of the morning, brings a smile to my face with the news that Clinton had to dip into her own cash. I just love the fundraising campaign going on, hey the Clintons just put in 5 mil, help match it. Use the other sides own actions against them.

The 215 figure was mentioned as a way to show that the "elite" argument was silly.

I do agree with you that the youngsters are probably driving this thing tonight.

The worry I have as an Obama supporter is that while they give and give, do they vote and vote? The one thing Hillary has going for her is that the older voters are reliable voters.

The goal of the Obama campaign is to turn young people into those kind of reliable voters.

But, as of 9:38PM, $4.955 million will buy a heck of a lot of outreach. They need to turn that money into votes, especially on the March 4th states.

Brune -

You hit the nail on the head. People - young people especially, but not exclusively - feel invested in this campaign to an extent that I'm sure I've never seen before (I'm not that old, but still).

I drove to MPLS/St. Paul from Wisconsin to help the Obama state HQ there get out the caucus in the run up to Super Tuesday and keep an eye on the polls on the big day. As quirky of an operation as it is, there is an amazing level of commitment and enthusiasm to this campaign... people aren't getting their toes wet, they are jumping all the way in, caution be damned. I met young people who were there to volunteer who had driven from as far away as Michigan - and they had never even voted before! Its one thing to get the attention of new voters, quite another to make them willing to get in the car and drive hundreds of miles in the dead of winter to work for you for free. Its unreal. A complete revival of the secular religion of civic responsibility.

I just sent him another $50. The total stands at $4,955,210. Incredible.

It's working out to something like $120,000 every 30 minutes.

He's done it. Over $5,143,000 as of 945 Eastern.

To cswartout:

Psychologically, people who donate money are going to go out and vote for the candidate they donated money to. It will be something that some PhD student will do a thesis on in a few years.

I felt so good voting for Obama yesterday, I paid for the idea of being able to do it again this year.

People who donate money to campaigns (including the fat cats), do tend to have an active interest in the election after their donation. (And the really fat cats donate to both sides to ensure a win no matter what, but that's another topic.)

If Obama is the nominee, I bet you see the first significant youth vote -- especially if they get their friends to donate to the GE during the summer. But don't expect them to just "vote Democratic" if Obama isn't the nominee. Most probably have nothing invested with HRC and they will go back to the "can't be counted on" status.

This isn't spin, it's just clear thinking.

"The worry I have as an Obama supporter is that while they give and give, do they vote and vote?"

cswartout -

I was an Obama precinct captain for a caucus held on the grounds of the University of Minnesota (in Minneapolis) last night. The precinct was tiny and was inhabited almost exclusively by students and older people for whom inexpensive housing is essential.

We had easily TRIPLE the turnout of last election's Democratic caucus. I would guess probably 85% of the people standing in line - some for nearly an hour - were under the age of 30.

The final vote count?

Hillary got 77 votes.

Obama got 391.

I was thrilled to death. :)

The overwhelming number of the people turning out to volunteer, the wave of new campaign contributors, the new people turning out to vote, these are all signs that something is happening here beyond the spin.

Perhaps now that the super-duper-Tuesday spectacular has passed, the pundits can stop navel gazing and obsessing over tracking poll numbers, lift their heads up and look around.

If they do, they'll see that something remarkable is happening. Something very different from traditional politics. Right now, they just don't get it. They will.

Not even the Clinton/DLC machine is going to be able to stop Obama.

This is what a movement looks like....

The thing which most recommends Obama to this geezer is his attraction of legions of young folks into the process.

It kind of feels like the '60s.

9:57pm EST. $5,124,705.00

This was amazingly fun to watch. And I have a feeling that the money will keep rolling in for the next couple of hours. Being part of a movement is one hell of a feeling.

Over $5.258 now.

Just incredible.

It keeps on coming...
$5,257,912 @ 10pm eastern.

I'm fired up!

The number is still growing! $5,257,618

Great to hear stories from the ground.

I was volunteering in Hillary country in upstate NY and while she won our county, we did better here than anyone expected. During the first week I would reach so many Hillary voters on the phones, but after SC, things began to change. Every day brought new voters who were getting the message.

