Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Internet Donors Fuel Obama

By Matthew A. Mosk
Word of Democrat Hillary Clinton's apparent financial problems struck many as a surprise yesterday. So what explains why her chief rival, Barack Obama, was able to vastly out-raise her in January?

One key lies in Clinton's comparative difficulty raising money over the Internet, from small donors, said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute.

Coming into January, many more of Clinton's donors had already reached the $2,300 limit for individual donations. A report just completed by the Campaign Finance Institute showed that Clinton raised more than half her money in 2007 from donors who gave the maximum allowed by law. Obama, in comparison, raised just one-third of his money from $2,300 donors.

"It means Senator Obama has the ability to keep going back to his donors, while she has a more difficult burden of having to seek out new donors," said Weissman, who is the institute's associate director for policy.

Clinton also had more trouble attracting support from small donors, many of whom gave over the Internet. While 47 percent of what Obama raised last year came from donors who gave less than $200, those small contributors made up just 15 percent of Clinton's donor base.

In January, when Obama swamped Clinton by raising $32 million, compared to her $13 million, the vast majority of his total -- $28 million -- came over the Internet.

There are a number of reasons Obama has had more success with Internet fundraising (just yesterday, he raised nearly $4 million online). One likely component was the endorsement of him by the 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry. Kerry made use of his extensive e-mail fundraising list to help raise money for Obama online. Another element may have been the endorsement supplied by, which also put out a call for financial support on Obama's behalf.

This has all posed a challenge for Clinton's top volunteer fundraisers.

Suzy Tompkins Buell, a California bundler for Clinton, said yesterday that many of the donors she has contacted have already given the maximum allowed.

"The campaign has gone on much longer than any of us expected," Buell said. "I think now we are in the position of looking for the little checks. We're trying to find out how best to do that."

By Washington Post Editor  |  February 7, 2008; 9:34 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Emphasizes Loan was 'My Money'
Next: Potomac Primary: Barry to Endorse Obama


i think a lot of the small donation coming from the internet represent the new generation, the myspace generation, of voters. raised on the internet, they are much more comfortable donating in this way. and thousands of younger supporters with low incomes and a much more digital life transform into thousands of low donations digitally.

he's speaking to a new generation that feel they are part of something and putting their money where his mouth is.

i think it's brilliant to feel as if you're part of something, as if you're $50 is making a difference.

Posted by: amystewartsemail | February 7, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama has raised $7,596,326 since 2/5 poll closing.

RCP Average polls from

Clinton 45.3% Obama 41.8%

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

p3ng, that's a really terrific post. Thanks so much for doing the leg work, and I hope you don't mind if I mooch off of your hard work!

Posted by: davestickler | February 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse


Senator Obama will offer voters whatever change they want that will get him elected. The reason he declines to be specific is because change means so many different things to people. If he is specific he will lose those who do not want what he's selling. So, he makes you think he's selling what you want.

Obama's goal is to hold up a mirror to your own desires. What ever you want, he'll give you it. He is whoever you want to believe he is.He's a used BMW salesman. Smooth, polished, nice smile and disposition. His pitch is: "What am I going to have to do to get you into this car, today?" He is sincere in that he sincerely wants to be president.

Obama is essentially apolitical. He has no deeply-held political philosophy. That's why he laid Ronald Reagan on us. It was a mistake, an obvious one, but he could not know that. He is politically tone deaf in that sense. Obama is an apparatchik with considerable oratorical skill. He talks a great game but in the end, he's an empty vessel into which have flooded the desires and the hopes of the gullible. The man is a suit.

Posted by: jd-winterbottom | February 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

We just can't trust a rookie (If not worst politically) form IL with the most important job in the free world just because he is a great SPEAKER.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 7, 2008 01:51 PM


Posted by: vmathis | February 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse


Gallup 02/03 - 02/05 Clinton 52% Obama 39% Clinton +13.0%

Posted by: jd-winterbottom | February 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The fund raising differences do seem to indicate the wider appeal of Obama. His small-scale support is phenomenal. Even if Super Tuesday wasn't a tsunami for him, it seems like it was another stage in the rising tide that will propel him to victory.

The Clintons (Bill in particular) tried a negative approach two weeks ago, and this didn't work. Obama appears to have completely closed the gap since then. I don't see what new approach the Clinton campaign will have to stop the rising tide, especially if they start getting farther and farther behind in fund raising. On top of this, fatigue by nature builds over time, and this will hurt the Clinton campaign in the long run.

