Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

New Faces Shine in Fundraising

On Wednesday I wrote a Web-exclusive analysis of how two of the newest faces on the national political scene -- former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- managed to steal the fundraising spotlight from their better-known rivals in the 2008 presidential race.

You can read the piece here: Newcomers' Fundraising Shakes Up Field.

Use the comments section to offer your own opinions as to why Obama and Romney were able to do so well in collecting cash over the first three months of 2007.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 5, 2007; 8:05 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Guest Post: The Online Primary
Next: Can McCain Win?

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | April 9, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

No Apology Needed

Hillary Clinton's failure to apologize for her vote authorizing the Iraq war may be wonkish, but it is neither stubborn nor unprincipled. Neither was her original vote naïve or political. Her refusal is rooted in a vision of presidential leadership in which she deeply believes and with which I for one firmly agree.

Hillary believes in a strong president able to direct the foreign policy of the United States with flexibility and firmness. In these dangerous times, the right to use force must sometimes be emphatically underlined. While I personally believed that the UN inspections already conducted suggested that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, some factors, most of all Saddam's now inexplicable unwillingness to allow unimpeded inspections, could plausibly suggest that Iraq did have such weapons. On that basis, George Bush asked for an authorization to use force with the professed objective of strengthening his hand in negotiations. I agree that his professed purpose was a sham, and more, that it could be seen to be a sham. However, it was what he should have wanted, and what he could, with patience, have used to prove in time beyond any shadow of doubt that Iraq had indeed destroyed its weapons of mass destruction.

In such circumstances, as president, Hillary would want the benefit of a doubter's vote. She gave George Bush the benefit of a doubter's vote, as her contemporaneous explanations made clear. She expects to be president, and she does not want George Bush's follies managing the foreign policy of the United States to weaken the model of strong presidential leadership of foreign policy. Her statement: "He misused the authority we gave him," is an astute and principled analysis, and entirely accurate from my own perspective. Unfortunately, like the Clinton health plan (so near to the theoretical ideal!), her explanation of a principled vote, and of a principled refusal to apologize for it, is not easy to understand.


Posted by: Paul Donahue | April 9, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Allan Leigh, you make no sense. But I think your comments show that the Clinton campaign is scared.

Posted by: Lorraine | April 8, 2007 11:49 PM | Report abuse

I will not vote for the black candidate who plays the race card every time he gives a speech and who has no position whatever on any of the important issues (Obama). Nor will I vote for the slick lawyer who is very clearly using his wife's cancer to win votes (she is not blameless in this as she has now given 11 interviews and appeared on Oprah).

I will not vote for anyone who still has to learn what Hillary Clinton already knows.

Posted by: Allan Leigh | April 8, 2007 12:30 AM | Report abuse

This is a comment coming from a citizen who has never been involved with politics until this upcoming election. For me, the driving factor for the change has been technology. The ability for me to keep up with what is going on, on my own time, using my own judgment has been huge. I don't really have time to watch the usual news channels. I use the Internet and its many facets for my information. This presidential election is one of the first that will have such an enormous plethora of relatively low cost, highly effective campaign tools for the truly savvy. Not that I know what the old political campaign rulebook may have been but I'm guessing it's very different to what is being written today.

My husband recently started an online video tracking company called TubeMogul (http://www.tubemogul.com). They provide trending analysis of viewership of online videos. All the main candidates are using these online video sites like YouTube to post their political messages (for free). It's being dubbed as "politubing". This struck a chord in me so much I even started a rookie blog about it (http://politubing.blogspot.com). Some are doing a far better job at this than others. The key is to not to come off as contrived.

By chance, only the Romney and Obama campaigns contacted TubeMogul to use their trending capabilities to see how their videos were fairing. After they contacted TubeMogul, TubeMogul tried to contact the other candidates to see if they were interested in the data but have received no return calls or answers. In many cases, even contacting the candidate's campaign was tricky. Apparently contribute only means "give us money", not give us feedback.

I only use this story to point out Romney's and Obama's campaigns to apparently think outside the proverbial political campaign box. I can imagine Romney, given his business background, utilizes a whole suite of savvy business tools to gain some campaign contribution ground, and Obama is simply doing what he seems to do best - listen to what others may have to say and try something new out.

It may still be too early for these revolutionary political campaign methods to actually win a Presidential election. But it sure feels like the winds of change are blowing.

Posted by: Marisa Meneely Wilson | April 6, 2007 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Let us suppose that there is a "liberal" bias in the news.(whatever that means) This would be caused by: a. Journalists from effete schools know how to sneak their stories past the editorial desk; or b. The owners of the media are really bleeding-hearts and not business-people; or c. the readers are liberal and the media pander to their readers; or d. the media, in trying to find balance between sense and nonsense keep leaning toward sense. Maybe there is some other reason I haven't thought of but I'm vastly more interested in why a bias exists rather than if people believe one exists.