What I do know is that New York's election laws are so damn arcane and set up to reward those already in power, that if we had same day registration and party switching like in some states, we would have done far far better. Maybe that could be my next cause!

What is Ron Paul's one-day record, $6 mil? I hope Barack can top that.

5.4 million now. I've never seen anything like this. It's grown $150,000 in the last 10 minutes.

Just got an email from someone in Chicago. They're trying to match Ron Paul's $6 M in a day now!!!

Go-Bama! ♪♪♪

i donated for the first time this morning. $25... I'm just a student...so....

He makes me giddy.

$5,618,036

This is crazy.

Which I mean in a very, very positive way. It's awesome crazy.

It amazes me that so many progressives have been talked into taking a hyper-partisan position. Instead of embracing Obama for building the progressive movement, he is excoriated for "selling out the party." Look at what he has accomplished:

1) More than doubled young voter participation;

2) Young voters are now the most Democratic leaning age cohort;

3) Dramatic increases in participation by AA voters who are the most solidly Democratic of any ethnic group;

4) Increased small donor fundraising by an order of magnitude;

5) Winning support from large majorities of independent voters;

6) Winning support from disaffected Republicans. It may only be a few percent but it can make a huge difference.

This is how we build the party. This is how we win the White House. This is how we win larger majorities in Congress. This is how we build majority support for substantive changes in 2009 and beyond.

Those who think Obama isn't "sufficiently partisan" are ignoring history and failing to comprehend the obvious:

Passing a progressive policy agenda requires a "working majority". FDR assembled one in the 30s by winning huge majorities in Congress. LBJ assembled another when he crushed Goldwater and the Repubs in '64. This is what Obama is aiming for. Those who doubt it, either aren't paying attention or don't understand politics.

This is what Obama meant when he said that Reagan had transformed the arc of politics in a way that Clinton or Nixon had not. He is seeking to transform American politics. Hillary Clinton will be lucky to win the slimmest of majorities with some of the shortest coattails in history.

The choice seems obvious.

5.6 Mil and counting!!!

I sent $25 today, and $25 a month ago... that's all I've done so far. But, I think it'll be a monthly commitment. Not much, but we're a one income family (well under 6 figs) with an extra mouth to feed. We don't own a home. We have only one basic car. Elite I am not.

DaddyD

This is like watching a telethon. I am mesmerized by this momentum.

I would like to see a figure on the number of donors and the average contribution.

.... here I thought the $100 I donated last night after he won Missouri might contribute to a small fundraising boost, it was actually cathartic as I was chatting online with some conservatives who were dismissive of him to be able to quickly counter their propaganda and donate so effortlessly, wonderin if I should donate another hundy or juss wait and hope he blows through WA, VA, MD with wins and send him some celebratory loot (I really hope he has good showings there, nothing for granted).
In my solicitation from the Dem Party of NV when they asked what I was willing to do in the fall I checked the donate $$$ to candidates and put as an aside dependent upon the candidate. My support ends if the Party is nuts enough to Restore a Clinton to the throne. I'll let others Support the Restoration if gosh forbid it comes to that. YES.WE.CAN.

My wife and I each just gave $100 to Barack just a few minutes ago (so $200 total). To try and help his "total small contributors" counts, we've separately given $100 ($200 total) every quarter since since January '07 -- and there've been a couple other times we've been moved to each donate another $100 (each).

Honestly, we've lost track of what we've given. I think it's about $1,400 to $1,600 for the household (combined).

My wife was a Kerry supporter from the very beginning back in 2003 (me, I was more for Wes Clark until it was clear he wasn't ready for prime time). And yet, even with ALL the volunteer work we both did for Kerry in the general (two or three times a week of calling, or going door-to-door / for almost three months), we NEVER gave more than about $400 to the Kerry campaign (total, for the entire election cycle). And back then, $400 was WAY more than we'd EVER given to any campaign before (we're each pushin' 40).

