Nah, Kalifornia is unimportant.
Posted by john at February 6, 2008 07:35 PMI'm sure lobbyist will be happy to raise more money for Hillary. Of course there will be a catch.
Posted by Jay at February 6, 2008 07:37 PMI'm curious...does anyone question where the Obama online money is coming from? Do we know it is from Democrats? We do know Republicans funded Ralph Nader. Is it possible they could be partially funding Obama to weaken Hillary? And is there any way for us to ascertain anything about the donors?
Because under $200.it would be hard to trace...and the rules don't require it. So my question is...can the system be gamed by Republicans? I'm not suggesting that many people aren't giving who are inspired...but the disparity is striking and the votes don't seem to suggest this type of support to the tune of 32 million a month. And he started off with plenty of money.
Posted by lily15 at February 6, 2008 07:48 PMit will take time to see from whom obama's raising money, but people speculate that kerry's email list is helping. of course, as has clinton, he's taken millions from the health care and banking industries, and is a favorite of the nuclear power industry, so i'm sure there are plenty of very special interests also doing their part.
Posted by Turkana at February 6, 2008 07:56 PMI think you know where I stand on the candidates.
That, said, Hillary running out of money is a really ominous sign; perhaps even a dire one.
Posted by andgarden at February 6, 2008 07:59 PMThe kids are tossing in their money because they are convinced it will bury Hillary.
I just pledged a set amount each month to her. Time to make an investment of money.
What are folks hearing about whether she's cleaning house on her campaign staff. (Not just the money thing.)
I can't see how she cannot try to make a run at the caucuses coming up over next couple of weeks. The more Hillary can connect in person, the better she does with folks.
Hell, I would even not throw up if I saw Carville return.
Posted by cdalygo at February 6, 2008 08:02 PMLily15, I think you're right. I think Obama's taking money from right-wingers, like Rupert Murdoch. Oh, wait, that's Hillary who took money from Murdoch, not Obama. Doh!
Posted by Brian Bell at February 6, 2008 08:06 PMSent our check in today that puts us just short of the max. Had a friend also max out her contribution yesterday. Hopefully, others will see Hillary as the strongest commander-in-chief to go up against McCain.
Posted by jmac at February 6, 2008 08:13 PMWow...this is getting ugly...the nefarious notions that Obama's money is tainted are interesting.
People like me, a middle class, educated working stiff are giving what they can...$25 here, $75 there and it's adding up. Look at how many donors Obama has! The numbers are extremely high...and that is something that's not just good for him, but potentially for the Democratic Party as well (whether he wins the nomination or not).
Posted by Mike P at February 6, 2008 08:29 PMExcellent post by looseheadprop about Obama and Rezko:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/
Obama's Rezko problem needs to be FULLY discussed now, not after the nomination.
Posted by MarkL at February 6, 2008 08:37 PMmike p-
obama's money is not tainted, per se, but it is no cleaner than hillary's.
markl-
i agree, but you can't write about rezko, in the blogs. the salon article was the best, because it said there's no criminality on obama's part, but that it does show he's another political player, who uses shady allies when they can be useful- which is an important point, because it undercuts his whole transformational change schtick. but mention rezko at daily kos (except that he was one of the tens of thousands of people who got their pictures taken with the clintons), and you're a troll. obama is the teflon democrat- at least until the general election campaign.
Posted by Turkana at February 6, 2008 08:45 PMWell, Turkana, LHP thinks Obama is going to come up in Rezko's corruption trial.
Posted by MarkL at February 6, 2008 08:50 PMFor a family whose net worth is in the tens of millions (Hillary alone is worth nearly 35 Million, God knows how much Bill has), donating enough to last through Pennsylvania is no stretch, especially with the expected rush of funds from donors that this news item is sure to bring.
SO, I'm not too worried, but I am making a donation. It's worth the peace of mind.
But you know how the media is, so oh well.
Posted by blogtopus at February 6, 2008 08:51 PMI think Hillary let go of fund raising to concentrate on the February 5 tsunami. Her efforts paid off. Now she will start devoting more time to collecting money.
The idea that she would not spend for lack of funds is dumb. Winning CA, NJ and NY is like money in the bank. The Obama campaign knows that losing those states, plus MA does not look promising because GA, SC, UT and AK are unlikely to go blue even if 90 percent of the black voters vote for him in the general election.
Posted by Prabhata at February 6, 2008 08:53 PMI have always figured that Obama is getting some republican money, maybe lots of it. They love him, for now, on Fox news.
Posted by CLK at February 6, 2008 08:54 PMI guess Rupert Murdoch has maxed out his contributions:-b
CLK,
You mean Fox loves the way that Obama has shut them out?
