Obama To Raise $36M+ In February
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Money
That’s the scoop for an inside source, and my guess it’ll get much closer to $40M after his landslide win in Wisconsin.
Obama raised $36 million in January, and given his victories and momentum, it makes sense that he’d be on track to exceed that and have his best month ever right now. An Obama spokesperson declined to comment.Separately, here’s another astonishing statistic: The campaign will soon report that it has enjoyed its millionth donor.
As I reported earlier today, the Obama camp quietly passed the half-million mark in donors for just this year. Now, in an email to supporters that just went out, the Obama campaign wrote: [...] “We’ve crunched all the numbers and discovered that we are within striking distance of something historic: one million people donating to this campaign…We’re already more than 900,000 strong.”
One thing’s for sure, it’s tough for Hillary to make an “electability” argument when Obama keeps trouncing her in both money and donors.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Money. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
And of course it is fundraising numbers like these that make Obama’s memory get all fuzzy. “Public financing for the general election? Who ever said anything about that?”
I guess there are principles and then there is money (and hence power), and Obama has let his preference be known.
Thank goodness he is offering change.
(And c’mon…isn’t that picture needlessly messianic? Is it supposed to be parody? I guess its Obama coming from behind a curtain – pay no heed tot he man behind the curtain – but it also looks like he is illuminated from a “light from above”. Saints be praised!)
February 20th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Yes Rich, I think Obama is Jesus. You got me!
Go away.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Still won’t deal with the financing story, heh?
And sorry if I hurt your feelings.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Rich, I’ve commented on that before in another post. All the facts aren’t in, but I know it’s not nearly as cut and dry as you’re saying, since McCain originally said he’d take public financing, but instead received a loan hedged against public financing. Also, to my knowledge he still has not officially taken public financing, so Obama isn’t obligated to either. Once he does, Obama signed that pledge and it’s my opinion that he should stick to it. But this is the best you’ve got against Obama? That he hasn’t taken the first step in what looks to be a strategic game being played by McCain? Please, next…
Listen, most of what you post over here is disingenuous, so I don’t appreciate it because you’re not adding anything to the conversation. And I like how you pretend to ask a question and then say something like, “Isn’t that picture needlessly messianic? Saints be praised!” Just FYI, if you ask a question and then throw in snark, don’t be surprised if I ignore the question.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I’m sorry if you didn’t like the snark. Yes it was snark..but it was intended as good natured snark…the kind of thing you’d expect from someone who doesn’t buy into the Obama “image” thing.
But I do take umbrage at the charge that I’m being disingenuous here. I may disagree forcefully, especially when I feel “evidence” is presented which I feel in no way backs up what it is supposed to back up. But my intent is not to be some kind of troll. I’ll admit the Obama media love fest thing gets on my nerves, and some of my quick comments on here are the equivilent of me rolling my eyes at the silliness of that phenomena. Blog comment areas often get used for that sort of thing. I didn’t come around here in order to piss you off. (really.) Look, I dont comment on The Moderate Voice anymore because it became so uncivil and looked more and more like Little Green Footballs or The Daily Kos. I dont think I have been disrespectful to you or any of the other folks commenting here.
Its true I think you are wrong on a couple of matters:
1) that there is anything substantive in Clinton and Obama’s records that indicate there is a farthings difference between them.
2) that when it comes to substance and track record, there is little that recommends Obama as a moderate or as someone who will act in a bipartisan manner…especially when compared to John McCain’s substance and track record.
I think all of this implies a larger question of you as someone who runs a site called Donkelphant:
Is moderateness (or reasonableness) a matter mostly of style or substance?
Lets say you have two theoretical candidates A and B (and really, dont think of one as Obama and the other as McCain)
Let’s say candidate A is a U.S. Senator who holds positions that are ideologically pure, but is generally an affable fellow who tries to get along with his political opponents while NOT compromising with them because he is committed to his principles. He often complains about the growing incivility of Washington, but he would never change the legislation he wants if he could ever avoid it. It that means ramming an agenda via partisan lines, so be it. “That’s political reality,” he often says “It’s nothing personal.” He famously invites everyone over to his house for a BBQ every spring.
Let’s say candidate B is a US Senator who isn’t an ideologue at all, but instead she most often attempts to pull support from the center of both parties to meet legislative goals, even if that means differing from the bulk of her own party. Let’s also say she is often combative, castigating the ideological wings of both sides as being detriments to the well being of the country. When called on this her favorite response is “Hell, I don’t care what those jerks think.” She famously never makes in to Senator A’s BBQ, because she holds a grudge over a parlimentary maneuver that stopped a vote on legislation she felt was vital for the well being of the country. “Goddammit,” she stated, “This country should come before anyone’s ideology.”
To my mind it is a no brainer which of these two would be a more moderate candidate if substance is valued more highly than style, and vice versa. To my mind it should not matter if Candidate A is an Arch conservative or a high-minded liberal, or if candidate B is nominally a member of the Democratic or Republican party…I think B would be preferable to my own sensibilities as a middle-of-the-road guy.
Now, I dont think my hypothetical Senators are perfect analogs for our present choices, but I know who I think has a clear edge in substance given these choices.