Posted by: hermanSF | February 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Clinton raises 4 million since Super Tuesday

Associated Press - February 7, 2008 12:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - It's not just Barack Obama who's seeing a surge in donations since Super Tuesday.

The Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign says it's raised $4 million from 35,000 new online contributors since midnight on Tuesday.

Posted by: jd-winterbottom | February 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

jkaatz, what I should have said was same movement message different singer - IT ALL gets stale after some opint - the tunes are meant to make you open your wallet, and you did.

Posted by: J_thinks | February 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I think the bigger story here is the incompetence of the Clinton Campaign. They did not budget their money well, they did not anticipate a money short fall, and they ran out of their base when they needed them. If that is a window of how she will lead I will take Barack in a heartbeat. Barack has done an outstanding job in all respects and I will vote for Obama.

Posted by: dan | February 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

jkaatz = you fell for it

Posted by: J_thinks | February 7, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I just sent Hillary $500. Biggest contribution I've ever made. I like Barak too, but this whole "movement" thing scares me. It can fade away as fast as it arose, just like a new song you hear and love, but after the 100th time, it gets stale. November is a long way away, and I'll bet my $500 that the enthusiasm from middle of the road folks needed to win will not materialize.

Posted by: jkaatz | February 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

To sunrise41510:

This rookie Barack Obama has 11 years experience in elected office versus 7 years by Hillary Clinton. Don't mock the 8 years in the IL state legislature, where he's been in touch with the people.

Check the Library of Congress, and fact's straight from the Senate records.


What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

The list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . .


Senator Clinton, who has served one full term (6yrs.) has managed to author and pass into law 20 twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Now you tell me with a straight face that Barack Obama doesn't have experience and hasn't accomplished much.

Posted by: p3ng | February 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Add one more maxed-out donor to the ranks of Obama supporters. And I did it just to annoy all the Clintonistas who pollute these comment sections. I'm tired of Bush lying to me, and I'm d**n sure tired of the Clintons lying to me.

Cult, my . . .

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Internet donors is indeed one area where Obama is very strong. He has gained ground steadily on Clinton and now holds a commanding lead:

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:

Posted by: davidmwe | February 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"We just can't trust a rookie (If not worst politically) from NY with the most important job in the free world just because she is a great SPEAKER."

GOBama - OEight

Posted by: valskeet | February 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

So Clinton would have us believe she will fix our 14 trillion dollar economy when she cant even keep her own coffers filled. All the backroom unfair advantages she has and still she looks pathetic.
What a joke.

Posted by: PulSamsara | February 7, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Talk is cheap, We need substance. People who are greedy for money and power usually are good speakers, like Reagan, who managed to fool the entire nation into believing that he had done a lot, while he was the laziest president ever. Reagan and his wife had literately turned the WH into a circus Hollywood style, with them being the clown and actors for 8 years. Many woman, children, and minority people are still suffering financially today because of Reagan.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Talk is cheap, We need substance. People who are greedy for money and power usually are good speakers, like Reagan, who managed to fool the entire nation into believing that he had done a lot, while he was the laziest president ever. Reagan and his wife had literately turned the WH into a circus Hollywood style, with them being the clown and actors for 8 years. Many woman, children, and minority people are still suffering financially today because of Reagan.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth."

Yes we can....Yes we will.

GObama - O Eight

Posted by: valskeet | February 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

By the way, the Clinton campaign has cash. This is one of their tactics. The more vulnerable Hillary looks, the more women get out and vote for her.
This is the playing the victim card with tears we saw in New Hampshire when she was losing and on the eve of super tuesday. They have cash not as much as Obama, so they decided to use this and achieve to things: One, get more women on their camp since Obama is catching up and two, get more cash
The Obama camp responded by challenging supporters: result: 8 million in 48 hours!

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Another reason why Obama is raising more money. He inspires us to hope for something better, while she plays the politics of fear and smear. She told us not to hope. I will open my wallet for hope, but not fear. I will give to a positive campaign. Obama gives me a reason to donate. Hillary biggest appeal is to the old folks, who don't donate. Her target group does not have the grassroots energy we need to win against McCain. Old folks don't get out an knock on doors to the degree that younger ones can. Why does the Democratic Party even think about supporting Hillary over Obama. He is the best thing that has happened to the party in a very long time. And his appeal to independents, shown by his wins in Red States, will help us in November. She wins the Blue states. Her appeal is to the Democratic base. That will never win an election.