Now, it's just gotten to be a habit. We certainly don't give every time we're asked, but we give regularly, and when they put forth a good idea we know they can spin -- we'll bite and buy. I think the couple extra times we gave was to offer matching contributions from other, first-time givers. We got to trade e-mails with each other, and got to know somebody else in the country who had some of the same hopes and dreams we have.

I'm normally the biggest cheapskate there is, never spending any more than I have, unless I really want to. Barack has found the way to open up our pocketbooks. We're not rich, but we aren't afraid to "spend our values".

I hope Barack breaks $7 million between now and the 24-hour mark of when the polls closed yesterday. And I hope he breaks $40 million in fundraising for February -- the shortest month of the year, no less!! Go Barack, go!!!

My wife and I each just gave $100 to Barack just a few minutes ago (so $200 total). To try and help his "total small contributors" counts, we've separately given $100 ($200 total) every quarter since since January '07 -- and there've been a couple other times we've been moved to each donate another $100 (each).

Honestly, we've lost track of what we've given. I think it's about $1,400 to $1,600 for the household (combined).

My wife was a Kerry supporter from the very beginning back in 2003 (me, I was more for Wes Clark until it was clear he wasn't ready for prime time). And yet, even with ALL the volunteer work we both did for Kerry in the general (two or three times a week of calling, or going door-to-door / for almost three months), we NEVER gave more than about $400 to the Kerry campaign (total, for the entire election cycle). And back then, $400 was WAY more than we'd EVER given to any campaign before (we're each pushin' 40).

Now, it's just gotten to be a habit. We certainly don't give every time we're asked, but we give regularly, and when they put forth a good idea we know they can spin -- we'll bite and buy. I think the couple extra times we gave was to offer matching contributions from other, first-time givers. We got to trade e-mails with each other, and got to know somebody else in the country who had some of the same hopes and dreams we have.

I'm normally the biggest cheapskate there is, never spending any more than I have, unless I really want to. Barack has found the way to open up our pocketbooks. We're not rich, but we aren't afraid to "spend our values".

I hope Barack breaks $7 million between now and the 24-hour mark of when the polls closed yesterday. And I hope he breaks $40 million in fundraising for February -- the shortest month of the year, no less!! Go Barack, go!!!

The obvious answer to this nonsense is public financing and use of public 'commons' (including airwaves) to provide equal opportunity for all. If private money wants to support a person or issue, then they need to give equal amounts to all concerned parties. No advertising 1 week before elections, national standardized election paper ballots (no voting machines), standard methods to secure ballots and various other rules are needed. This would not be easy to set up, and would be imperfect always, but it's the only way out. No chance of clinton supporting this imo, and probably not obama, but who knows.

The Hillary camp will say that Jessie Jackson raised $6 million in 1984 & 1988.

Ok, sorry. I couldn't resist. :)

Hello friends. I'm waiting on a bonus I will receive Friday. Then I will join you. I get my regular paycheck next Friday. Then I shall join you again.
w00t!

I'm a regular talking points memo reader, and I support Hillary Clinton! I'm interested to hear if she's also been getting an increase in contributions since super Tuesday. The real story is not the $ amount Obama gets tonight (although $4 million is a lot of $$$) but how much more he gets in the coming weeks relative to Clinton. And of course how that translates into votes.

In this day and age nearly everyone has internet access, from GenY to people in their 70's and 80's.

Closing in on 5.9 million as of now. If you divide that out it's almost 250k per hour. Amazing.

Gotta love collective consciousness. My wife and I watched Barack's speech from last night, decided to put our money where our mouths are, and donated a meager $25. Moments later (literally) I browsed to TPM, to learn that apparently thousands of others have done precisely the same thing. Put me in mind of Joe Trippi assuring us four years ago (remember those bi-weekly DVD's?) that all we needed to do was get 100,000 people to give $10 to equal 1,000 people each giving $1,000, the strategy being that DFA could keep going back to that well over and over. ('Course, that was before he went and shot our wad in Iowa.) I dunno, this time feels different. Obama feels like Dean on steroids.

11:57 PM
$6,038,669

awesome.