Posted by: zenberg | April 5, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I am not surprised at all that Romney did as well as he did. I am, however, surprised Obama did this well. Romney has a nationwide organization in place already in the Mormon church, which didn't cost him a dime. They knew on what day his first day of fundraising would be long before it was announced, and I'm guessing, had already began working on the fundraising. So that accounts for Romney's 1st day total of over $6,000,000. Plus, Romney has great business contacts from his days in fixing up companies to make his fortune and leading the 2002 effort to turn the Salt Lake City winter Olympics around. So he has donors. Plus, he has Bob Perry to boot. Perry will almost certainly be funding 3rd party organizations against Romney's cheif opponents. Again, this is not "Romney's money" so he won't be using it from his own campaign coffers. His money raised will be used to define him, the 3rd party orgs. will be used to define his opponents. He has a great plenty of money to go around!

I don't care who you are, over 100,000 on-line donors, wow! Now that's really impressive. Think of what type of grassroots organization Obama has created. Clinton and Edwards worked so hard creating and paying for their organization...it looks like the netroots are gonna get behind Obama and spring his organization to stardum instead of him having to buy it like Clinton and Edwards did. The netroots have just picked Obama, and he's going to be their poster of what the anti-Hillary should look like.

Posted by: reason | April 5, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The interesting thing about Romney is that he is self-admittedly starting to run out of donors to hit up for money. He definitely needs to introduce himself with the current batch to be able to get new donors.

Posted by: roo | April 5, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The last four posts have been about fundraising. Are you running out of material?

Posted by: Constructive Criticism | April 5, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

2008 is actually the first presidential election since 1928 where no VP or incumbent President is running. In 1952, Vice President Alben W. Barkley lost the Democratic presidential primary.

Posted by: J Perez | April 5, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why people need to like a candidate. Believe in a candidate's policies, yes. Believe that a candidate is competent, yes. Trust a candidate, maybe. Be uplifted by a candidate, distant last. It just seems like this whole likeability thing is what got Bush elected and what got the country in trouble. I'm not saying Obama will be like Bush. I'm just saying, we know nothing about Obama's policies, beliefs etc. Just because one LIKES a candidate is no reason to vote for him. I don't understand why the presidential race boils down to a popularity contest.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

We should cut off highway funds to Oklahoma since McVeigh was from there. they are all crazy anyway.

noname ignorant coward is having a meltdown.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant foreign policy ... offer taxpayer-funded advanced weaponry to the country that gave us 9/11 --sometimes do you wonder if the bush administration is so slavishly devoted to oil and arab princes that they are willing to sabotage this country? They'd be fabulously wealthy and treated like princes themselves in Riyadh [where bush I maintains an office] or Dubai [where Halliburton is moving]...

'A major arms-sale package that the Bush administration is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to deter Iran has been delayed because of objections from Israel, which says that the advanced weaponry would erode its military advantage over its regional rivals, according to senior United States officials.

Israeli officials, including the former defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, have come to Washington in recent months to argue against elements of the planned sales. In particular, the Israelis are concerned about the possible transfer of precision-guided weapons that would give Saudi warplanes much more accurate ability to strike targets, officials said. [...]

"It's not like the Israelis are going to end up with nothing," said a senior administration official, adding "the Israelis understand that it's in our interest and their interest" that the United States try to shore up military systems for Sunni Arab allies. But Israel is also concerned that the Bush administration's ambitions for an American-Israeli-Sunni coalition allied against Iran may never materialize, or that there could be a revolution in Saudi Arabia that would leave the mostly American-made Saudi arsenal in the hands of militant Islamists. ...'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Two single people who work together fell in love. Now that's a scandal. With her raises she still makes less than the local high school principals. Their salaries were just published in the paper this week. Who cares. Tell us about someone going to jail for something. Idle gossip about two single people in love and possible favoritism at work. And the neighbors think they may be having sex. Oh my, this is a disaster of Biblical proportions. What was the topic, campaign fundraising? How about at least something on the campaigns or candidates.

Posted by: Demsdafacts | April 5, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Ironick - my point exactly.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Who are you people? Zogby polls are supposedly hogwash and Republican shills. Harris interactive polls are apparently incorrect and biased. Apparently any poll not listing your candidate as a landslide winner is bogus. How pathetic rabid partisans show themselves to be on these blogs. Even, sadder, they can't see it in the mirror. Come to think of it, on this blog I've seen the New York Times accused of being a Republican newspaper. Now that's being detached from reality.

Posted by: ironick | April 5, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

William/JD/proud/TG: are you guys going to render a printable opinion on Romney's fund-raising success?

judge: Romney may have stolen the fundraising spotlight for half a day, but he's wallowing in the spotlight of his own gaffes for the rest of the week!

Now he's trying to convince voters not to be scared about his religious affiliation and the big money behind it-

Mitt Romney, conducting a telephone conference call with potential Iowa caucus-goers tonight, told them he considered Jesus Christ to be his "personal savior"
as part of his continuing, "Ask Mitt Anything" series.