Posted by: goldie2 | February 7, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

cmss11 nails it. I'm on all three of the lists. I never received a Kerry email asking for funds post-Super Tuesday. I haven't given any money to a MoveOn fundraiser for about 3 years. But I did ante up for the Obama campaign email.

Once again, the Clinton campaign is spinning excuses, when it should be working harder.

Posted by: JPRS | February 7, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

To cdonham: That McCain was reprimanded by the Senate is old news. Did he repeat the offense? I don't think so, so this means he probably learned from it.

Iraq is just one issue. That McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (this is a stretch of what he said, right?), is just being consistent with his old positions.

That McCain admitted that he doesn't know much about the economy is comforting since he will be relying on professional economists. Obama will gain something if he checks with an economist about his healthcare plan.

Of course, McCain has gained considerable exposure in his years in the Senate. Something has to be said about age, wisdom and exposure.

The more Obama uses the word "movement" the more I get skeptical of him. I am not looking for a messiah. I am looking for a president who can set specific goals for the county and run the government. Sheer eloquence does not cut it.

Posted by: CPCook | February 7, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Now she no longer believes in WalMart practices. Wonder why she did not mention it in her memoirs. It definitely covers the 35 years of BAD JUDGMENT experience

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

We just can't trust a rookie (If not worst politically) form IL with the most important job in the free world just because he is a great SPEAKER.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 7, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Equal pay, respect at the workplace. I would have bought it if she fought for that when she was at WalMart. She sat on the board while they were fighting women and unions.
ABC reports; ABC's words not mine.

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

lrh1, Obama didn't vote on the Iraq War Resolution because he wasn't actually a Senator at the time. However, while Hillary was voting for this disasterous war, even though she apparently didn't realize that she was, Obama had this to say:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Posted by: jps78 | February 7, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Talk (about CHANGE, Obama style)) is cheap, We need substance. People who are greedy for money and power usually are good speakers, like Reagan, who managed to fool the entire nation into believing that he had done a lot, while he was the laziest president ever. Reagan and his wife had literately turned the WH into a circus Hollywood style, with them being the clown and actors for 8 years. Many woman, children, and minority people are still suffering financially today because of Reagan.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 7, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Apparently a lack of funds is not slowing down the Clintons completely...

A direct-mail piece sent to voters by the Clinton campaign twists Obama's words and gives a false picture of his proposals:

* It says he "wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars," a big distortion. Obama has said a "good option" would be to apply Social Security payroll taxes to incomes over $97,500 a year, but that would only affect taxes paid by 6.5 percent of individuals and couples. And he hasn't formally proposed such a move anyway.

* The Clinton mailer says Obama has "no plan" for a moratorium on foreclosures such as the one Clinton has proposed. That's true, but Obama has his own plan for homeowner relief. The mailer leaves the impression that Obama has "no plan" at all, which is false.

* It says Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies," another distortion. By the time Congress passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

John McCain = Bush 3rd term.
He has definetely fallen off Straight Talk Express. But Juan McAnesty will be a topic for another day. The O movement followers will take over the blogosphere, and news site such as this to show America who the real Juan McAmnesty is.

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary may have voted on Bush's Iraq War but Obama never showed up to vote - HELLO!

Come on women of America! The only candidate who can bring change is Hillary. No man - I don't care what color he is - is not going to make the world a better place for women and give us what we have been deprived of, but deserving of for so long. Equal pay, Respect in the workplace, More paid leave, Better and cheaper Healthcare for our children and ourselves!!


Posted by: lrh1 | February 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

To cooked_pork: Let's look at McCain, "the devil you know." He was part of the Keating 5 savings and loan scandal and was reprimanded by the Senate. He is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years, even though the purpose of the surge, stabilizing and implenenting an effective central Iraq government, remains a dream. He voted against the Bush tax cuts for the the wealthy, now he is for them. So much for the Straight Talk Express. And he admitted he doesn't know much about the economy. Yes, Sen. McCain has served his country well, but he is not the person we need as President.

Posted by: cdonham | February 7, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I've never given anything to a politician before, but in the past few months I've given around $150 to Obama, and I'm a recent college grad. I'm the kind of people that are funding his campaign.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 7, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the comment that Obama sounds like a pastor or a priest. Listening to him almost resembles listening to homily... you feel warm, and yet if you analyze what he says, there is nothing to it. I suppose Obama supporters will call me cynical, but as much as he likes the words "change", he barely states what he will change. This is really scary. He actually sounds like Bush in 2000... remember "Compassionate Conservative"? Like Bush, Obama likes to allude to fixing the system without saying what's wrong and how to fix it. Please analyze his healthcare plan and his arguments for it, and you'll know what I am talking about. Now, juxtapose this with his "present" votes in the Senate. If you still vote for Obama, no amount of reasoning will convince you otherwise.