He just passed $6 million.

Over 6 million.

Change we can believe in.

I'll be going to sleep now, assured that my $25 made a difference.

I just got an unsolicited e-mail from Mr. Obama regarding the matching of Hillary's five million. I have no idea how he got my address and it's freaking me out a little because this is the first campaign crap I've received all season. I like how he speaks and all, but he's not a street performer or poor.

Didn't he just raise 30 million last month? Sorry, Hillary and O-Man, I just spent my last 100 on groceries for my kids. Take both of your tin cans elsewhere. Better yet, why not pay for better staffers that won't send me e-mails spouting 'change' or 'experience' and then pandering for bucks. Some slut named Katrina came and took all my savings two years ago (which the Democrats have NOT helped this area since coming into power, I might add).

However, do send me an e-mail or drop me a line if you're willing to buy my vote. In this economy, it will go to the highest bidder.

It just crossed the SIX MILLION mark!

I have given candidates my vote since in every election since I turned 18. Sen. Obama is the first one that I have given my money or my time. I took vacation yesterday to drive people to the polls and do GOTV calls. I have canvased, and I have given my money. There is not another leader in this nation good enough to lead me to do that!!

Obama going over 6 million beats Ron Paul's record, and note that Ron Paul's record donation was planned by his supporters beforehand!

YES WE CAN!

This isn't spin, it's just clear thinking.

I sent $50. today. I want a break between being ruled by two alternating royal families.

By no stretch of the imagination am I a liberal. I'm basically a libertarian along with a Buchanan style anti war isolationist. I was a Ron Paul donor.

However Obama's approach to politics is so damn appealing. I really hope that Obama can defeat the Rove / Morris / McAuliffe style politics.

Sorry to interrupt the Hussein Obama circle-jerk in here, but your money means nothing. Hillary will wipe the floor with your hero and win the nomination. You go, girl!

I don't actually think that, but the Hillbots have been conspicuously absent from these comments. I wonder why. :-)

I just gave $10 to Obama (poor college student). First time donor, but volunteered for ACT in '04.

Also,
I want a break between being ruled by two alternating royal families.

I have a MAJOR problem with this as well. I could go into an extended diatribe regarding the numerous ways this is undemocratic, but I'll just leave it with this: The thought of Bush(4yrs)+Clinton(8)+Bush(8)+Clinton(8) = 28yrs leaves a hint of stomach acid and half-digested MSG-laden General Tso's chicken lingering on my breath for days.

I wish that Obama were a progressive, then all this would be like a dream come true. Making a counter move and feeling like we are part of something important is nice, but in the end it may be hard to tell the pigs from the people. What will we be feeling like in 2010 when the honeymoon is over?

The Obama people should point out that if Hillary is elected a "young" fellow named Jeb is waiting in the wings to extend the Bush-Clinton legacy....

I picture a campaign add that features an Ipod like shuffle screen that flows thru the years with the presidents pictures rolling through the years;

1988-92 G HW Bush
1993-2000 Bill Clinton
2001-08 G W Bush
2009-16 Hillary Clinton
2017-24 Jeb Bush
2025-32 By that time Chelsea will be ready
2033- Pick a Bush twin...

I'll donate anything to break that chain...
It's well over $6 million now!!! A new record. :)

Dear domerask:

Obama is ranked one of the more liberal senators in the Senate. Remember, you want a centrist candidate as your nominee, that is the way to get to the White House.

HRC is certainly no more "progressive" than Obama overall. That is why she has a chance to be a nominee. The extremes (as represented by Gravel and Paul/Huckabee) have no chance in hell, nor should they.

That's the beauty of a two party system.

If it makes you feel any better, the GOP folks are upset that McCain is "moving to the left" to capture the central portion of the electorate.

And as a parting idea: the country is so far to the right now, it's almost guaranteed to move to the left by definition. Americans don't like the extremes for too long -- this is how we moved to the right to begin with!

You didn't actually read the second part of my post, did you?