The call got off to an inauspicious start when the first caller turned out to be an 18-year-old who told Mr. Romney that he was trying to "sell me."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/romney-in-iowa-a-call-to-faith/

He had a good first quarter, but time will tell.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Wolfowitz, 61, and Riza, who's said to be in her mid-fifties, are both divorced. They have declined to publicly discuss their relationship but share a desire to democratize the Middle East. Riza, an Oxford-educated British citizen, was born in Tunisia and grew up in Saudi Arabia. She's known for her expertise on women's rights and has been listed on the bank's Web site as a media contact for Iraq reconstruction issues.

--delciious. She's from Saudi Arabia and she's involved in iraq war-profiteering -- i mean, reconstruction.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

'Social Washington has been buzzing for months about the discreet romance between Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Riza, an Arab Muslim feminist and a communications adviser at the World Bank. Now that he's been nominated to head the bank and their relationship has become public, some of Riza's neighbors have become irked enough to dish.

This being Washington, there's a political undercurrent to the gossip: Turns out that some Iraq war foes in the diplomat-heavy neighborhood south of American University don't seem to appreciate that Wolfowitz regularly spends the night at Riza's home. Two residents told us that Wolfowitz's guards wait in a car outside until he departs early in the morning.

"They kind of picked the wrong place, if they want to be private about it. I don't know if it could be more public if it were on 16th and K streets," said one neighbor, who declined to be identified, citing a desire to maintain cordial relations with Riza. "It's an international neighborhood and he's the icon for a fabulously expensive, tragic war. It's the one thing we talk about now."

Posted by: fascinating, isn't it? | April 5, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

'Employees of the World Bank have been "expressing concern, dismay, and outrage" regarding favoritism shown by the bank and the Bush administration towards the one-time girlfriend of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, according to an internal memo circulated within the bank by the World Bank Group Association, which represents the rights of the bank's 13,000 employees. Among other things, the April 3 memo alleges that Shaha Riza, Wolfowitz's romantic interest was given a "promotion [that] clearly does not conform" to bank procedures. Moreover, the memo alleges, she was then given a raise "more than double the amount allowed" by the bank's rules.

A copy of the memorandum was leaked to myself and other journalists Wednesday evening as World Bank employees have become more outspoken in their criticism of Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the bank.

Wolfowitz, who as Deputy Secretary of Defense was considered an architect of the U.S. war with Iraq, disclosed to bank board members that he had a romantic relationship with a senior bank communications officer, Shaha Riza, shortly after he was nominated to head the World Bank. Bank regulations disallow bank employees from supervising spouses or romantic partners, but Wolfowitz reportedly attempted to circumvent the rules so he would be able to continue to work with Riza. Informed by the bank's ethics officers that that would not be allowable, the problem appeared solved when Riza was detailed to work at the State Department's public diplomacy office in September 2005--even though her salary was still to be paid by the World Bank.

Before she was detailed over to the State Department, Riza was earning $132,660, according to the bank's payroll records obtained by the Governmental Accountability Project. Had the bank's board adhered to its ordinary rules, as Riza was shifted over to the State Department, she should have only been eligible for a raise of about $20,000. Instead she was given a raise of $47,340, whereupon her salary became $180,000. Then last year, she received yet another raise which brought her salary to $193,000. That salary increase not only meant that Riza earned more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but apparently made her the single highest paid State Department official.'

Posted by: the bush crony gravy train goes on | April 5, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

'Giuliani is viewed favorably by 64%, unfavorably by 31%. He remains the most personally popular candidate of either party. '

--only until people get to know him.

this zouk character is a lobbyist, a paid agitprop.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

How about Pelosi eliminate those $20 B in earmarks? something we could actually live without.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

We should let our representatives know that we care about such issues as global poverty. According to the non-profit organization, the Borgen Project, annually it costs $19 billion to feed the world while the United States spends $420 billion on the military alone with $340 billion of that being spent on the Iraq War.

Posted by: marie2 | April 5, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

spartan - are you being coy or dense? Using wikipedia to research Rudy guiliani is fraught with problems, in particular, that the events have been interpreted by someone which I pointed out clearly at the time with the "huge egos" text reference. this is not fact and is someone's take on an occurance. On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with going to wikipedia to find additional sources outside wiki. this is what I did in this case, wiki cited the Zogby poll. now you may take issue with zogby, but in this case, wiki is out of the loop.