Posted by midwestdem at February 6, 2008 09:03 PMmark,
we'll see. it will definitely be in the news, in march, but we have to be very careful of how it is spun. an unsavory association, to be sure, but nobody should get away with claiming anything illegal unless there is hard evidence. thus far, there isn't even soft evidence. i assume there won't be.
Posted by Turkana at February 6, 2008 09:05 PMI might have spoken too soon. It looks like Hillary is raking in the cash since yesterday too.
Posted by andgarden at February 6, 2008 09:06 PMOf course she is raking in cash. Lots of us want to see her succeed.
Posted by w2 at February 6, 2008 09:19 PMI just made my second $100 dollar contribution to Senator Clinton. Many of us have been waiting until after Super Tuesday. Obama has very strong corporate support, for obvious reasons to anyone who cares enough to actully examine these things. There is not such thing as a perfectly clean campaign. Look at who donated to Obama during his years in Illinois. He is in no sense an underdog. Even demographics of voters show that people who make under 50K a year vote for Hillary. Guess who the better well off vote for? Young people are so saddled in debt at this point that I guess they won't care when they learn the truth about his underdog, unfunded peoples' movement mirage.
Posted by jeter at February 6, 2008 09:28 PMObama's largest contributor is Goldman Sachs.
It's why he voted AGAINST a cap on interest rates charged on predatory lending/credit cards, allowing the banks to charge any interest rate they want. Hillary voted for the cap.
Obama's campaign chairman , Axelrod, was also a "consultant" to the very same nuclear energy company (Exelon) that Obama watered down legislation he sponsored, gutting the legislation of any regulations on nuclear waste leaks and allowing compliance to be "voluntary," just like Bush does.
After that legislation, Exelon contributed THOUSANDS to his campaign.
Next time you hear Obama say only Clinton panders to special interest,
BE SURE AND LAUGH OUT LOUD.
Obama voted FOR the huge Dick Cheney Energy Bill that gave BILLIONS in tax cuts and subsidies to the large oil companies.
Hillary voted AGAINST.
Posted by Mary at February 6, 2008 09:42 PMThanks, Turkana. Really, the "netroots" is in peril as far as I am concerned. It's not supposed to be about one candidate, but it has become that. Isn't the netroots supposed to be a movement, greater than the Dean candidacy, with longer term interests than an Obama candidacy.
Seems to me the netroots powers-that-be have joined the traditional media and are now open Obama supporters. It's their right, but I'm not sure it's a good thing.
Posted by Joel at February 6, 2008 09:56 PMThere's quite a bit of hysteria on the internets. Regardless whether they are tied in delegates, or one has 100 more than the other, this thing is going to the convention.
And unless somebody goes all gop smear back stabbing lying on the other, unless one candidate essentially throws the Democratic Party under the bus in order to win the nomination, a convention deciding the nominee is a good thing. Lots of free PR for the candidates, networks FORCED to cover the convention, lots of repetition of good democratic values and bad republican values, what's not to like?
Posted by Duckman GR at February 6, 2008 10:13 PMI love the rumors among some here suggesting that Republicans are financially propping up Obama. What a laughable bunch of BS that is... Republicans don't want to face Obama. Go read any right-wing blog, listen (for as long as you can stand it) to Rush or Laura Ingraham or any one of those troglodytes, and you'll get a sense of what I mean. They're positively salivating at the prospect of facing Hillary. They can't wait to unleash the Wurlitzer on her and subject us all to a Clinton "scandal" rehash, pushing her negatives even higher into the stratosphere. This will give McCain an actual fighting chance, when he should have absolutely none. If Republicans are funding anyone's campaign surreptitiously, it would surely be Hillary's.
Posted by arbotreeist at February 6, 2008 10:34 PMWell, this is all second hand. But it is written up on a diary at KOS (which I deleted from my bookmarks today -- the line about California doesn't matter lost me after YEARS). I found it through mydd
Apparently Hillary raised $3M today and looks to double it in 72 hours. Most of it came from new donors.
See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/6/23290/73380/940/451643
Posted by cdalygo at February 6, 2008 10:38 PMAh, let me try that again
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/6/23290/73380/940/451643
Posted by cdalygo at February 6, 2008 10:40 PMThat's great news, cdalygo!!
Probably a result of her huge Super Tuesday wins.....really, all the big states that matter.
Obama's little red state wins won't matter...they'll vote McCain in November anyway.
But here's MORE good news: Gallup , in daily tracking Tues/Wed, shows a sharp UPTICK in favor of Clinton.
She's beating him 52% to 39% now.