When is the rest of the net going to realize what's going on? No reports on this in the msm-net or via Google News. hehehe... When they wake up they'll think they're dreaming. :-D

I'm a 53yo female from the south who is an avid Obama supporter. I gave $500 a couple of months ago, and $100 a few other times. My husband has given a few times, too. We're still not maxed out, and plan on more donations. It's been a "let's see how he does", and Barack hasn't disappointed.

The point I wanted to make about contributions is that while my husband and I have given in these amounts, I have two sons, 21 and 25yo, that have each given up to nearly $100 each, and they can barely afford to make ends meet on their salaries.

But more exciting to me is that my youngest son could barely tell you who the VP was as of a year or so ago, and now he is absolutely engaged in the political process. He is shocking me with his vast knowledge, all self taught. He's explained super delegates to me, and caucusing, it's amazing. This is something we do not want to lose. The apathy of the youth has been staggering up to this point. We need the kind of passion they can bring too the process.

All I can say is that the DNC needs to realize what is going on here. This movement is no "fantasy". It's real, and they better tap it while the well is good, or it will surely go dry.

Geez. Obama can afford, like, dozens of blimps now.

What will we be feeling like in 2010 when the honeymoon is over?

Better than we felt in 2002 when the nightmare began in earnest.

Why is it that only the Obama voters are always saying that if my guy doesn't win, then i'm taking my crayons and going home?

What I find truly amazing is the upending of conventional wisdom. The supposed political genius of Bill and Hill drove them to 'conventional' approaches like, big money doners, lobbyists and bundlers, win the big primary states for the knock out, etc. Meanwhile, the new politics says, get a really broad doner base and keep tapping it. Oh and organize like crazy through that base to win the most delegates, the most states, and arguably the most popular vote on Super Tuesday.

Dean actually showed the way, if he hadn't melted down, at least on the internet. Obama is just carrying the torch now, but much more adroitly.

6.925m now, break 7 by 11am?

To mrstrailerco: Well, if you go to his website and then click on "Issues," that should do it.

And to kensdad: Because for a lot of people who support Obama, this is the first time they've really gotten into politics. I don't like that he has said (paraphrasing) "Her voters will vote for me but mine won't for her." It's a little arrogant, but at the same time it's probably very true. Many Obama supporters aren't Democrats, and they shouldn't have to feel preasured into voting for Hillary should she win the nomination.

C'mon Michael A... be nice. And helpful.

Yes, Mrstrailerco, there is detailed policy information on Barack Obama's website.

Go to barackobama.com and click on the "Issues" tab, the second one on the left. You'll see a whole variety of details on Barack Obama's policies.

I also recommend checking out the "People" tab, and selecting the tab most suited for you, as it goes into additional details on issues specifically effecting you.

If you or any other voter out there has any questions on where Obama stands on the issues, please feel free to post them. I and others will do my best to answer them.

It's time we all stop talking past each other and start talking to each other.

kensdad,

>>

For me, it's a moral decision. A vote for Hillary would be a vote for the kind of Rovian, nasty politics we've seen for the past 8 years. Not to mention that I believe with all my heart that she will unite the Republicans against her, and we could lose this thing AGAIN. There is so much dirt out there on she and Bill, and the GOP is just waiting to unleash it to the public. I want to change what has worked for these people in the past, and to me, Hillary has used their tactics in a "whatever it takes" campaign (up until she realized it wasn't working).

If I support her, I'm saying that lies
and "swiftboating" your opponent works. I cannot cast a vote for that. The bitter divide will never end.

Someone's character is more important to me then their gender, and I can't support a candidate whom I feel has no integrity simply because we are the same gender. I hope one day I'll get the chance to vote for a woman of integrity, but for me, this one is not the one.

This video explains my position far, far better then I could. I've sent it to a few women friends of mine to explain why I can't support Hillary. Maya Angelou said, "Once somebody shows you who they are, believe them."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

Hillary can not afford to purchase much more TV time, so that is why she is trying to change the amount of debates that were agreed to. She needs all the free TV time that she can get. Obama can afford to buy lots of TV time, so he should not rescue Hillary by accepting any more TV debates.

eliani,

i will happily put my argument to rest when i feel like some of the craziness calms down, however, i was responding the comment by "mark kraft" above. the rabid anti-hillary-ism from Obama supporters is all too common and by no means an over generalization. either you don't read dem blogs much or it just doesn't register because Hillary isn't "your gal"...