Furthermore, it is quite interesting that Obama keeps on saying that he will bring people together. However, the Hispanics and Asians vote for Clinton 2/3 of the time. African-Americans vote for Obama 8.5/10 of the time. It seems that Obama's support is really concentrated on ethnicity.

Anyway... I am an independent, but if I should vote, and the race became McCain vs. Obama, I would probably vote McCain for one simple reason - I think I know what I would be voting for. As they say, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Posted by: CPCook | February 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm in my late 20s and became politicaly engaged and inspired during the Clinton years. After 8 years of Bush telling me to be fearful all the time, I can't wait for a change. While I do respect what the Clintons have done, I also realize that the atmosphere that allowed King Bush to reign was created in part by the Clinton scandals. I had always been quick to defend the Clintons, and the hypocracy of the GOPers who were attacking Bill was hard to watch, but I'm tired now and I don't want to have to defend my candidate anymore. Why do we want to give our opponents so much ammunition by nominating Hillary? How can we continue to survive as a country in this horribly partisan atmosphere? Why do so many Democrats insist on trying to fight the Republicans at a game that they wrote the rules for, with weapons they have chosen? Obama CHANGES the game - he's rewriting the rules, inspiring new voters like no one has in my lifetime. As I said, I am in my late twenties and I have already contributed $100 to Obama, and am prepared to give more to make him the next president of the United States.

Posted by: jps78 | February 7, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I see that around 90% of the Obama donations in January were less than $100. To get $32 million, that's a lot of donors. I don't think there's much chance they were all Republicans or disguised lobbyists.

Posted by: mschrandt | February 7, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

chinnudc wrote: It's quite possible that Republicans are financing Obama in order to pick the weaker candidate for the general election.
Are you serious? If you are, consider this. Hillary brings far more baggage to the general election - not only hers but Bill's as well. Remember Whitewater, Travelgate, her failed universal health care package, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and all the others that Bill Clinton "didn't have sexual relations with," Bill's disbarrment etc., etc? John McCain or any other Republican would have a field day with all this!

Posted by: lhummer | February 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama's money scheme is very simple, he has devised a method where "lobbist" money coming to his campaign as "personal" money to buy pass any scrutiny of his "vote for money" scheme.
I understand his black supporters, but his idealist white supporters will have a rude awakening when the guy goes back to his old habit.
Obama "does not" take campaign money from "lobbist", but takes "personal" favor from Rezko to pay for his house

Obama "does not" take campaign money from "lobbist", but "appoints" lobbist to run his campaign, and those lobbist are told "not to ask their friends to donate personally"

Obama "talks" against neuclear waste leakage and "takes" "personal" money from high level "Company" bosses

"Include" people donating $2 to buy a bumper sticker and include them in your donor list to show a large number of donors

A typical Chicago politician.

Anyone supporting any politician should not be naive to "believe" in existence of a "kosher" candidate. Instead focus on the results.

Clinton don't get the healthcare passed in 1993 for "all", comes back in 1996 and delivers for "children". It is a "strong" pursuit of achieving "good cause" that make them seperate from pretenders.

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

bgk, you are talking in thousands, we are talking millions, many of them. Rezko's contributions were given back to charity enough said.
Why don't you talk about the chinese donnors who were indicted and CONVICTED. I guess that is why they are having trouble raising money.
Keep talking like this and more PEOPLE will donate even more money. People not lobbyists. Do the math more than 500,000 donnors of $100 bucks or less, more than 650,000 of $200 or less

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I did see someone compare Obama's followers like a cult? So I guess that Martin Luther King Jr. guy was a regular Jim Jones. He was able to inspire people to do a heck of a lot more than donate $25 over the internet.

I have to laugh at this notion that the Republicans are going to throw out the Rezko card to smear, like Hillary already hasn't tried and failed repeatedly to get it to stick. The Clintons have every bit of an extensive and sophisticated smear machine as the Republicans have. If Obama can survive Hillary, he can survive McCain.

Posted by: carygillit | February 7, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko who is going on trial for fraud and racketeering this month. However Obama hasn't given all of the money away like he claims. Why is that? Also why did Obama have Rezko help him buy his million dollar home for $300,000 under the asking price when he knew he was under investigation? There are skeletons in Obama's closet that he doesn't want people to see but the Republicans won't let them stay hidden.