Watch for more desperation from the Obamanauts and Obama campaign. :)
Posted by Mary at February 6, 2008 10:48 PMYes, I know about Exelon and David Axelrod (I think that is the connection)...but can we ever determine who the small donors are? Obama has the facebook co-originator marketing for him I think...so he has mastery over that type of online environment..nevertheless...I have no idea what type of field they're operating in....and how much gaming can be done if you know what you are doing...But you might say I don't have a lot of faith in the system. Yet I would readily concede that Mark Penn has not run a masterful campaign...far from it...Hillary is a great candidate...but I don't think she has been served by an equally great campaign organization. However, with the type of money Obama has...he can buy a lot of organization.
I throw this out because I believe in the group intelligence...and it is baffling to me..And I suppose, hearing right wing/anti Hillary talking points repeated endlessly by both the right and the left makes me a little edgy.
Posted by lily15 at February 6, 2008 10:49 PMWhile TLC is trashing Obama, the Los Angeles election system is having serious trouble with independent votes.
This link covers some of the details.
This site has lost it's way!!
Posted by smooth at February 6, 2008 10:50 PMHillary doesn't do well with internet donations because working class 40-60 year olds, and retirees don't use the internet as their lifestyle (stereotypically speaking). The 'netroots' is made up of overeducated liberals who are Obama's prime target, and generally younger. And Latinos don't have a huge footprint in the netroots either.(apart from Kos, of course)
Posted by big bay at February 6, 2008 10:54 PMI think you're right, big bay.
I studied the California results for the trends:
Clinton won women by 18 points, Latinos by 32 points, Latinos, Gays, Churchgoers, Married seniors, and also won young people between 18-24 in huge numbers here.
Obama won African Americans, Young white men, and rich people.
Speaks volumes, I think.
Posted by Mary at February 6, 2008 11:03 PMSorry.....that 2nd Latinos above should read "Asians."
Bed time. :)
Posted by Mary at February 6, 2008 11:05 PMHow strange that we seem to have found ourselves in a perfect storm environment...the primary source of national entertainment..scripted television.. came to a screeching halt with the advent of the writers strike in November...just as that new reality show...The Primaries..got going...and who could have imagined a better cast of characters or high drama to capture the interest of a nation in crisis...And while the election has diverted our attention...the
malevolent and incompetent Bush team unravels in spectacular fashion...like some fireball..far far away...and yet so close.
Joel,
Netroots has just become a cute word for some big bloggers to try and become influential in their own way. That's it.
Who is touting the word 'netroot' more than anyone?? I've seen it mostly used at dkos. Not at TPM, not at many other places. The others are more comfortable with using 'lefty blogsphere', which in my view is much more accurate.
I think dkos likes 'netroots' b/c then it's a whole entitiy, and you know who the biggest player in that sandbox is. I more and more think dkos is about traffic, advertising, and influence (by virtue of traffic). For whatever my opinion is worth, I think Markos is actively trying to show that he can wield power through his blog.
You can't believe how much the usual excuses at dkos reminds me of newspapers and media when they are confronted by evidence of bias. 1) Oh, everyone thinks we're biased when we say something against their candidate, 2) you can always write a diary, 3) you can start your own blog... and so on...
Like MSM, they never have the intention of dealing with the fact that they are a major player, and so they have a huge influence and so have a responsiblitity to be fair and objective.
I agree that a typical Hillary voter may not be as online savvy as an Obama supporter...but the sheer volume makes me wonder if the latte liberals and college kids are making up the full 32 mil a month...that's a lot of dough...
Anyway, I gave my online donation tonight to do my share of bridging the gap. In a way, there is something appealing about Hillary needing her supporters to come to her defense and aid in the face of the Obama money machine and the media hijacking. Plus her putting her own money at risk gives it a joint venture feel.(keeping in mind McCain had money problems too--wasn't there a story about his having to take out life insurance to cover a loan?)
This drama has lots of arcs.
i love you, turkana. :)
Posted by nance at February 7, 2008 02:20 AM"working class 40-60 year olds, and retirees don't use the internet as their lifestyle (stereotypically speaking)."
I beg your pardon. I'm 66 and all of my friends use the internet as part of their lifestyle. In fact, it is the "retirees" that have the time to be very active on the Internet. In fact, many on this site fall into the 40-60 range.
Posted by Judith at February 7, 2008 04:54 AMcome on.. what a loser hillary is..california is the 6th largest economy in the world..with a vast array of diversity...and she only wins it by 13 points...obama was the big winner..on tuesday..everybody understands that...