When is the last time you watched The Candidate or read The Selling Of The President 1968? Candidates like Obama will do anything to keep from talking about the real issues. Have you seen today's Gallup Poll? This buzz about who is raising the most cash is just buzz. Obama's next real test is Virginia. If the voting patterns from Tuesday hold up in Virginia and Texas, Obama is finished with the super delegates who are professional politicians, capable of reading the tea leaves. Obama has been gaming people like us his entire life. Give your money to Habitat for Humanity or something. Make a difference.

"all the wild-eyed ranting directed at Hillary by fellow democrats is no better than the Rush Limbaugh hissy fit over John McCain. can't we be just a little bit better than the republicans? please????..."

Kensdad, a lot of Obama supporters (I won't say "many" because I can't be sure) dislike the underhanded tactics of the Clinton campaign. I personally found their distortions and lies to have been the kind of low politics that Karl Rove played. The moves they're making over Michigan and Florida delegates are just pathetic.

Hardball politics? Maybe, but I want no part of it. It's not about policy. It's not about her being a woman (most of the Obama supporters I know who are disgusted by her tactics are women). It's about changing the way we practice politics.

I want us to be "better than the Republicans" and I'd like to think that Obama's a much better role model than Clinton for your daughters.

Hopefully, if Obama gets the nomination, your daughters can
follow him and his female running mate. That would be fantastic (and no, it won't be Clinton. Sibelius, perhaps..?)

Regards.

Ok, kensdad, I am sure that the "rabid anti-hillaryism" from obama people stems in part from the tactics of clinton people and the campaign itself. I have said this before to people who raise this claim. Take a minute and go back and read some archive posts from september or october. Alot of obama people wanted to address issues and were immediately smacked down with a variety of insults from uninformed to you name it. So by human nature people get turned off and respond accordingly.

Personally, I don't care if we are electing a martian, who was born in the us and is a us citizen as required by the constitution. This identity politics is garbage. I want the person best able to lead the whole country and to win the election. Attacking republican voters and republicans as a whole doesn't do it for me. Also, the baggage of the clintons and the political tactics of the clintons tell me that she cannot win the general. Additionally, in my view the iraq war vote speaks volumes. Again she didn't read the gd NIE that revealed the case for war was based on lies, the iran war vote, the cluster bomb vote. These are issues and are deal breakers for me regardless of her gender or her distortions.

It's my opinion, shared by thousands and thousands of others. Does that make me a sexist, or uninformed, or unamerican, or a left-wing loonie, or a naderite, or whatever else. I don't think so, but I guarantee I will get that response.

Here's a question for you. What do you do if you have a woman running for President who has worked her way up the ladder through Arkansas, Washington, and New York, who represents working people, Blacks, old people, children, will end the occupation in Iraq, wants health insurance for everyone, and is up against not only the Republican attack machine, but the highest glass ceiling in American politics? Do you support her and use your energy and charisma to help her defeat the vicious attacks you know are coming from the wingnuts? No. If you're Obama, you run against her. And your main argument for your candidacy over hers? The Republicans won't attack you as viciously as they will attack her. And you want my support? Forget about it.

There are so many reasons to oppose Hillary, here is a very measured, very sober, very calm, totally non-hysterical argument for Obama. It's a little long, but it is absolutely worth it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

Wow and that comment raises the level of discourse? I wasn't replying the the dem blogs, I was replying to your specific generalization that Obama supporters won't or have said they would not support Hillary. I am a former Edwards supporter that had to make a decision as which candidate to support after his exit from the race.
By affirming that I would vote for her because I see the larger picture here, I had hoped to convey just that. Your last remark isn't conducive to an objective or civil discussion.

really? what is it that i have said that is uncivil?