Academic research demands that you find the "horses mouth" which is preferably a research journal with refereed content. this is the only acceptable source for high level research. In this case we are talking about a poll so there is no referee. I grant you that taking a poll and getting a result does not make it so, but you will need to convince many of that with some further analysis. I suspect that zogby knows more about polling than you do.

but disputing the wiki source is not the issue here. why do Dems always concentrate on the source and try to discredit it instead of taking the case on its merits. Is it because you really have no retort? this behavior has already been amply demonstrated today.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

That report studied news - NOT editorial pages. The WSJ does seem to have a distrubing trend toward bias in their news. the editorial page may be just the opposite. I am not prepared to debate the details of their findings. I was just pointing out that in general it is accepted ( by honest people) that the media leans left. does anyone really want to debate that and continue in your fantasy world. why not relish your advantage and suggest a reason for it?

the point of this is to resolve that on occasion, there are facts to support one side or the other. you may not simply create facts to support any view you like.

I have plenty more where this came from if you Libs have the stomach to confront your opinions. the invention of the internet by al gore is going to turn out to be his undoing, along with the rest of the liberal chants. the facts are slowly emerging, despite the LSM's attempt to bury them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree 100% with drindl and vwcat. Let's get those with the highest negative ratings out of the race and get some new blood.

According to Harris Interactive polls and the Pew Research Center polls the candidates or potential candidates in order with the highest percentage of negatives are:

Al Gore 51% negative rating.
Newt Gingrich 49% negative rating.
Hillary Clinton 44% negative rating.
Romney's negative 22% is double his positive rating 11% ( but 67% of respondents said they didn't know him).

Extremely interesting that the two active candidates with the most money, Clinton and Romney, are the most disliked percentage wise by the voters. It appears the money people like them but not the general public. Looks like the number of contributors apparently does not, or will not, be an indication of the number of voters supporting the candidates.

The stats from Rassmussen Reports on favorability are: Barack Obama is viewed favorably by 54%, unfavorably by 36%. In recent months Obama has enjoyed the best favorable/unfavorable ratio among leading Democrats, but is now matched by Senator John Edwards.

Giuliani is viewed favorably by 64%, unfavorably by 31%. He remains the most personally popular candidate of either party. McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 38%.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744



Posted by: tarheel | April 5, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - wikipedia is harldy what we in acedemia call research
Posted by: kingofzouk | March 29, 2007 03:25 PM

um so that wasnt you that typed that? ill give you the point that wiki is biased, but you doing the same thing with a poll really doesnt help you much.

but ill address your point about the "liberal media" try going to mediamatters.org for actual media bias.

Posted by: spartan | April 5, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Romney = Kerry

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, the report you quote from UCLA also says the most liberal source is the Wall Street Journal.
Do you agree with their assesment?

Posted by: Andy R | April 5, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - wikipedia cites the original poll and does not editorialize in this instance. See the difference - opinion vs fact. I know that is a touchy subject with you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

BOSTON -- In boasting about his lifelong experience as a hunter, Mitt Romney may have shot himself in the foot.
The Republican presidential contender has told audiences on several occasions, most recently this week in gun-savvy _ and early voting _ New Hampshire, that he has been a longtime hunter. But it turns out he has been on only two hunting trips.

Critics said it was the latest example of a White House aspirant willing to say anything to reach the Oval Office.

"Whether he's pretending to be a hunter, misleading people about loaning his campaign millions of dollars or signing a no-new-tax pledge he once mocked to hide his tax-raising record, he'll say absolutely anything to distance himself from his real record."

The charge echoed with similarities to the criticism the Republican National Committee used to level against another Massachusetts politician running for president, Sen. John Kerry, who was his party's 2004 nominee.

In a question-and-answer session Tuesday in Keene, N.H., Romney spoke of his experience with hunting in a manner that suggested a close affiliation with the sport.

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," he told a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap.

Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience came during two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he once hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia.'

He shot quail in a pen? Why not fish in a barrel?

But is he qualified to be president? Has he shot anyone in the face?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

A poll of likely 2008 presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28% of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_bias#Claims_that_media_in_the_United_States_show_liberal_bias

thats real funny zouk, you use wikipedia to prove your point but when i started posting on rudy from wikipedia,its a biased,source.hypocrisy thy name is zouk.

Posted by: spartan | April 5, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

If only we were all as smart as noname-coward and dan rather and able to differentiate between fake news and real news. you see after spending most of his morning on THE Daily Kos, he is at a loss concerning the truth.

but you see that is the problem with this blog, when confronted with actual facts and figures from outside sources the response is just weak.

"I refuse to acknowledge media bias that goes against my interests. I refuse to accept Iraq progress that could benefit Bush. I refuse to accept that anyone could be skeptical of science by polling. I refuse to agree that Pelosi is a fool."

for every fact that stares you in the face that you discount, your credibility with normal people sinks into the mud.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

'I never confuse him with folks who do not hold the national interest above the partisan, or even worse, the venal or personal.'