Posted by dennis at February 7, 2008 05:18 AMI found a link a to a dkos diary fundraising for Hillary, it had slid down the list almost immediately and was filled with Obama trolls harassing and fighting with people. At the time, there were at least 3 diaries on the rec list for Obama fundraising. Which is fine, it's his blog, and if all the people there who make dkos what it is don't mind that their time and effort is spent to make Markos rich and a star on tv, that's their business. People should remember that his picks haven't been all that great - remember Kerry? Lamont? And McCaskill hasn't turned out all that well, either. The sad part is, if Hillary does win the nom, she's less likely to pay heed to bloggers after the treatment she's received, which is a damn shame.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 7, 2008 05:45 AMYou can say all you want I am really astonished at the grassroots support these two candidates have. HRC raised 3 mil in 24 hours. People have become emotional since she went on air telling that she loaned herself 5 mil. I read some the comments on multiple bog sites and supporters are coming in big time. Remember she do not have to raise equal or more than Obama but enough for her to stay float will help her big time and I think she will do it. I was not convinced of dream ticket when wolfy brought that up in the debate. I certainly believe now that dems want these two candidates on the ticket. Hope they make up their mind soon and work together. In my 25 years or so I have not seen anything like this. No don't mention Dean.
Posted by BKK at February 7, 2008 06:06 AMthe number of voters in alaska..delaware..idaho..kansas..north dakota..utah.. minnesota...totals roughly 504,000..in how many of these state do you think the dems will win??..in california..roughly 4,000,000 votes were cast..listening to many here..it has become very apparent to me why we don't win elections anymore..some of you people are just plain stupid
Posted by dennis at February 7, 2008 06:08 AMI am monitoring "Fox and Friends" with air sickness bags at the ready this morning.
They are pissed at Obama for not coming on to debate Hillary. Here are the last 2 important questions that were discussed:
1. What Obama has to hide because he won't debate.
2. What Tom Jones has to hide because he recently insured his chest hair.
I report, you decide.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 7, 2008 06:09 AMAlaska vote count in Obama's "landslide"(MSNBC) win.
Hillary: 103
Barack: 304
anyone wondering why barack doesn't want to debate?..good thing it isn't a terrorist he has to face
Posted by dennis at February 7, 2008 06:22 AMAfter listening to the corporate media describe Hillary, maybe Obama thinks she IS a terrorist.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 7, 2008 06:41 AMtiki al
that certainly would explain it
Posted by dennis at February 7, 2008 06:44 AM"Alaska vote count in Obama's "landslide"(MSNBC) win.
Hillary: 103
Barack: 304"
um yeah, those would be vote counts of the delegates elected to the state convention, the number of votes among caucus-goers is much greater.
Posted by arbotreeist at February 7, 2008 06:54 AMthe sheer volume makes me wonder if the latte liberals and college kids are making up the full 32 mil a month...that's a lot of dough...
Yes, it is a lot of dough, isn't it? You can't imagine that Dem voters like me would give $25 here and $25 there. So you have to cook up some other theory to explain the flood of contributions. Isn't it easier (Occam's Razor) to accept the simplest explanation? That Obama is pulling in thousands of new contributors, little people, who believe in his campaign?
I'm sorry to see such sniping among Democrats. It will hurt the Party in the long run. I'm already disgusted enough to become an Independent. At least they don't eat their own.
For the record, I donated $25 to Edwards earlier as well.
Posted by nyc at February 7, 2008 07:36 AMI'm already disgusted enough to become an Independent.
Let me help with that decision. Close your eyes and imagine Madam Sparkle Pelosi and Harry "never met a lobbyest I wouldn't blow" Reed. There! Your transformation is complete. Welcome to the Independents! We're the magic corporate cash for Obama these people are talking about.
Posted by phidipides at February 7, 2008 09:34 AMGallup daily tracking shows sharp uptick for Clinton after Super Tuesday:
Clinton 52%
Obama 39%
Momentum goes to Clinton; money follows.
I hear the Obama campaign has already admitted they'll lose Texas , Ohio, and Pennsylvania to Clinton.
Anybody get the mailer where they spun that information to their cabal?
Posted by Mary at February 7, 2008 01:32 PMmary
..it's only 13 points..obama is really winning..but he thinks they have debated enough..i guess he figures he should quit while he is a ahead..or something like that
Posted by dennis at February 7, 2008 03:58 PMdennis,
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. This is the BIG leagues.
Clinton won ALL of the major Democratic base states except Illinois. ALL of them. California she even took the YOUTH vote from him. Massachusetts she took the Kennedy mystique from him.
Obama only won Illinois, plus a whole lotta red states that will stay red in November.
Obama's STAFF wants you to think he's "winning." He's not.
Nice try, though.
Posted by Mary at February 7, 2008 08:35 PM