Posted by: bgk1232004 | February 7, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Of course Romney would be out. The delegates rich states left are not winner take all. Therefore mathematically and realistically he cannot catch up. It's over.
Now John McCain has time to clean up the mess that is the GOP right now and prepare for Obama or Clinton. More importantly he can stop spending and raise money which is a problem for those guys right now.

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

are you kidding me?
They want to run against her. There is not much to say about Obama. The guy is brand new.
The republican party right now is torn. The only person who can unite the GOP is Hillary. All these talk show hosts will come around in June.
All they have to do is remind people of the scandals and point out that economic success in the 90s has a lot more to do with SILICON VALLEY AND INTERNET BOOM than politicians in Washington. Sometimes we give too much credit to politicians. They are not the ones driving economy. They are the ones who take us to war and spend trillions

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Each day, there is a new argument against Obama supporters which seems cooked up by media advisers in Arlington. For a while they were saying we Obama supporters were like Soviet communists and our postings were something out of Pravda. Then we were Orwellian 1984 clones of conformity. Other times we're sexist, racist or elitist. We don't want substance, only false hope. Today we're a CULT. But that's the game the dynasties--Clinton and Bush--play. The following words of Bob Dylan are applicable:

They got some beautiful people out there
They can be a terror to your mind
And show you how to hold your tongue
They got mystery written all over their
They kill babies in the crib
And say, "Only the good die young"
They don't believe in mercy
Judgment on them is something
You'll never see
They can exalt you up
Or bring you down main-route
Turn you into anything they want you to be

Posted by: InspectorOh | February 7, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton's $5M donation is around four times Sen. Obama's net worth:

Bill Clinton's thoughts on the "loan":

"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, they say you couldn't stop me from spending all the money I've saved over the last five years on Hillary's campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform," - Bill Clinton, December 24, 2007.

Posted by: maq1 | February 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JakeD | February 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I just read the email sent out last night by David Ploufe. 7.6 MILLION since Feb 5th.
Now add the cash before feb 5th and the cash we will get until the end of the month. We are on pace for another 30 MILLION.
60 MILLION DOLLARS in two months!

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse


Shhhh!!! Don't give away Rove's secret plan ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I guess this is further evidence of media bias against Hillary but the fact is that Hillary just raised $4 million in the past 24 hours over the internet but it has not been reported. Also Hillary has multiple internet sites with which to reach out to voters.

Hillary has a solid block of voters in women who are reliable when it comes time to actually vote. Women are motivated to vote for her and it doesn't take a lot of money to reach them. Other campaigns have done well without a lot of money and those, like Romney, have been forced to drop out even with tons of cash.

Obama has received money from lobbyists and anyone who doesn't think so is naive. He is getting money from one of the largest nuclear power plant companies, Exelon, which was reported in the NY Times. Obama has also been misleading people about his actions regarding legislation to control the nuclear industry. Obama claims the law passed. The truth is the law never did. Just another example of how the media and people need to take a closer look at Obama.

Posted by: bgk1232004 | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Kerry's list and moveon. Not entirely. People have been donating for months. I have been giving 25 bucks every 2 weeks and increased it to $100 every 2 weeks since Iowa. I have convinced 4 friends to do the same, some of them give more. I have 3 more friends to convince and they will enlist their friends too. We wanted to level the playing field, since this movement started way behind in cash. Now, we want to finish her.
Go Obama!

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The "cult" comment about Obama supporters appears to be the latest Clinton smear. As most of the posters have said, people contribute to Obama because his message of the need to change the way Washington does business AND his theme of self-empowerment is reaching people. If Clinton is just now finding out how to use the internet, this confirms that she is the candidate of the past, not the future, and that her so-called 35 years of experience is unimportant, if that experience leads you to poor decisions.

Posted by: cdonham | February 7, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

It's quite possible that Republicans are financing Obama in order to pick the weaker candidate for the general election. Despite what the polls may indicate at the present, Senator Obama would be an extremely weak general election candidate for the Democrats. If Democrats want to regain the WH in 2008 and not suffer through 4 more years of Republican rule, they need to think long and hard before nominating Senator Obama.

Posted by: chinnudc | February 7, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I feel personally attacked by the comment above that implied I belong to a "cult of Obama". That is the big difference among the majority of Obama supporters versus the majority that support a known liar and do not take the time to verify statements such as "35 years of dedicated community service".