That may well have been what he was once, Mark. But look at the people he is hiring -- swiftboaters, jewcounters, the lowest of the low. And he isn't just pandering to the mullahs, he's kissing their butts and emulating their stances. that just show's me he'll do anything to get elected -- and that he can't be trusted.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

' reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals '

yes because they have had it pounded into their heads for the last 30 years, 24 hours a day, a meme pushed by the legions of think tanks and networks of news outlets owned by folks like rupert murdoch and backed by billions and billions of global corporate dollars.... part of the reason why the country has allowed itsself to be picked apart and exploited and it's bare boned carcass left to rot. Why we are in the hole we are now in.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Andy R: I can see why you thought as you did about the fund raising. "ALMOST everyone that does this for a living thought Hillary would blow everyone out of the water.". This is known as "Group Think" that most of you folks have. I know I don't like this guy, Wolfson, on the Hillary team and think he is actually hurting her. Another thing to look for is Richardson, btw, my second choice, to gain in the next few rounds of polling, although they have little meaning at this stage of the game.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

zouk details his modus operandi:

that source doesn't match my twisted world view. I think I'll just ignore them. those facts don't count. Ultimately, I ignore anything that I don't like, I am that dishonest. If I can discredit the person, I can ignore their argument. That way, my foolish views never see the light of day. If all that fails and I am revealed for the charlatan that I am, I will try to change the wording and delve into such detail the entire point will be eventually lost.

Posted by: zouk tells the truth for once.. | April 5, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I find myself with time today!

So, JK, please do not confuse Sen. McCain with his political nemeses, Cheney and Rumsfield.

If you had been an attorney who appeared regularly in Federal Court during the Nixon years as I was, you would never confuse a Senator who has stood for civil liberties with President Nixon.

I often disagree with Sen. McCain, especially since he began to try to patch fences with the Christian right, but I give him credit for his stands for open government, against corporate welfare in the tax system, for environmental protection, against corrupt practices [he rightfully can take much credit in exxposing Abramoff], against torture as an accepted methodology in military prisons, and for both a strong military and a national volunteer program.

I never confuse him with folks who do not hold the national interest above the partisan, or even worse, the venal or personal. Even his support for the occupation of Iraq comes from a different place than the Administration's; and while it may kill his presidential ambitions, it derives from an honorable and consistent position that he has maintained, previously and loudly, at odds with the Administration.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 5, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Abstract: We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major
media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites
various think tanks and policy groups, then compare this with the times that members of
Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news
outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times,
received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims
made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received
scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour,
CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USAToday
was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we
exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

Most Inconvenient.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Romney's totals are not just about pandering to the "big money GOP" but that the man is well connected, well organized and knows how to manage. His approach to this campaign and the money totals are evidence of his effectiveness. He is making headway in the polls that matter right now with those that actually are listening to his message. The challenge may be that he's maxed out contributions from his "big money" friends and is spending already on advertising while others have not. But his problems are different than Giuliani and McCain, mainly in name recognition. There's a reason why he has more key endorsements and it finally appears as though more voters are trending that way as well. Time will tell and there's a lot of time.

Posted by: MJ | April 5, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

A poll of likely 2008 presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28% of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_bias#Claims_that_media_in_the_United_States_show_liberal_bias

what are you last to hear? I suppose you will say that zogby is a fake. If that's what gets you through the day.

when 2/3 is against the war you pay homage. But this is counter to your threadbare propaganda. This is just a poll. there is also scientific evidence.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillary and Obama are down in New Hampshire despite their huge cash figures for Q1.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=129
Is this a trend? And will voters continue to give Edwards sympathy support?

Posted by: chris florida | April 5, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink,
I don't have any illusions about the media and its biases (lack there of). I am just going by what I consider my take on this, which I beleive is pretty well researched. And that is that I believed as did ALMOST everyone who does this for a living that Hillary would blow everyone out of the water. The Obama folks were hoping to make a big splash not take the lead.
Now you can look at it two ways, one is that Obama (and Edwards too for that matter) overacheived, or that Hillary underacheived. I think it is a little bit of both. I think that when a campaign gives a target (like 15 million for HRC) then you should double it and that is the REAL target. Obama's campaign said they wanted to stay competitive and that would mean bringing in 10 million. Edwards said he wanted to pass his total from last time (7 million). Now Edwards meet his True goal, Obama passed his, and Hillary didn't meet hers.
That is how I see it, but even if you disagree and think that Hillary's expectations was all media hype, it still doesn't change the fact that she got beat by a guy who four years ago 99% of americans would have said "Barack who?"

Posted by: Andy R | April 5, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama's fundraising total is impressive, and should be a real wake-up call to HRC and her campaign.

Romney's total is less spectacular, given his ties to big-money financiers. But, similarly, McCain is paying more attention, especially after his ridiculous comments in Baghdad.

The good news is that we won't have any more of this "Who's got the money?" for another quarter. Now the candidates will have to focus on policies and plans or at least I hope they do.

BTW, I like Tommy Thompson's idea of polling the Iraqi government officials about whether they want us there. Hope he doesn't plan to use Zouk's pollsters.