I read a lot of these blogs and, while trolling is truly an equal-opportunity sport, I find much more rudeness on the side of the Hillary supporters. It isn't her fault, of course, but I wonder if this idea of entitlement has been passed on to her supporters and they are angry someone is challenging their candidate--who, after all, "has worked so hard" and "deserves it" and "it's her time" and "wouldn't it be great to have a woman."

And, as a woman, the suggestion that it's sexist not to vote for Hillary enrages me. I think it's also sexist to vote for her just because she's a woman. I am going to vote for the candidate who I think will a) be the best president and b) has the best chance to win. Edwards was my guy on the issues, but I have gone to Obama because, first of all he has a far better chance of winning against John McCain. For those who would argue, take a look at Hillary's negatives compared to McCain's, remember how the media hates her--not fair, sexist, but nonetheless true, think how deranged the Clintons make conservatives and how that might rally them to vote for McCain just to vote against her.

Secondly, I find Obama inspires me. He makes me, simply, feel good about my country again. And I think that would be a force for good indeed in this broken, broken country of ours.

WHY does TPM place the article on
"Obama's Raised Over $7 Million" BELOW
"Hillary's Raised $4 Million Since Super Tuesday"

Seems like that continued bias here at TPM toward Clinton!

Scotty59, i have a problem with your #3. wives and daughters cannot be judged on their own accomplishments if they have a famous or powerful father/husband?

Eleanor Roosevelt = less impressive
Jacqueline Kennedy = less impressive
Coretta Scott King = less impressive
Indira Ghandi = less impressive
Benazir Bhutto = less impressive
First term senator from IL = impressive!

sorry, i am not trying to diminish Barack Obama's accomplishments, just trying to make a point.

Kensdad, that's not what he's saying. Also, what are her accomplishments? What did she do in the senate after getting a senate seat handed to her on a silver platter. That's the issue and the answer is nada, other than her war votes. Where's the record? And I'm not trying to diminish her accomplishments, just trying to make a point.

Michael A:

you mean hillary's accomplishments after she worked for the children's defense fund? or after she was appointed to the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Nixon? or after she ran a legal aid clinic for the poor in AR and was a board member of the U.S. Legal Services Corp? or after she was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America? or after she traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for women's rights and human rights? or after she helped design and champion SCHIP? or after she fought (as senator) for health care for front line workers at Ground Zero? or after she passed legislation to track the health status of our troops? or after... well, i could go on, but...

seems like a bit more than "nada"... but maybe that's just me?

so you're right, we wouldn't want to diminish her accomplishments. she's just been ironing Bill's shirts for the last 35 yrs!

For instance, healthcare. The issue there isn't whether mandated healthcare is better or worse than non-mandated healthcare. It's whether we pass national healthcare into law, or whether we don't.

Obama's plan is FAR more likely to become law, which is what we need, because it will save lives and save families from immense financial hardships.

Mandates are essential to a plan that is cost-effective, lowers premiums, establishes competition between a Medicare or VA-type single-payer system and private insurers who would have to accept all who apply. Obama's plan would not allow for that kind of competition. The incredibly expensive and wasteful Medicare part D is an example of what kind of plan you get when drug companies are welcomed to the table.

Aside from the number of jobs involved, is there any reason why private insurance companies should benefit from the treatment of sick people in the US? The only service they provide is assuring that their subscribers' health care providers will be paid. Insurance companies do not add value to our health care system.

Let's assume that Obama is elected in a landslide and as a result of his coat tails, the Democrats gain full control of Congress. His plan written, with the consultation of the insurance lobby, is passed and he signs it into law. The result will be that the taxpayers will pay the insurance companies to do what the government has been proven to do more efficently -- collect premiums and pay care providers.