We the little people up against corruption that is causing us to lose homes, do not think it is a good idea to attack Iran. We do not want a leader that voted yes on the Iran Resolution. Simple common sense says if we can not pay for Iraq, we do not start yet another war to line the pockets of people like Bush, Cheney and Bill Clinton.

Posted by: alyceclover | February 7, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

What these reports miss is the incredible enthusiasm that is clearly visible on the Obama campaign blogs. Every time someone trolls them, they donate. Every time Hillary has a success, they donate. Every time Barack has a success, they donate.

Many of them give more money every time they get a paycheck.

This is why Obama's fundraising is on target to match Hillary's loan AND her fundraising. If she gets the $3M she asked her supporters for, that totals $8M. We've already tallied up almost $7.6M.

Oh, and to those who think it's a cult and that the money should go to charity: well, first of all, your candidate isn't THAT far behind in the money race, so I don't know how you think you can denounce Barack for something Hillary would love to be able to do. But even beyond that, many supporters on the Obama blogs are talking about community action and fundraising for charity through the campaign. And why not? We've got a powerful grassroots network, so why not use it to effect change BEFORE the election? I wouldn't be especially surprised to hear that the campaign does do something like that.

In any case, Obama supporters, we definitely haven't won yet. So keep donating, and PHONEBANK for Obama if you can. FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

YES WE CAN, and we WILL!

Posted by: Stefan74 | February 7, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The servers at are overwhelmed again. Y'all better start giving slower, I guess. LOL

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 7, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Contrast the hundreds of thousands of small donors to Obama with the guys on this list and it's pretty obvious why Hillary's starting to run out of cash. All her big financial supporters seem to be too busy running from the law to bundle any more checks:

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The campaign is going on longer than expected for the Clintons and continued donations from big donors to Hilary's campaign would not look so good against a popular and individually funded Obama movement, especially since she is already known to be a champion for special interest money and influence. Anyone who can "loan" himself $5 Millions will not truly serve the American people because they have nothing in common with the average American. The $5 Million is an investement into future book deals, paid speaking engagements and other lucrative business she will engage in after the presidency. That money money would have served better if it had been donated to charity to assist the disabled veterans she helped send to a useless war

Posted by: marabout_noir | February 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I do not have a car, yet every time I try to submit my comment, I get taken to a car insurance ad and that is why I was one of those donors. Tired of "of, for and by the rich" at the expense of the rest of us.

Posted by: alyceclover | February 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Maddymappo, great post. I just gave Obama another $3.01.

Posted by: brian.malm | February 7, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The practical difference between 1/3 of Obama's donors and 1/2 of Clinton's donors having reached their maximum is that "Obama has the ability to keep going back to his donors, while she has the more difficult burden of having to seek out new donors."

Some unvetted Weisenheimer said so, that's why. Seriously, you have to wonder if WaPo checked him for conflicts of interests.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 7, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

It's pretty obvious why Clinton is now pushing for all these debates. She isn't raising near as much money for advertising as Obama, so she wants the free opportunity to be seen and heard through the debates. It's always political maneuvering with the Clintons.

Posted by: cantorn21 | February 7, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Why is this a loan and not a gift? Does it have to do with campaign finance law?

And, as a loan, does that mean that donors to the campaign will be putting money back into the Clintons' bank account?

Posted by: mainer2 | February 7, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

To have that many ordinary citizens giving their own money to a campaign is truely impressive. Not just the dollar amount but the sheer number of people! I give a little at whenever I can afford to, and encourage everyone to help out! Way to go Barack!! Yes We Can!

Posted by: dslowik | February 7, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama is attracting donors who make small contributions monthly or from each paycheck, never approaching the upper limit. I think he picked up many first time donors - $25 or $50 - from the thousands attending his recent appearances. I know several college students who are contributing.

BTW, most of the donors I know also contribute regularly to many charitable causes, so I don't believe the money is being re-directed away from the needy.

Posted by: mschrandt | February 7, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Mosk gets the point and then misses it completely. At first there is an acknowledgment of the power of the small donor in large numbers, but then he attempts to cite singular sources (Kerry & as the origin of that movement.

Here is the real phenomenon behind the Obama fundraising surge: The individual fund-raising movements create and sustain themselves.

It starts in small pockets and those pockets grow. This is not a matter of people getting an e-mail from a large central authority, it is small groups of small donors rallying around each other and rallying for Obama. The story isn't Kerry, MoveOn, or even Obama, it's the sheer number of people taking it upon themselves to give little-by-little.

Posted by: groverat | February 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@ democrat

the line "We're the ones that we've been waiting for" is superb.