Posted by: pacman | April 5, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

that source doesn't match my twisted world view. I think I'll just ignore them. those facts don't count. Ultimately, I ignore anything that I don't like, I am that dishonest. If I can discredit the person, I can ignore their argument. That way, my foolish views never see the light of day. If all that fails and I am revealed for the charlatan that I am, I will try to change the wording and delve into such detail the entire point will be eventually lost. Look how we changed the debate about killing babies simply by labeling it choice. how could you be against choice? We are now trying this with "redeployment" with less success.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Andy R: Do not make the mistake that the "Media" supports Hillary, and the "Media" is Liberal. These things are said so many times that a lot of folks believe them to be true, but it is a myth that has been out here for so many years that the majority of folks actually have believed it, and just recently the belief has been starting to erode. There is a quote that goes something like "There is no fool like an old fool-you can't beat expierence.".

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

McCain seems to have cornered the market on unsavory remainders of the Nixon Admistration. Where' Charles Colson and Gordon Liddy? Which was the one that ate rats again?

Maybe they could have a luau as a fundraiser and serve well -- you can imagine.

McCain is the embodiement of everything we don't want -- the bloodsoaked evil strain that goes all the way back to Nixon and includes Cheney and Rumsefled. If you liked Nixon and Bush, you'll love McCain.

Posted by: JK | April 5, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama's DC fundraising team is perhaps the strongest fundraising team ever assembled. I credit much of his success to them.

Posted by: James | April 5, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Recently I wondered what exactly Fred Malek is doing on Scooter Libby's "Advisory Committee." Why would Libby want someone notorious for carrying out some of the Nixon administration's most heinous activities (including Jew counting, ordering FBI investigations of journalists, and being chief architect of the highly illegal "responsiveness program")?

Now the answer is clear—while Malek did do those unpleasant things, they are outweighed by his positive attributes; specifically, his experience in killing, gutting, and eating dogs:

On a Friday in August 1959, five men in their twenties were arrested about 2 a.m...
After checking the blood-spattered pants of one of the men at the state crime laboratory in Springfield, it was determined that the stains were animal and not human blood. [Sherriff Harry] Backes said the men then changed their story and said they had "caught a dog and were barbecuing it."

Police then found the skinned animal on a spit in the park. The insides of the dog had been removed, and a bottle of liquor was found on a nearby park table. Backes said the men told him they had been drinking earlier in the evening at a West Bluff tavern.

One of the men arrested in the incident, in which a dog was killed, skinned, gutted and barbecued on a spit, was Frederick V. Malek, 22, of Berwyn, Ill.

You can understand why Libby would spot this on Malek's resume and think: I want this guy on my team! If I understand the issue correctly, psychologists believe there's a high correlation between torturing animals and later defending unjustly persecuted government officials.

That's right, isn't it? I think the classic example is Jeffrey Dahmer.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink,
Are you serious?
"Hillary has not really tapped into the base of the Bubba supporters, which can be held in reserve, until needed"

Well guess what, it is needed! Look I know you are a huge Hillary supporter, but there is no way that you honestly thought that Obama would raise the same amount of money as she did, not to mention pass her in primary funds raised. All Hillary has done is raise money. I don't care what her campaign said they wanted to raise over 30 million and really put to rest any doubt that she would out spend everyone. They didn't get it. Not to mention the polls are starting to tighten in NH, and she has always been down to Edwards in Iowa. Her total was impressive until Obama's figures came out. I dont' beleive that she is dead in the water by any means but she defintly took a body shot on this one.

Posted by: Andy R | April 5, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

'JEW-COUNTERS FOR MCCAIN. According to Think Progress, Fred Malek, John McCain's new funding co-chair, was one of Richard Nixon's Jew-counters -- as in he, uh, counted Jews in the Bureau of Labor Statistics because Nixon though a cabal of them were doctoring the numbers -- and, when he was younger, got arrested for killing, skinning, and barbecuing a dog.

I would like, right now, before we get any farther, to thank this election for not being boring.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Interesting move by some state legislatures to pass legislation creating a popular vote election. That would throw a wrench into the works of some state-structured campaigns. Unlikely to happen by '08 though.

Posted by: Crtr | April 5, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

'rom the WaPo editors no less - Ouch!'

ouch nothing. typical. Fred Hiatt is so far to the right he can barely walk straight. more proof that their is no such thing as the liberal media... a myth, a lie. the media is owned by corporations who don't want to pay taxes. so they love republicans, who shift the tax burden to the middle class, and hate dems, who would make them pay their fair share. all quite transparent.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

The fund raisers are nothing to get excited about. The thing most of the comments are about have to do with the appeal of the new kid on the block. Mitt has many wealthy friends that would account for most of his, and Obama is the real new kid on the block. The Obama "Rock Star" image has the media to credit/blame, take your pick. I actually thought Obama would be the leader, given how the media has played him. Rudy will continue to get support from the lesser of the right wing, or more accurately, the more moderate wing of the party. Hillary has not really tapped into the base of the Bubba supporters, which can be held in reserve, until needed.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

'ERUSALEM -- An overriding melancholy here this Holy Week follows Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's mission to Jerusalem last week. To Arabs and Jews seeking meaningful peace negotiations, it confirmed that no progress toward a two-state solution is likely for the remainder of George W. Bush's presidency.'

