Holy shiznet!!! Just wait for half an hour and F5 to see the numbers change! I open the thread, look at the number, go to the bathroom, come back, refresh the page, and there's another $100,000! Are you kidding me?? If these numbers are true, Hillary set a lofty goal of raising a million per day for three days for 3 mil... and Obama is on his way to raising six million...... in one day.
the key for obama has to be to get a huge boost next week. he will be in a disadvantage in texas and ohio. the only way to overtake that is have incredible momentum and then just blanket all markets in texas and ohio with his money. otherwise his big gain next week and the week after will completely be lost in ohio and texas. texas because of hispanics and ohio because of lower income traditional blue collars.
Take into account that Hillary has more lobbyist support than McCain and Romney combined, and Obama has refused to take money from lobbyists and Political Action Committees... makes it all the more impressive. I am seriously over this. This is going to be a bad, bad news cycle for Hillary.
I am sorry Blade, the sarcastic tone in my previous post eluded all you Obama supporters. According to Laura MacCleery of mydd.com (Aug 08, 2007), Obama "is dancing on a technicality" when he claims he does not take money from lobbyists, since several of his bundlers have recent histories that include lobbying. MacCleery points out - 1) three of Obama's top fundraisers, who each have raised more than $50,000 for his campaign since January, were registered as lobbyists last year; 2) several other major Obama fundraisers also have histories of lobbying government officials for a living; 3) some fundraisers for Obama are corporate officers of companies that hire lobbyists. At least 10 other major bundlers work for companies that have lobbied the federal government, including Bill Kennard of the Carlyle Group; 4) LA Times also noted that Obama has taken in more than $1.4 million from firms with partners registered to lobby the federal government; 5) like his political rivals, Obama is less-than-forthcoming about the details of their fundraising operations. In fact, the Public Citizen reports 359 bundlers -- including 10 Lobbyist Bundlers -- have raised over $100M for Obama: http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009
Actually your sarcasm didn't elude me at all. But the irony of me turning it around and treating it as if you weren't must have eluded you. It doesn't matter though. That list is meaningless. some fundraisers work at companies that hire lobbyists? Some fundraisers at some point in their history used to work as lobbyists? This is all a huge stretch trying to make the tie in. None of his fundraisers are lobbyists, and most of his campaign funds come from grass roots supporters who are making relatively small donations in places like the internet. Trust me, I'm glad that websites whitehouseforsale are keeping track of who is funding the candidates, but that list doesn't discount Obama's claim.
The fact that you are a chinese national who can't vote has not. Are you just angry that you got stuck in the airport due to bad weather on your way home?
Ha! Obama's raised $150MM or so total now. The vast majority of that is with individual donars over the internet (of the $32MM in January, $28MM was over the internet). So now these supposed lobbyist bundlers are going around creating small internet donations?
You have to do a much better job to convince us that the Public Citizen group are manipulative lying sack of **** when they claim 10 bundlers for Obama's campaign are lobbyist bundlers. The key fact is Obama "is dancing on technicality." Even if -- and that's a BIG IF -- none of Obama's bundlers are federal registered lobbyists, he is only making a distinction that makes no difference. It's abundantly clear to most objective readers that the manner by Obama's bundlers raised money on behalf of various special interests is of the very nature of lobbying activities. What evidence do you have to assert most [emphasis added] of the Obama campaign money comes from the grassroots effort in the form of small internet donations?
No problem here is the proof. You are aware that one of Obama's acheivements in the Senate was passing legislations making it transparent as to where the money comes from.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e Here's the list of major Clinton donors involved in big scandals. To her credit, though, she hasn't made a big deal of fundraising practices (unlike Obama and Edwards).
Interesting states on the race issue and how it may play out in the campaign: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/race-and-obama.html In states where the black population is less than 5%, Obama has a record of 7 wins, 2 losses and 1 undecided (NM). In states where the black population is 20% or higher, he is undefeated at 4-0. However, in states that are between 5-20% black, his record is a fairly dismal 4-10 (with one of those victories being Illinois). The theory here is that Obama does well where the black population is so low that identity politics isn’t an issue. And, he does well where the black share of Democratic primary voters is so high that he needs few white voters to carry the day. He has the hardest time in states that are black enough to have some racialized politics, but without enough black voters to completely tip the scales. This corresponds to the long held observation that black candidates in general do best in either fairly non-black environments or in heavy black environments but struggle with the in between, where white majority fears that they will be the tool of an aggrieved constituency. (Some, of course, have broken that mold like Doug Wilder, and Carol Mosely-Braun and Obama himself). For Obama’s upcoming contests, this bodes well for Maryland, D.C., Virginia, Nebraska and Vermont and maybe Rhode Island, but not so well for Ohio and Texas.
Well, that's gist of candidate comparison. If you are so clinging to the technicality of "Obama refused to take money from lobbyists and PACs," the link you provided has just proved you are wrong: there is a $25 donation from PAC to Obama. Just sayin'.
but you have no problem with PAC like 80-20. so what's it to you, i guess it just depends on the argument