I agree that Obama can inspire. His stump prose is that of a cleric. He's less agressive than Martin Luther King, less blatantly biblical in his references, but he uses some very hallowed techniques to inspire his audience.

But that line was perfect. America includes poor people, immigrants, non-whites, and yes, blacks. Therefore it follows that these people will one day be represented at the Presidential level. Equally, there is a democratic deficit in the political process. Put simply, money talks. You spin legislation for the few to make it acceptable to the many. Clearly, one day, someone will fundamentally, radically alter the system- so that only the "positive" aspect of lobbysim (such as bringing expertise to Washington) is felt in politics. One day that will happen, because there's only so much toil the majority of people can take.

What that slogan (and it really should become one for Obama, to win more cynics to his cause) does, it says: stop saying "Yeah, one day, BUT". Now is the time, we're the ones we've been waiting for. Don't say that America needs a more cultivated politician as president, that too much change is not welcome at times of economic strife. If not now, then when? We're the ones we've been waiting for.


Posted by: henni.ouahes | February 7, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

To democrat_2008:

Obama's speeches touch many people to their core, their spirit, and it is only natural to express the intense feelings with tears. --myself included, and just from video.

The phrase "we are the ones we've been waiting for" plays on our theme of self-empowerment, and is from a Hopi saying. It was posted by a supporter named "Terry" on 2/3 in the blogs.

Here's the Hopi saying, reproduced.

"The Hopi Elders Speak
We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For
You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour.
Now you must go back and tell the people that this is The Hour.
And there are things to be considered:
Where are you living?
What are you doing?
What are your relationships?
Are you in right relation?
Where is your water?
Know your garden.
It is time to speak your Truth.
Create your community. Be good to each other. And do not look outside yourself for the leader.?This could be a good time!
There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold on to the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart, and they will suffer greatly.
Know the river has its destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above the water. See who is in there with you and celebrate.
At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally. Least of all, ourselves. For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.
The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!
Banish the word struggle from your attitude and your vocabulary.
All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.

--The Elders Oraibi
Arizona Hopi Nation

Posted by: p3ng | February 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Is Obama hurting white males' chauvinism?

Posted by: mkk0918 | February 7, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

mkk0918 - couldn't agree with you more. This attempt by Billary to loan the campaign money is simply a strategy to arouse the sympathy vote like her emotional moment in New Hampshire did. She even paraphrased Obama's remark during the debate when he said Romney was getting a very good return on his investment. She said the results of Tuesday showed the wisdom of her investment. She is transparent, the media provides free advertising time all day long. She is what we used to say when we were little -- a "copycat"

Posted by: helenlr | February 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Maybe she could ask Mitt Romney for a loan?

Posted by: JakeD | February 7, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Simple: Hillary's big donors are all tapped out, having given here a stream of cash since the beginning. Obama's grass roots support gives in smaller increments, plus he probably has a larger base of supporters to get cash from .

Posted by: parkerfl | February 7, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Obama -- new school voters: we're going to fund this.

Clinton -- old school voters: what, me donate? That's for the fat cats.

The Clinton voters will have to turn it around is they want her to stay alive. Looks like the Titanic heading for the iceberg, however.

Posted by: kparrparr | February 7, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

democrat-2008 @ 10:39

Totally agree with you about being freaked out by the cult of Obama. But then I'm just a post-menopausal former hippie chick for Hillary, happy to do my small part by sending her a contribution today.

Posted by: rdklingus | February 7, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

This must be another cheap shot from Hillary. In order to raise small donations, she is now using free media coverage. When we consider the demographic categories of her supporters, many of them might not have internet access to her campaign website, which is now begging for donations. This constasting juxtaposion of her an Obama's financial sitation in every media coverage will motivate Hillary's supporters to donate. Media never fails to support her with free coverages, which are free for her but we, voters, pay for the commercials.
This a new version of her crying. Mrs. Clinton should learn how to play nice and fair.

Posted by: mkk0918 | February 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Its not funny; it's hillarious!

Posted by: xira | February 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

The number was $6,038,669 as of midnight EST. As of 10:33 am, the running count stands at $7,424,712.

Posted by: shungry | February 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama's online donations yesterday were over $6 million by midnight, and this morning donations to the Obama campaign are over $7 million!

Posted by: vtg60 | February 7, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

As of this morning, Obama supporters have contributed $7.4 million since the polls closed Tuesday. YES WE CAN. Obama'08. Join the movement!