Even Novak knows it. bush is against peace.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Two observations about the Romney/Obama finacial coup.
First, their is a major difference that you touch on in the article but don't delve into enough and that is that Romney has extensive ties to BIG GOP money. For all the talk of the 'social conservatives' it is the 'fiscal conservative' Wall Street bunch that fund the GOP. They could care less about abortion and gay marriage. All they want is lower taxes and no oversight in their businesses. That is why Romney pulled in so much. It has nothing to do with his stances on issues it is that the big money folks know him and know that he will scratch their backs if he is elected. Guiliani can't tap into this as well since he took on the Junk Bond guys back in the 80's. Rich people have very long memories.

Obama on the other hand tapped the usual celebrity group but more importantly he followed the blueprint of Howard Dean by bringing in NEW donors. Dean has preached that the real way to beat the republicans is to bring young people in to the fold (50 state strategy etc). If you first engage in politics as a Democrat then the likelyhood is that you will stay a democrat. How many people are Republicans because they first got into politics in the late 70's when Reagan won? Dean laid the ground work for Obama to follow and he is doing just that. Now the goal for Obama's campaign should be trying to double the amount of people who donate by the end of next quarter. Have your supporters do the heavy lifting for you.

Second observation is that Romney (and Clinton for that matter) might have peaked in his fundraising, where as Obama probably hasn't. Now with the cash in place to show that he is a real force I would expect to start hearing more policy type speaches from Obama in about a month. He has the spotlight now is the time to use it.

Posted by: Andy R | April 5, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

from the WaPo editors no less - Ouch!

"Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

William/JD/proud/TG: are you guys going to render a printable opinion on Romney's fund-raising success?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 5, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

'The Washington Post fronts a piece on a study by the U.S. Department of Education showing that the $2 billion-a-year educational software industry has nothing to show for its efforts and that student scores were not found to be impacted by the programs. '

Who's heavily invested in this software? Why, Neil Bush, of course!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting e-mail addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes - and using them for fund-raising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday

sick trial lawyer uses his sick wife. Why all the interviews on this "private" matter. Desperate loser.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was poised to reject a controversial Republican fundraiser as ambassador to Belgium last week, the White House quietly withdrew the nomination.
Withdrawn, but not for long. President Bush on Wednesday bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to name St. Louis businessman Sam Fox, 77, to the diplomatic post.
qualifications to be a diplomat: big donor, character assassin, lowlife scumbag:

'Fox's nomination had drawn fire because he donated $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The group aired TV ads that questioned the service of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in Vietnam and contributed to his defeat by Bush in 2004.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Sunday Times of London as far to the right as Fox. Yeah, I'm sure the Iraqis are thrilled with what's happening to them now...so what if the poll contrasts with every single other one done lately -- don't let the facts get in way of your dogma.

'Guliani wisely ignores the more complex picture of his leadership skills, the bloated budget he left his successor, his prickly uncompromising manner, and horrible race relations. But there's reason to be concerned about him even if you buy his tough-talking self-portrayal.

After the house party, the mayor met with his hosts and a few influential Republicans in the bar at the hotel where he was staying and where a few reporters had also decamped. In a voice loud enough to be overheard on the other side of the room, he outlined his view that the other candidates would divide up the "right-wing," voters, as he called them, leaving him to consolidate the moderates and the economic and military conservatives who aren't fixated on social issues. One participant asked about John McCain: "Has his time passed?" "I think so," responded Giuliani. McCain, he went on, "looked like he was tired and he's cranky."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Who gives a damn about the Olympics?


Pelosi's trip to Damascus may not have been at all what it appeared to me to us. Other countries see it differently:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID06Ak06.html


'Giuliani is a front-runner at odds with his party's platform on three signature issues: guns, gays, and abortion. He is a self-declared "social moderate" and refers to the social conservatives, at least in private, as "right-wingers," an expression many of them consider an insult. If he gets the nomination, he will have rewritten the rules of Republican politics as they has been practiced for 30 years.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"Only because of Drudge, which linked to the Sunday Times of London coverage of the poll, did Americans have a chance to learn that Iraqis believe life today is better than under Saddam, by 49 percent to 26 percent. Coverage of this important fact was almost non-existent in the mainstream media, found in fewer than five straight-ahead news stories in the entire Nexis database. "

the truth being so inconvenient to the surrender mentality.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

How an Iranian newcaster felt about the British prisoners, who were well treated and unharmed:

'It's very interesting! Passing through VIP lounge with suits and gifts!