As to "garnishing" wages. How are Medicare and Social Security fees collected now? By payroll deductions. Garnishing -- so scary.

the only way that your wages are garnished (if in fact that's how the program decides to enforce its universality)is if you don't carry any health insurance and refuse to sign up for a private plan or a gov't plan voluntarily. keep in mind that hillary's plan caps your premiums at a percentage of your income. so if you really can't afford it, then the gov't is going to be subsidizing your healthcare (ooooo, scary!!!!) either you believe in universal healthcare or you don't. both Obama's plan and Hillary's plan require you to pay a premium, hopefully it's just a lot less than we're all paying right now!

let's not go around scaring people about healthcare please! that's the republicans "raison d'etre"!!! you wouldn't want to take that away from them!

the only way that your wages are garnished (if in fact that's how the program decides to enforce its universality)is if you don't carry any health insurance and refuse to sign up for a private plan or a gov't plan voluntarily. keep in mind that hillary's plan caps your premiums at a percentage of your income. so if you really can't afford it, then the gov't is going to be subsidizing your healthcare (ooooo, scary!!!!) either you believe in universal healthcare or you don't. both Obama's plan and Hillary's plan require you to pay a premium, hopefully it's just a lot less than we're all paying right now!

let's not go around scaring people about healthcare please! that's the republicans "raison d'etre"!!! you wouldn't want to take that away from them!

Ok kensdad, that's more info than I got from other clinton people. On schip, that was the republican congress. Also, I'm not going to play the spin on the 6 months that she worked on the children's defense fund or the legal defense fund stuff. In fact, there are some big problems with the second one. I'd say the walmart appointment kind of balances them out. So its a wash.

I assume that your reference to her speaking overseas when she was first lady means something. She didn't have a security clearance and wasn't involved in "national security issues" while in the white house.
Also, the clintons have refused to release any white house papers, so we have to take on faith that there is something there from people with no credibility. Nonetheles, again, big deal. If we want a former first lady, I'd rather have laura bush if that's the only criteria.

On her senate career, we got two things from your list. Health care for ground zero workers and I think the health status thing that you are referring to concerned the national guard troops. Both commendable and I definitely don't want to take away from that. Not very different from the things obama has done or any other senator in the senate.

However, what I have from her senate career are two war votes, Iraq and Iran, and the following:

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

On the Iraq war vote she didn't read the freaking NIE that said that the case for war was based on lies. She gave a glowing speech advocating going to war. He position was for political purposes and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands americans and iraqis. Women and children. I got a major problem with that one.

However, you can persuade me. Please go on with her senate voting record. I don't have a major problem with someone getting a political position out of nepotism. I don't like it, but it happens all the time. The issue then becomes what do they do with it. What did she do with her senate career? That obviously is the question and its pretty gd hard to try to get any info on that one.

Also, I said nothing about ironing shirts or shining platters. You are just trying to degrade the conversation, when you were professing earlier in this thread how you don't understand why that happens. Kind of hypocritical don't you think.

Ok, kensdad, I have an issue with conclusions and spin. I like facts. I have major problems with the war and I don't buy sluffing it off, however, I would like to address your 2 elements concerning your vote.

1. We will never get anything accomplished if its partisan warfare. Nothing. If she wins the election by 50.1%, nothing will get accomplished. She will have no mandate and the republicans in the senate will block her every move. The only time anything in our history that was major that got accomplished got accomplished after a landslide election. Social Security in the 30's and medicare in the 60's were after landslide elections. If we want universal healthcare, regardless of its form, we need a landslide election. That will not happen with clinton.

You cannot ignore the other party, you have to work with them to get anything done. How much has the king accomplished? Nothing.

2. That's your perception. What facts do you have to support that perception? You only have perception and conclusions. My perception is that obama has more than enough experience and superior judgement to accomplish alot more than clinton. Even if we don't get healthcare this time around, if obama is able to push through congress major reform to eliminate lobbyists' influence in washington, then he would have accomplished alot. The money slushing around washington is causing incredible harm to our country and probably one of the reasons why we were unable to get healthcare reform through in the early 90's.

It is what it is. Clinton will not be able to accomplish anything because she will never get a mandate. She would be lucky to win because of her high negatives and the republican party's hatred of her. With McCain as the nominee, I think that the odds of her winning the general went down substantially. In any event, I want to win in November and get something accomplished in washington and it won't happen with clinton.