Posted by: gburkert | February 7, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is trying to cast Barack as the candidate for the affluent. That is why she is so appealing to blue collar voters. Well if that's the case, why are the vast majority of her donors maxed out at $2300? The percentage of Barack donors that are maxed out is in the single digits.

Posted by: jezuniga | February 7, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Be part of the history making fundraising record: Since polls closes on Super Tuesday Obama has raised $7.3 m and counting on his website.

We the people are speaking and propelling Obama into the White House.

Posted by: ESR1 | February 7, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

It's because Obama isn't relying on 'bundlers' and large donors and 'special interests'. He's on the ground using grassroots techniques adapted to the 21st century. Hilary won one state (AR) by more than 60%, Obama won 8. He's bringing in new voters, new ways of involving voters.

The super delegates are going to have a choice. The past or the future.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 7, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

And Obama just raised another 5 million in one night. What about all the poor and homeless in this country, this could sure use some of that cash. John Edwards was right to get out of this crazy campaign ...This guy OBAMA is begining to Freak me the hell out. I swear its reminding me of a CULT. I listened to his speech and was very weired out by that chick in the background that was swaying and crying like she was touched by the divine word, not to mention his words "We are the ones we've been waiting for," what the heck !!!

Posted by: democrat_2008 | February 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters are more passionate. Hillary's are just making what they may consider to be a savvy best choice. But, deep down, they feel she is a great disappointment. Her vote to authorize Bush's preemptive Iraq war sticks in the heart like a pitch fork, and tightens their purses.

Hillary made her own savvy decision. She would authorize Bush to make war so that she would appear strong against terror in her run for the white house. She gambled that the war would be over quick and dirty, or not happen. She placed her political ambition over human life. She had the voice to ask tough questions and she did not use it. She had access to the documents and she turned a blind eye to the facts. She did not responsibly represent her constituency or the nation.

Now she wants to have it both ways.

Democrats are torn inside. How do you balance Hillary's brilliant policies with the hundreds of thousands who are dead and millions suffering? Can her policies bring the dead back to life? Democrats criticized Republicans for re-electing the liar who started this war, Bush. Now they are giving up their moral authority by voting for the liar Hillary, who placed her political bonafides above human lives. How do people reach down into their pockets and send her money for that?

It is very easy, however, to contribute to Obama. When others played on the fear and anger of the people of this country, he told us the real enemy was fear itself, and that a war in the middle east would be disastrous for the U.S.

In the memory of all those who have unjustly died in Iraq and their suffering families, let's show the world that Americans are truly outraged at the leaders who mislead them into starting an unnecessary war. Contribute to the Obama campaign today.

Posted by: maddymappo | February 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

As the late, great Gorilla Monsoon used to say, Mrs. Clinton went to the well one too many times. I find it rather astonishing because Terrence McAuliffe (sp) can run a formidable fund raising operation, as he did in 1996 for Clinton/Gore and for Vice President Gore in 2000. And yet, if you were expecting to win early and often as the Clinton campaign did, then it's matter of poor strategy.

Posted by: InspectorOh | February 7, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton just found out about the internet, then that's just one more reason not to vote for her. What she truly doesn't wish to know, is that the majority of people in this country do not want her to be president. She is divisive. She is corrupt. And she is perceived as disingenuous, even by those who like her. Hillary Clinton would be a great gift to the Republicans in the general election, and most people know that. The difference between her and McCain is nearly indiscernible-- who needs another warmongering corporate fatcatter?

Posted by: billdiggsjr | February 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

This just goes to show that Obama has a much wider appeal. He had over 250,000 donations in January alone. Hillary is getting all her money from the big money party people, wheras Obama is getting his money, in smaller increments from the regualr people inspired by a real choice for president. Obama will continue to raise the money, because his supporters give $50-$100 at a time. Hillary is not able to reach out to new voters, they're all going to Obama.

Posted by: ggershuny | February 7, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama's money is coming from small donors who would not normally contribute. They see, for the first time, a candidate who will represent them. Many are sending a small amount every payday and will continue to do so. We need change, we need hope. OBAMA IS THE ONE

Posted by: LEFTYLADIG | February 7, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

So, her 35 years of experience obviously did not prepare her to balance a budget or to efficiently lead an organization.

Posted by: RollaMO | February 7, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Kerry's list and MoveOn? Are you joking? The reason Obama is doing better with online fundraising is because they've been organizing online for a year. They regularly reach out to voters through that organization to donate. Hillary is finally waking up about organizing online herself, and she's already having great success. She'll be just fine with finances.

Posted by: cmss1 | February 7, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company