On the other side of the Atlantic they dress them in orange clothes, blindfolded and shackled while being threatened by dogs.'

If we had captured Iranians off the US coast, that is precisely what we would have done, isn't it?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Romney is hardly new on the national political scene. He saved the Salt Lake Olympics, for which he got incredible press, and was all over the papers during the Massachusetts gay marriage issues.

Posted by: Not New | April 5, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I just read the post by "vwcat" and can only add that during a week when:

the President announced a looming crisis of timing of funding for the war, but neither called Congress back into session nor cancelled his Easter vacation, belying his message of crucial timing; and where

both R and D Congresspersons junketed to
Damascus where the Speaker of the House actually tried to freelance as a diplomat, failing miserably, as any adult would have predicted; that

a true crisis of confidence would be a realistic national response to our "leadership".

"New" and even "completely unknown" seem more responsible, in a week like this.

Perhaps we could encourage and pay for a caretaker centrist shadow ticket of "Baker - Hamilton" to appear at all candidate debates to focus the actual Party candidates on public and civic responsibility and the nature of the trust that we grant to elected officials.

Dream on.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 5, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

On topic:
What this illustrates is that against considerable odds, utilizing minimal donations and a thrown-together campaign, Obama has been as successful as the years-in-the-making Clinton in acquiring donations. Now you'll see other donors (corporate and otherwise) who thought he was interesting but had no real chance sit up and take notice. And donate. And become involved in his campaign. And try to associate with/support someone they see as a potential winner.

As a lifelong Democrat I have tried to warm up to Hillary. I have viewed her videos on her campaign site and found that they are simply not as stirring as Obama's. In terms of abilities I have no doubt that HRC could do an infinitely better job of governing than the current occupant of the WH. However, in terms of inspiring people regarding the role of government and how well they will be represented by the candidate, Obama's support is only beginning to snowball.

Off topic:
This is a great cartoon describing the life cycle of blog topics.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/04/opinion/05opart.html

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 5, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

McCain/Rudy tie:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are tied among Republican voters in New Hampshire, with Mitt Romney in third place and Newt Gingrich showing scant support, a poll released Wednesday said.

The CNN/WMUR New Hampshire presidential primary poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire was carried out March 27 - April 3. (Read full poll results[PDF])

In February, only one point separated the senator from Arizona from the former mayor of New York City; each candidate now has 29 percent.

The latest poll found Romney supported by 17 percent; former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, 3 percent; and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, 2 percent. Fourteen percent described themselves as undecided.

The poll points to what appears to be a growing gulf between moderates and conservatives in the Granite State. Among people who identified themselves as conservative GOP primary voters, Romney and Giuliani are tied for the lead -- at 24 percent each.

Romney's gains among conservatives appear to have come at Giuliani's expense. The Massachusetts governor gained 11 points among conservatives while Giuliani lost 7 points. But Giuliani is still tied for first overall because he gained 11 points among moderate GOP primary voters."

Posted by: Franklin | April 5, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Here's a good example of what vwcat's saying... which I agree with. Newt has 43% negatives, 25 even among republicans. We know this poisonous, divivise man, and we don't want him. We are tired of the racism, of the politicalization of every aspect of our lives, of the lies and pandering:

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is trying to assuage Latinos over recent comments on bilingual education by delivering a video statement -- in Spanish and English -- in which he concedes his word choice was "poor."

In the statement, posted Wednesday on YouTube, Gingrich said his comments were not an "attack" on Spanish, and he revealed he has been taking Spanish lessons "for some time now."

"I know that my Spanish is not perfect, but I am studying so it will be better," he said. At no point does Gingrich offer an outright apology in either language.

In a speech Saturday to the National Federation of Republican Women, Gingrich said English should be the language exclusively used by government in the United States.

He also said bilingual education should be replaced with immersion in English "so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

Gingrich's remarks, particularly his use of the word "ghetto," have drawn fire from Latino groups. While the former speaker did not directly apologize in his statement, he did concede that "my word choice was poor."

Gingrich, a Georgian who led House Republicans into power in 1994, has said he will announce by September whether he will seek the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll in early March showed Gingrich was the choice of 9 percent of likely Republican voters nationwide, which put him in a tie for third place with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney but well behind the front-runners, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

However, the poll also showed Gingrich, who was a polarizing figure during his years in Congress, had the highest negative ratings of any of the potential GOP candidates, with 43 percent of Americans viewing him unfavorably and just 25 percent favorably. Even a third of registered Republicans had a negative opinion of Gingrich, the poll found.'

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Chris, the same old politics and the same old names and faces have proven themselves unable to really govern. They are all about 'the ends justify the means' mentality and usually it is about themselves and their ego. Usually to the detriment to the country and the world. It's all about partisanship and one upsmanship.
We are sick of it. Everything is falling apart and we, the average people, are paying the price.
It's time to kick out the same old faces and go with new and new ideas.

Posted by: vwcat | April 5, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company